The correct course of action would have been to slow down and anticipate having to come to a full halt if necessary. The pedestrian was defying traffic laws and

The correct course of action would have been to slow down and anticipate having to come to a full halt if necessary. The pedestrian was defying traffic laws and on the middle of the road -- you shouldn't expect them to behave predictably from there on. In my country driving instruction emphasises the importance of anticipatory and cooperative driving. Anticipatory in this case means taking the high likelihood of further misbehaviour of the pedestrian into account, cooperative means reacting early so you don't further create risks by surprising traffic behind you if you need to come to a full stop later on. This applies to bikes as well as anybody else on the road (including pedestrian). You should generally expect others to follow the rules but if there are indicators they won't (e.g. they're violating them or they're too young or appear confused/erratic) you should anticipate that they might create dangerous situations. So, yes, the pedestrian was obviously and blatantly violating the rules but your description makes you sound equally reckless. If you were going so fast you couldn't slow down enough to mitigate the risk of a collision, you were going too damn fast. Going downhill doesn't mean you're allowed to go full speed, in fact it means quite the opposite. EDIT: The most important takeaway is predictability. Traffic rules are 1/10ths about helping you and 9/10ths about helping other people. Bikes don't strictly need lights for visibility, for example, but riding with a light allows other people to actually see you in suboptimal conditions.