> Red-crossing pedestrians have willingly taken the risk to be run over.
That's unlikely; usually, when pedestrians cross without a green light, it's because they've judged there to be a sufficient gap in traffic for them to cross safely, so unless the vehicle has not only failed brakes but also an accelerator stuck on full throttle (in which case it's more important for the car to attempt to forcibly halt itself as soon as possible) it's more likely that the pedestrians believed themselves to be crossing safely.
This could happen if e.g. the lights are faulty or badly designed (too short a cycle, or showing a misleading aspect), if the pedestrians are physically disabled or have an injury such that they failed to make it across during the green cycle, if they have mental health issues or dementia, or simple accident (e.g. tripping, dropping an item in the crosswalk).
That's unlikely; usually, when pedestrians cross without a green light, it's because they've judged there to be a sufficient gap in traffic for them to cross safely, so unless the vehicle has not only failed brakes but also an accelerator stuck on full throttle (in which case it's more important for the car to attempt to forcibly halt itself as soon as possible) it's more likely that the pedestrians believed themselves to be crossing safely.
This could happen if e.g. the lights are faulty or badly designed (too short a cycle, or showing a misleading aspect), if the pedestrians are physically disabled or have an injury such that they failed to make it across during the green cycle, if they have mental health issues or dementia, or simple accident (e.g. tripping, dropping an item in the crosswalk).