> 50% of the damage, and usually 100% liable

Not strictly, the driver (bestuurder) of a vehicle (anything requiring a drivers license, also mopeds) is considered a more capable participant in traffic. Pedestrians and cyclists are at the bottom of that food chain. If you hit something in the "lower classification" you have to prove you are innocent and the burden is on you completely. If the cyclist was using his phone, collect witnesses after you help the victim as you are in no way liable if you made every effort to stop and look. (e.g. in a low speed collision, assuming the cyclist made a mistake). High speed collisions are usually completely attributed to the driver as they should be aware of cyclists all the time. e.g. Not slowing down at a crossing (even one with traffic signs) is reason to forgo any rights if you hit a cyclist as you should be aware of any participant in traffic which is less capable (in the protection sense) as you are. Even if the cyclist drives though a red light as you should anticipate mistakes. You are usually liable for the 50% but it is not a given. Always go to court if you consider the cyclist made a mistake.

e: please not that in normal cases the damage is a percentage fault division to both parties, in case a pedestrian or cyclist is involved the minimum will rise to 50% for the other party to cover in case "overmacht" (force de majeure) cannot be proven which is where the "always 50%" comes from. There are however numerous cases in which this has been proven and can be used in a court of law. It will however almost never be 0% for the driver of a vehicle.

"Capable" is a weird phrasing. The law exists because operating a 100kW+ multi-ton machine in public is (1) an inherently dangerous thing to do and (2) often down to mere convenience. So car drivers are rightly attributed blame and liability because their choice of vehicle both massively increased the likelihood of a crash of any sort and the damage caused.

I'm glad it's not like that in the USA. If the bicyclist is breaking the law and causes the accident then they are 100% liable for it in most states. When you choose to use a bike you make choices that have consequences and choose to take risks in the current version of reality. I do feel cities should lower speed limits in heavy traffic areas though and provide far more bike lanes than they do in most US urban areas. I would never ride a bike in most cities unless I knew of a bike path (lane) from source to destination that was clearly marked off.

As someone who has been rear-ended by a cyclist that was riding way too fast downhill and didn’t notice me stopping at a stop sign... that sounds like a terrible policy.

Thankfully a “prove your innocence” approach would be unconstitutional in the US.

> Thankfully a “prove your innocence” approach would be unconstitutional in the US.

Not in civil liability suits, which is what these rules seem to describe, only in criminal cases.

I'm well aware. In civil lawsuits you wouldn't assume one party is liable without evidence. And that's a good thing.

That's absolutely a component of many laws in the United States. One pertinent example would be in case of a rear end collision.

How do you guys deal with cyclist not obeying the law there (because well, you have a lot of cyclists there)? I drive, i walk, i cycle.... and the cyclists are always the worst in traffic, and the police does nothing. Left side, right side, green light, red light, noone cares. Packed pedestrian street and cylists drive waay to fast down it, bump into pedestrians and just drive on. On a bike, on a bike lane, there are more people driving in the wrong direction than in the correct one (seen at every traffic light, if you count the waiting cyclists). If you're in the car, sometimes they drive on the bicycle lane, and then just drve into the steet deirctly infront of you to overtake a slower cyclist, or cross the road at pedestrian crossing (they'd have to obey the yield sign, but they see the crossin, and just drive over, without slowing). Plus of course earphones + phone in hand. We also build some really nice bicycle paths outside of towns (eg: https://i.imgur.com/MqrId1R.jpg - road on the left, bike lane in the middle), and still get a lot cyclists driving on the main road, because "they can drive faster there", and then complain about cars.

Does the police actually police the cyclists, or do they just controll the cars, and let the others (pedestrians, cyclists, skaters, rollerbladers,...) deal with themselves by themselves?

This is largely solved by infrastructure as well, although it might perhaps be a bit tricky to visualize it if you haven't been in that situation before. As a cyclist, I have no interest in getting on a sidewalk because bike roads are much better. Sidewalks are often bumpy, can have high curbs, and as you mentioned are crowded by people randomly walking around. Bike roads have none of that, so it's objectively better to ride there. To a lesser extent the same holds for car roads. On bike roads, your light goes green first, the ride is smoother, etc. All of the above means that as a cyclist, there's very good incentives for me to stay on the bike road.

Police does sometimes pick off cyclists who are on their phone and whatnot, but outside of that, it is a very self-regulating system. It's also fuelled by the society, teaching your kids how to behave as a cyclist is a very visible part of upbringing.

In Denmark motorists have reversed burden of proof when it comes to liability for damages. In other words, if a driver of a car is involved in an accident, they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that they were not the party at fault or be liable. If that sounds onerous, remember that motor vehicles are mandated to covered by a liability insurance, so it's the insurance company that ends up paying. The insurance company will sometimes sue the driver after, if they think the accident was caused by gross negligence on the driver's part, but this is irrelevant to the party not at fault.

I remember from my brief stint in law school that our professor told us, that there is a good case to be made for changing the law from reverse burden of proof to objective liability, ie. motorist' should always be liable, no ifs, ands, or buts. The reason, he explained, is in the cases where two motorists are in an accident, a lot of resources are wasted in determining liability. Since what always happens is that one insurance company must pay and another one doesn't, and since each insurance company will on average win as many cases as they lose, it would save a lot of money and time to just declare that each driver is 50% liable and be done with it. I also seem to remember that this is how it works in New Zealand, but I could be misremembering.

yea, I am not advocating for "legislation" I am advocating for law suits. I think the proper process to make change here is

(1) Create real penalties for drivers that hit cyclists (2) get insurance agencies and drivers themselves to want safety infra so that they are no longer exposed to the risk of hitting cyclists (3) safety infra is built

What we have in the states now where more and more people are biking, and people are begging for infrastructure, but there are no changes isn't working.