@
Linford. You seem to have some kind of grounding in the law, whereas I have spent a lifetime expressly trying to avoid the law, but you may be able to help me on a point. I remember a time when, under health and safety regulations, people had an equal responsibility for their own and other's safety. This may still be the case, but I see little evidence of it. Car designers have spent inordinate amounts of time and money increasing the safety of cars for the user (because, obviously, it's the buyer who pays for that added safety). However, that increased driver safety leads to a tremendous imbalance in that ''equal responsibility'' bit. Apart from the removal of the Rolls Royce sticky-up diving lady on the bonnet and a cursory look at crumple zones and their slightly reduced impact on bones, there is precious little thought gone into the people outside the car. I happen to believe that this imbalance is beyond being at a critical point. The added security for the car user leads inevitably towards a revised style of driving, and that revised style of driving leads to the transferral of danger to the outside.
What I want to know, is which part of the law condones, or even permits, that transferral of danger to the outside?
(This may seem a little off topic, but it is relevant to the idea that the endangered is responsible for protecting against dangers posed by others.)
