Because ALL road user (pedestrians and bikes included) have an unspoken understanding that they will not behave in ways that deviate too far from the norms.

We do not (yet) live in a zero trust society. Pedestrians do not wait for far off cross traffic to come to a complete stop before crossing and drivers do not assume any pedestrian is going to dart out without some sort of body language warning. This allows both groups to accomplish their goals faster than if they had to verify the other wasn't going to do something dumb. It mostly works out as long as at least one party holds up their side of the bargain.

Well ok, but that point of view leads to 4x more dead people per capita than our way of doing things. If that works for you, then good for you. That’s a big pile of dead bodies, but ok.

I don't think it's logically valid to take a statistical difference between two places and attribute it entirely to one policy or cultural difference. The US has twice the vehicles per-capita than does the UK which might also have quite a bit to do with this stat. I'm sure there are other confounders as well.

Are you suggesting we set the max speed limit everywhere to 30km/hr so that in the event a pedestrian chooses to jump in front of a car, the car has time to react? Or what exactly are you advocating?

How do you think the UK manages to do it? People drive more carefully because they know people could want to cross anywhere. Sometimes 40 or 60 works depending on the terrain and visibility and design of the road, but you need to know people can cross so you keep that in mind, instead of thinking ‘only a criminal would try to cross my path and if they do it's not my fault.’

Not being from the UK, I'm not sure of the exact details of the law over there, but from a quick read it appears that pedestrians don't have the right of way except at marked pedestrian crossings. And certainly on a 4 lane 70km/hr posted road they would be expected to exercise good judgement and not step out in front of a car that they could clearly see coming.

https://travel.stackexchange.com/a/123110 is the closest I could find from a UK native. You clearly can't just barrel through a pedestrian that has stepped into the roadway without trying to stop, but there's also no expectation that a car must drive slower than posted on the off chance that somebody jumps out. A car should try to stop if somebody steps in front, but a pedestrian also should be aware of their surroundings and shouldn't step in front.

Unless you can show a UK LAW reference that peds have right of way on a 4 lane road without a pedestrian crossing? Do you have local knowledge or are you just making assumptions about a foreign country?

Drivers don't have right of way either. Both are expected to take care, and expect hazards[1][2]. In the case of a junction, where a car has turned onto a road a pedestrian is crossing, and at marked crossings the pedestrian does have right of way. There is no such thing as jaywalking in the UK.

If a car hits a pedestrian the starting presumption is a) driver is at fault and b) avoiding action should have been taken.

[1] Pedestrians - general: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedes...

[2] Drivers (Rule 146): https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-t...

There are many other parts of the Highway Code that reference pedestrians, in multiple contexts. The general tone is "expect the unexpected and to find a pedestrian, or child chasing their football, everywhere except motorways and restricted carriageways (e.g. some dual carriageways)".

[3] Right of way crossing at junctions https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-...

I didn't use the term 'right of way' did I?

I also said everyone was expected to use common sense.

But, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/road-users-requ... says

"The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians"

And

"children and older pedestrians who may not be able to judge your speed and could step into the road in front of you. At 40 mph (64 km/h) your vehicle will probably kill any pedestrians it hits. At 20 mph (32 km/h) there is only a 1 in 20 chance of the pedestrian being killed. So kill your speed"

There's no rule saying that a pedestrian should not cross a road, except for a motorway.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedes...

"find a safe place to cross and where there is space to reach the pavement on the other side. Where there is a crossing nearby, use it."

So if a crossing is safer use it, but they have every right to try to cross the road, using common sense. That's different to the US, where if you try to cross the road at all, outside of a crossing, you're a 'jaywalker'.

"That's different to the US, where if you try to cross the road at all, outside of a crossing, you're a 'jaywalker'."

This is incorrect. In the United States you can generally cross at any intersection if there is no marked crossing available. In low traffic areas, people often cross the road at will, after checking to see if any cars are coming. 'Jaywalking' is barely a crime and is only rarely enforced.

> 'Jaywalking' is barely a crime and is only rarely enforced.

...but it's there, ready to use against you in a headline when a car hits you and you're killed.

'Jaywalker killed' - your fault.

'Person trying to cross the street mown down by car' - different kettle of fish.

  except for a motorway

But this Tempe case was on a motorway (AZ equivalent).