This, absolutely this. It's always bothered me why pedestrians seem to be universally given the right of way, when the irrefutable laws of physics dictate otherwise: a human, although having a lower speed, has a far wider view of its surroundings, and can change direction much quicker than a car whose driver is relatively slow to react and has a much more restricted view. In a collision, the bare human is always going to lose.

To take another example, it's pretty well accepted that it's entirely your fault if you drive into the path of an oncoming train and get killed. Then why does it seem so controversial that the driver should not be at fault if you get hit because you didn't look and just stepped into the road expecting the oncoming car to avoid you?

Outside of designated crosswalks, I don't think drivers are usually considered liable when a pedestrian walks in front of them if stopping would violate the laws of physics. Stop if possible, yes. I'd do the same for a squirrel, so that doesn't seem like too much to expect. At least the human might get cited for jaywalking.

Because the train is on tracks.

That doesn't change the fact that pedestrians are still far more agile than cars.

(Anyone else want to explain the downvotes?)

Don't be absurd. Some pedestrians are Usain Bolt and some pedestrians are Stephen Hawking.