Your cycling fallacy is…
“It's not the infrastructure that makes the Netherlands so safe for cycling, but liability laws”
The effects of strict (or presumed) liability laws on behaviour are often exaggerated. These laws are simply insurance regulations, and have no bearing on criminal culpability. There is no evidence to suggest they have any effect on the behaviour of people driving, or on safety in general.
Many countries with low cycling rates (and high cycling casualty rates) also have such regulations, seemingly to little or no effect. The Netherlands didn't enact such regulations until the early 1990s, long after their cycling boom had begun.
Liability laws are a good thing in their own right, a post-trauma financial safety net to help provide support for victims of road collisions. But they're not known or intended to deter bad driving, nor are they a way to make cycling safe and attractive for all.
- “The Dutch cycle because strict liability made everybody drive safely and play nice” — The Cycling Embassy of Great Britain
- Presumed Liability – the civilised system for civil compensation — RoadPeace
- What won't bring about mass cycling - strict liability — Crap Cycling & Walking in Waltham Forest
- Strict liability in the Netherlands — BicycleDutch
- Perfect driving will never happen — A View From The Cycle Path
- Campaign for Sustainable Safety, not Strict Liability — A View From The Cycle Path
- The Liability Myth — The Alternative Department for Transport
- Strict Liability in the Netherlands (PDF) — Kerékpáros Miskolc Egyesület
Are we missing a link to a great article on this subject? Click here to let us know!