When we talk about human rights (see the newly revised foreign policy concept of the government), I have been feeling for a long time that motorists have the rights somewhat more than they have non-motorists, just need to care the road safety.
I will remind you, for example, how long green pedestrians have been lit on the traffic lights and how long they have been in the car, even though they are moving incomparably faster, and it would take less time for them. On the other hand, the tendency to interrupt pedestrian crossings, say, for the good of the infantry, for their greater security. It is only occasionally that someone tells you that those transitions are simply too much and that it disturbs the flow of traffic. Which is wrong, while walking a hundred yards from the aborted crossing is normal and desirable? After all, there is more to “fresh” air.
Perhaps it would be enough to reduce the speed
The latest pedestrian good was approved by the government in the form of one provision of the current amendment to the Road Traffic Act, which is now heading to the Chamber of Deputies. I am imposing on it the obligation to wear reflective elements on the garment (the specific shape of the element is not prescribed) if the visibility is outside the village on a road without pavements. Certainly, those abusive non-automobiles are few and the reflective elements purely technically at least some of their protections are, even though they are not wiped before being swept away.
On the other hand, however, there should be an obligation, even a financial one (however, if buying a reflective tape for a relatively comprehensible amount, if not counting the non-punitive financial penalties in case of disobedience) to someone who is less of a source of danger, who is by far the greater threat. As more logical, it would seem to me, for example, to provide a type of bad visibility that the driver is obliged to reduce the speed of the road on the road outside the village so that any pedestrian conflict can be avoided or at least minimized. Moreover, on the road, not only the pedestrian but also the wildlife can suddenly appear under the described conditions. She is even more likely. Will she be required to wear a reflective tape? By the way, it is not quite a joke, in one of the Nordic countries they say they intend to use a reflective color to refer to wildlife reindeer.
It looks like this as a punishment for a non-motorist for the fact that he even allows himself to move along the road, even for poor visibility. However, the same right to use road communications, unless explicitly forbidden by applicable law, has both a motorist and a pedestrian or cyclist. I emphasize that the right is equal, that the automobile is not bigger, it is not preferred. The right to freely use public roads is perhaps even the oldest.
I have my horses, the duty to clean the pine trees
I am not a lawyer, so I can be mistaken. But I believe that if someone insists that moving along the road, surrounded by material tracts, which is multiplied by the speed of movement, becomes a potentially fatal hazard for unintentional (and armored) road users, it should be primarily he, who should be subject to risk-mitigating obligations to slaughter those unwholesome. Lapidary speaking, somebody gets a common, he does not have the right to expect him to clean his horse lobelia after his walk – no matter how much he can slip even after the horse’s lobelia and make a good charge.