IIRC it was a survey by West Midlands Police that found in
nearly 70% of
accidents it was the pedestrians fault. I don't consider
the police "road
lobbies".

This thing about pedestrians often being at fault wants
clarification surely?
If a child runs out between two cars without looking, straight
under the wheels of a car doing a legal speed, with a driver
keeping an alert lookout, but unable to see the child because
perhaps it ran out behind a Transit van or something, it seems
a trifle unfortunate for the driver to be labelled at fault.
However, if some drunk teenager decides to deliberately walk
in front of a speeding car to get it to stop for him in a
display of bravado, and calculates it wrongly so he gets run
over, should that still be the car drivers fault? I do believe
that a significant proportion of the driving population do
indeed drive too fast in the situations that may call for a
little circumspection, but a rant about all car drivers being
in the wrong by dint of being a driver seems unlikely to gain
acceptance and rightly so.
--
Dave;
Who thinks usenet is now
getting quite short tempered
enough, without me joining in too!