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."

Or society has de facto decided there's no point in sending someone to jail for a legitimate accident.

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.

He just said "accidents". He didn't say who was at fault.

You'd better read it this time maybe.

I stand corrected (and misunderstood).

When I said "No." I meant it's ethically wrong to kill cyclists, and not "O.K". I was merely answering the question posed in the title. I agree my use of "TL;DR" probably made sure everybody took this the wrong way, and was technically out of place, too.