Cycling in Waterloo Region

[danbrotherston]

I mean, even if cyclist literally had a cloak of invisibility, and the driver could not possibly see them, the driver still could be partly at fault for the collision, if they were driving in the bike lane, or on the shoulder, or ran a light or stop sign.

Yes, that is certainly true. My point is just that in some circumstances the cyclist may be partly or entirely at fault; it could be impossible for a motor vehicle operator to avoid a collision, or more precisely it could be impossible for motor vehicle operators to avoid certain classes of collisions.

As for strict liability, I'm not sure why you think it goes too far, we already have it, the police do an incredibly job of defending drivers. But in general, why should it not fall on the operator of a dangerous piece of equipment to prove they were doing so safely. I disagree with what you claim about strict liability, it does not make other's transgressions your fault, it merely means that in the event of a collision, you must prove you were operating safely, rather than it being the presumption.

It is possible that I misunderstand strict liability. My understanding is that it means that if a problem occurs that would not have occurred without my conduct, I am liable. For example, strict liability for polluting a stream would mean that if I have a factory and its effluent ends up in the stream, I’m liable, even if I was using appropriate control measures and somebody sabotaged them, causing pollution of the stream. In the road context, it would mean that if I hit a cyclist, I’m liable, even if they were actually at fault (example, as I suggested, they’re effectively invisible, in part due to their clothing/lack of lights, and riding illegally).

If strict liability means that the presumption is I’m liable and I have to prove I was operating safely, then that might actually be perfectly reasonable. In my cyclist example, however, it might be hard: how would I prove that I actually was watching where I was driving, and would have seen a legally-operating cyclist not in camouflage? So I welcome correction on what the term means and how it applies in practice.

Just to be crystal clear, I will re-iterate that this example is a hypothetical, and in fact I think in most cases motor vehicle/cyclist collisions result from motor operator negligence, at least in part.

I do of course agree that proper infrastructure solves most of these problems.  I wouldn't actually support paved shoulders, what I would prefer: 
https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.6354938,5.8374536,154m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e3

Many rural highways--certainly all cycling routes along main highways, have a separated path.

Also, I believe improving safety is important for drivers as well, I prefer this:
[url=https://www.google.ca/maps/@56.7003818,14.3609264,3a,75y,271.12h,72.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbbcY_eOEYjIG_OqPeVMa5g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656]https://www.google.ca/maps/@56.7003818,14.3609264,3a,75y,271.12h,72.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbbcY_eOEYjIG_OqPeVMa5g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This is great, and I agree much better than paved shoulders as bicycle infrastructure.

I recently took a look at Google Streetview at a location in Africa (kid was curious about the world so we looked at a few places). It was obviously a rural road in the middle of a paving project. It looked like it was previously a narrow gravel track, soon to be a 2-lane paved road probably not that different from our highways in Ontario. There were many motorcycles and pedestrians about, many carrying goods on their heads, and shacks nearby along the road. I wondered if those people truly understood what the road is about to become as motor vehicle traffic makes use of the new route, and how unsafe it will likely be for people walking.

Interestingly, insurance probably does a better job of assigning fault than police, generally they will charge only the most obvious and clear failures. Where as insurance tends to assign a percentage blame to each party. They are still poor though, the thing that a lot of people (and a few people very loudly) cannot accept is that everyone plays a role in crashes. However, because it is drivers who are conducting the inherently dangerous activity (driving a car) I believe the larger liability should fall on them. And I have little sympathy, if you don't like it, there should not be a requirement to drive a car.

As for strict liability, I am not a lawyer, but in my understanding it is not that you are liable when you are not, but only whose burden of proof it is.

As for the cycling example, again, I am not a lawyer, so I cannot say what the actual strict liability in the Netherlands law is, but I would like for the case to be that you must prove why you did not see them. For example, weather, poor vehicle design etc. but if you cannot give justification the presumption is that you were negligent. I don't think this is unfair, as a driver I feel it is my responsibility to see things, if I don't, unless there is a good reason, it is my fault for not seeing it. And I am happy to be subject to the same restrictions as a driver.

Remember, these are not criminal charges, but liability and licensing. Drivers who make mistakes like not seeing people, should not be driving, and they should be paying (through insurance) for the harm they cause.

I do agree that in practice, this is rarely the issue, our actual standards are basically zero....there was a collision where a driver killed a pedestrian on the sidewalk, while looking around on the floor of their car for a waterbottle for more than five seconds, while making a left turn, the courts dismissed the charges because the justice felt that not looking at the road for 5 seconds straight did not deviate from a normal standard of driving.