When I did my driving test, and subsequent ADT, the vehicle driver was
responsible for bringing his vehicle to a stop without causing injury
regardless of whether a pedestrian steps out, runs out or falls from a
bridge above.

This strains credibility. Please give us the details of the driving
test and advanced course that you did, the type of vehicle that you
used and the name of your instructor. Because it seems that in
combination they enabled you to subvert the laws of physics - being
able to ensure that you could stop your vehicle without hitting a
pedestrian even if they were to appear immediately in front if you
with no warning, allowing zero stopping distance.

You have included only the variables that drivers tend to care about.

The one variable you have ignored is speed.

Pedestrians rarely step out without warning. This is a fallacy. And I have
seen pedestrians crossing at junctions walk upto the junction, look both
ways, step out and be hit by a car that wasn't indicating; the driver then
claimed 'she just stepped out' when in reality she had walked to the
junction, looked both ways and stepped into the road where she has right of
way over vehicles turning.

Part of the driver's role is to anticipate what pedestrians might do and
drive at an appropriate speed to be able to stop if a pedestrian does step
out. If children are particularly close to the road, you slow down to be
able to stop if necessary.

If you have to pass close to a line of parked vehicles which block your view
of anyone trying to cross, you slow down.

This is not particularly advanced driving, it's the basics, which you and a
majority of drivers seem to ignore.

I'm not giving out personal details but my observed driving was carried out
in Coventry.