You say many roads… if you go by miles, you think major interstates weren’t designed for cars? How about rural roads… who do you think those long stretches of roads are designed for if not cars?
1. The car driver is assumed to be at fault. In absence of other evidence, the car driver is always 100% at fault for the accident. Including all consequences for hitting/killing someone. 2. If it is proved that the cyclist broke the law and acted negligently, the car driver is still 50% at fault for the accident, since they’re driving a more dangerous vehicle and should’ve actively prevented the accident.
People were extremely respectful to cyclists there, and gave a ton of space when passing
> who do you think those long stretches of roads are designed for if not cars?
The roads are usually intended for cars, yes. But they often aren't designed for safe, efficient travel with cars. Or anyone else, really. It's possible to design roads to be safe for everyone, but they often are the opposite. Just like planners still think that adding more lanes makes travel by car faster, when in reality it's long been known that it actually has the opposite effect.
This actually isn't true in some parts of the US. Cyclists sometimes do have different laws that apply to them while using the road. For instance, in some places, cyclists may legally yield at stop signs. They do not have to stop at them.
They think that because that's how the law works, yes. Also many roads aren't designed for cars either, at least not in terms of safety or efficiency.