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

Legal Presumptions of Liability
"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." I think this is the only sensible way to approach it, really.

Note sure about this bit though....."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"

Surely if you were acting the tw@t and got hurt, you should be liable for your own bills.

I'm down for the presumption but not strict liability.

So drivers will get penalised, even if the blame lies with the cyclist or ped.
Would all road users would need third party liability insurance to let this sytem work fairly?