You must not have read the article, because that's definitely not the TL;DR. Sentences like this tell a very different story:
> We do not know of a single case of a cyclist fatality in which the driver was prosecuted, except for D.U.I. or hit-and-run.
That sure sounds to me like society has de facto decided "It's OK to kill cyclists as long as you aren't drunk and you stick around to apologize afterward."
So you're saying that 100% of collisions between cars and bikes are either the cyclist's fault or "legitimate accidents", and 0% are the motorist's fault?
There's a big difference between civil liability and criminal culpability. If you're not drunk or driving recklessly, and you have no criminal intent, hitting someone isn't illegal even if you're 100% at fault. Nor should it be.
> We do not know of a single case of a cyclist fatality in which the driver was prosecuted, except for D.U.I. or hit-and-run.
That sure sounds to me like society has de facto decided "It's OK to kill cyclists as long as you aren't drunk and you stick around to apologize afterward."