I can't believe they even published the letter to be honest.
Its like having a letter saying "I burnt myself whilst cooking, therefore I want to ban cookers"
Not quite. I read it as:
"I got burnt whilst browsing the ovens in the kitchen department of John Lewis. I want to ban cookers."
In other words:
"I didn't expect it be hot because I didn't expect a cooker in a shop to be plugged in and working"
or translated:
"I look before crossing a road but it didn't look like a road so I didn't bother looking."
I'm sure the psychologists will be along in a minute to discuss causation and effects.
But I can see part of her point (but I don't agree with it being stated as she did).
The road looks like it is part of a pedestrianised area, and so she assumed that there was no danger in walking out into it. Much like some of the places on my commute where I encounter the most fuckwittery by pedestrians (the raised sections of brick along Upper Ground behind the Royal Festival Hall).
I'm sure that if you replaced the raised brick sections (that are level with the pavement) with a normal road surface with a 4" drop and double yellow lines, then the number of people out into it without looking would be greatly reduced (but not to zero obviously).