> Your underlying assumption (which is unfounded as it turns out) is that drivers are (you imply always, maybe you meant majority... both are wrong) at fault.

Where did I assume that? I was intending to speak about all vehicle related fatalities, of which the majority are due to driver error.

> Bicyclists are often found as the CAUSE of accidents due to erratic (and illegal) road behavior, leading to a finding of no-fault on the driver.

However, since you bring it up, do you have statistics for this? I haven't researched this topic carefully, but a quick google brings up this:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/05/20/136462246/when-bi...

There does not seem to be a clear cut answer. Likely the ratio depends on the region and time period being studied. However, in none of the studies cited were bicyclists significantly more likely that drivers to be at fault.

I would guess that the at-fault tends to average out to 50-50 with large and diverse enough sample sizes. This makes sense because I don't think bicyclists are any more or less prone to error than drivers.

I said: >It seems insane to me that we blithely accept the number of deaths caused by drivers and don't hold them more than minimally responsible.

What I was pointing out (and what I find insane) is that drivers (and bicyclists for that matter) who are at fault for traffic fatalities are usually not held criminally responsible for their actions.