This is funny because in the bay area as nowhere else I've ever lived, pedestrians actually take the right of way as they should. In Berkeley they don't even glance over their shoulder, it is completely up to the driver. Doesn't work where the driver can't see them, though, so I think peds and (most) drivers are more conscious of that as a bad situation. I don't believe real estate agents speak for residents.

I found it much more annoying as a driver elsewhere where people wait two feet from the curb and wave at you to come to a complete stop before they start crossing. Or while walking, after I've stepped off the curb drivers half a block away assume I must not have seen them so they honk at me. A lot of theatre and emotion for what is really just a normal part of driving (don't run into people even if it means you have to slow down).

Onion?

The beating heart of American progressiveism: San Fransisco where the residents would rather kill the poor than inconvenience everyone else. If only you could patch a caved in skull with a pussy hat...

The idea that a pedestrian walking anywhere but on a limited access highway would ever be at fault for a collision with an automobile is a direct result of century-old propaganda by the moral equivalent of the NRA.

If i made a self-propelled battering ram with remote controlled steering I would rightly be held to strict liabily if anyone was hurt. But if we put a a chair in the same thing and call it a "vehicle", suddenly the rules change in our favor.

I like cars and driving, and can easily imagine a number of mitigating circumstances that would shift liability away from the driver, but the presumption that once-walkable city streets are for cars is the result of fierce industrial lobbying and not a reasoned public policy process.