> the "stronger" road user is at fault unless proven otherwise

In general I agree with this, but a lot a lot depends on how "unless proven otherwise" is interpreted.

If a driver is typically at fault when a pedestrian or cyclist unexpectedly moves into their path then it seems like that practically restricts cars to speeds close to biking or walking in many cities.

Similarly, if a cyclist is typically at fault when a pedestrian unexpectedly moves into their path then it seems like that restricts bikes to speeds close to walking in many cities.

This effectively pedestrianizes car lanes and bike lanes which would be lovely in some areas, but it also restricts travel to walking speeds which also has downsides if enforced across an entire city.

Edit: after reading the post at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-highway-code-8-change... the guidance seems to strike a reasonable balance:

> People cycling, riding a horse or driving a horse-drawn vehicle should respect the safety of people walking in these spaces, but people walking should also take care not to obstruct or endanger them.

Political cyclists hate this because they think anybody who complains is just a car driver concern trolling, but having been hit by a cyclist I can attest to it being a real problem. Sure I wasn't in real risk of dying, but I was bruised and scraped up for a week after that. I've done my fair share of road cycling in my years, I don't do it now but I still cycle on trails. The way some cyclists push back on any criticism at all is very ideological, and a real problem for not just pedestrians (and drivers) but cyclists too, because the outspoken attitudes and public stunts of political cyclists breed a lot of contempt for cyclists broadly speaking, to the point where normies groan when I say I spent my weekend going on a trip with my bike, and still act weird when I explain I was on a rail-to-trail not clogging up a highway.

It's one thing when you're a fit adult male and get hit by an idiot cycling recklessly on the pavement, it's another if you're a small child or frail through sickness or old age. I've seen a couple of very near misses that would have ended very badly for the pedestrian through no fault of their own.

Saying this it's mostly teenagers in the idiot role from what I've seen and they are reckless by default.

Although the truly reckless ones are now on their ~50mph tuned illegal scooters with a "yolo" cheap lithium battery.

Those things are terrifying. Someone's little scooter's wheel base is definitely not stable enough for that sort of speed.

And that's before the battery fires.

I've been nearly hit by a bicycle-messenger looking dude in San Francisco when I was crossing the street with a "walk" sign at a crosswalk and he blew through the red light at probably about 15mph, and I have plenty of other experiences like that.

If you are running a red light at 15mph on a bicycle, dodging pedestrians, you are just an asshole - maybe you're slightly less dangerous than an SUV running a red light, but it is still completely not okay.

There are dumb teenagers, which is one thing, but the aggressive "well, we're not emitting carbon, so we can do whatever we want crowd" is probably even more crappy and dangerous, since they're deliberate about it, and more present in areas with lots of pedestrians.

> not clogging up a highway.

Did you consider that your talking about GROUPS of people where _some_ individuals from ALL groups regularly behave poorly and deserve criticism and action?

Or is that too much of a nuance against tribal thinking?

Why do you think I'm not aware of this? Did I not just explain how different people who do the activity have different perspectives, priorities and proclivities? Did I not just explain how I disagree with the way some cyclists conduct themselves, while plainly being aware that not all cyclists are like this?

Maybe none of this way apparent to you, despite it being plainly written out in simple English, because... I don't know actually. Can you explain your failure to read?

And yet you immediately started with an anti-cyclist whine while ignoring pretty much everyone else.

These debates are so stupidly tiresome.

You have brain worms, I started by explaining that I am a cyclist. Obviously not all cyclists are particular ones I disagree with.

Parasites are more common than anyone’s comfortable with.

Years ago, SF pedestrians took care of this problem by punching bicyclists until they stopped riding their bicycles on the sidewalk.

Writing as a regular cyclist, the other side is seemingly always the problem.

Cars, cyclists, pedestrians, each of them thinks they are right and other side is wrong.

That seems to be exactly the case. As a pedestrian, my problem is the cyclists who think the sidewalk is for going faster than the speed limit and the bike lane is for pedestrians to dodge into. As a driver, it's cyclists who think "you can treat stop signs as yields if there's no traffic" means "stop signs are go signs, yield signs are go faster signs, there's no such thing as a red light". I'm sure if I biked, I'd be complaining about cars not seeing me and pedestrians being unpredictable and hogging the sidewalk. I'm sure if I was a train driver, I'd rant about cars blocking the tracks!

> yield signs are go faster signs

Reminds me of a good line from Starman…

Two of the three clips clearly show a bike-lane blocked by pedestrians. The third looks like a shared space - but blocked in a way where it seems reasonable to ask for space by ringing the bell?