"Right of way" is the term for priority in the US, which is slightly different than "right of way" in a land use/ permissive/ access meaning that's roughly equivalent to a public servitude.
Both of which are separate from the obligation to attempt to avoid collisions/ accidents regardless of who has the legal right to go first.
Giving pedestrians "priority" by default sounds good in theory, but is less safe due to how it changes pedestrian behavior and encourages people to cross in unsafe places vs walking to an intersection or location with sufficient visibility/ line of sight.
Which isn't to say that it should be illegal to cross at unsafe places, but that the pedestrian should assume drivers can't see them and cross as-if they don't have priority, whether they do or not.
We were talking about the UK. Lot's of people say right of way in the UK too, but it's wrong.
The key thing is priority is something to be given, not taken. Nobody should be taking priority in any situation even when they know it should be theirs. Rather, you give priority when necessary and proceed when it has been given to you. This simple shift in mindset would improve a lot of road behaviour.
No this is a bad way to think of it (regardless of its the legal reasoning in the UK), and is what leads to unpredictable driving behavior, which leads to accidents.
You want the rules to be a deterministic as possible, from all perspectives.
The idea that it's something to be given away is what causes drivers to "wave in" people out of turn, or have standoffs at stop signs because they won't go when it's their turn.
Having "priority" should not be conflated with having license to delegate that priority to others.
Which isn't to say you shouldn't do whatever is necessary to avoid accidents. But decisive and deterministic behaivior is what removes the ambiguity that often leads to those situations in the first place.
Both of which are separate from the obligation to attempt to avoid collisions/ accidents regardless of who has the legal right to go first.
Giving pedestrians "priority" by default sounds good in theory, but is less safe due to how it changes pedestrian behavior and encourages people to cross in unsafe places vs walking to an intersection or location with sufficient visibility/ line of sight.
Which isn't to say that it should be illegal to cross at unsafe places, but that the pedestrian should assume drivers can't see them and cross as-if they don't have priority, whether they do or not.