Hypothetical law change? Lorry on bike: lorry's fault. Bike on ped: bike's fault

there is a genuine debate to be had about the rebuttable presumption being used in this case, and we all know how difficult it can be to get a just outcome when there is a road traffic incident involving a cyclist:

**

[B]Legal Presumptions of Liability**
Let’s take a look at what happens when a driver injures a cyclist in the Netherlands, and then let’s compare that to what happens when a driver injures a cyclist in the United States.
In the Netherlands, the law imposes a rebuttable presumption of liability on drivers—if a motorist is involved in a crash with a cyclist, the law presumes that the motorist is liable for the crash, unless the motorist can rebut that presumption with evidence to the contrary. The reason for this shift is that the Dutch recognized that the cyclist will virtually always be the injured party in a collision with an automobile, and by putting the onus of fault on the driver, have provided motorists with a powerful legal incentive to pay more attention to the presence of cyclists. Thus, it wouldn’t be legally sufficient for a Dutch driver to merely claim “I didn’t see him”—the most common excuse drivers use in the United States—in order to escape liability. Instead, the Dutch driver would have to prove that the cyclist’s own negligence was the cause of the collision. And even if the Dutch driver can successfully rebut the presumption of liability, the driver’s insurance is still required to pay the cyclist’s medical bills.

[/B]

http://bicycling.com/blogs/roadrights/2009/06/22/why-we-need-cycling-insurance/