Of course not, but the same right-of-way concept applied to horse and buggies sharing the same street and streetcars on rails, not to mention railroads, which certainly zoomed by pedestrians in many urban areas.
If you want it back to the old way of chaos on the streets, then you'll have to admit that horses would regularly shit all over the street and pedestrians would have to be far more careful in another sense as they crossed busy roads of buggies, streetcars and early autos zipping around with no lanes or traffic lights.
The modern system evolved because it made sense given the demand load and traffic. Cars have to follow rules, too, and have to stop at intersections, yield at crosswalks, obey speed limits, etc.
> "pedestrians would have to be far more careful in another sense as they crossed busy roads of buggies, streetcars and early autos zipping around with no lanes or traffic lights."
In the old days if an early auto hit you and killed you, it would be the driver's fault. Pedestrians were pushing back on cars because they were so deadly; from the article: "The November 23, 1924, cover of the New York Times shows a common representation of cars during the era — as killing machines. (New York Times)". It was automakers who deliberately propagandised and lobbied to shift public perception of blame from the person in control of the heavy machinery in a public place, to victim blame the pedestrian.
> "The modern system evolved because it made sense"
No, it evolved because it was profitable (to the automakers) and beneficial to the rich (more likely car owners) and powerful (white / preferred a country residence and a drive into town, but didn't like a streetcar letting poor black people out to the suburbs). Automakers colluded to tear up Los Angeles' electric streetcar network - the largest on the planet - and scrap it. They were found guilty in court and fined ... $1. That's not because it made sense, that's to make people more dependent on their products.
> "Cars have to follow rules, too, and have to stop at intersections, yield at crosswalks, obey speed limits, etc."
Yet they still put out fumes which affect the residents of the area they drive through, while not affecting the driver inside the car. These fumes kill a 9/11 equivalent of people every 9 months in the UK[1]. They put out noise pollution which worsens the education and health of those around and the noise pollution effects kills someone in Denmark every day or two[2], but the driver is insulated from it. They could have had to be routed around pedestrian areas, living areas, and yield to pedestrians at all times, mandatory park and ride on the edge of urban areas with bus and tram and metro transit in the pedestrianised centers - which would have made sense in various ways and been beneficial for the majority, but inconvenient for the wealthier minority of car drivers. Cars don't obey speed limits in a lot of situations; people drive some combination of the speed others are driving, what they think they can get away with, or what feels safe for the design style of the road.
The USA is up to a 9/11 of car accident deaths every two weeks.[3] Compare the response to that, to the nationwide implementation of the TSA and changes to air travel after 9/11.
One of the reasons the Dutch transportation system is so radically different is because there was strong backlash to rising child deaths from motor vehicles - aka Stop de Kindermoord.
In the Netherlands in many residential areas, the streets are primarily for walking and bicycling; drivers must yield to everything else, because they are the greatest danger on the road. There's extensive, comprehensive separated cycling infrastructure. There's a presumption of fault, not innocence, if you hit a cyclist or pedestrian with your car.
In the US, guns have only recently overtaken motor vehicle related deaths (which have been declining) as the top killers of children.
Unfortunately, the Dutch are weaponized against cycling infrastructure elsewhere. "Well, you can't have bicycles in the streets until you have comprehensively education of children in how to cycle", for example (despite plenty of evidence that, around the world, cyclists do not break traffic laws more than drivers.) Or defeatist nonsense like "there's no point to legal protections for cyclists in the street, we must only work for separated infrastructure."
If you want it back to the old way of chaos on the streets, then you'll have to admit that horses would regularly shit all over the street and pedestrians would have to be far more careful in another sense as they crossed busy roads of buggies, streetcars and early autos zipping around with no lanes or traffic lights.
The modern system evolved because it made sense given the demand load and traffic. Cars have to follow rules, too, and have to stop at intersections, yield at crosswalks, obey speed limits, etc.