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

There isn't a "killer". And there isn't an analogy with the handgun debate either. A handgun has no practical purpose other than killing people, so it's reasonable to ban them, whereas motor traffic has obvious benefits as well as dangers.

Once more, for the slow of thinking: Choosing any of the options above, rather than walking or cycling, gives you the potential to cause a lot of damage. With that potential comes a responsibility not to do so.

So using the handgun analogy, has there banning stopped people being shot/killed or injured by handguns?

cycling also causes injury and death lets not forget that one.

Everything has the potential to kill or injure (I have yet to injure myself with a tea cosy but people do) You have to look at the whole scene not selective bits.

Is the liability for medical expenses only? As reading I get this impression

Also the other countries in Europe have different medical and vehicular insurance system does that make a difference that the law is required?