Human nature will always provide for individuals who are responsible on both sides of the coin, i.e. car drivers and bicycle riders; neither should be demonized nor beatified.

I’m especially grateful for your daughter’s efforts, though, and hope she’s had some success. Certainly, I’ve been yelled at (and worse) by motorists who’ve believed I had no right to be on the road (even in bike lanes). Cyclists need law enforcement as an ally in sharing the road.

(d) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section every driver of a vehicle shall (1) exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicycle or pedestrian upon any roadway [...].

Strict liability really just gives that sort of statement teeth. It’s not a statement that drivers are always wrong, and bicyclists are always right. Rather, it’s an acknowledgement that cars are far more deadly than bikes, and that most of our structures exist at an automotive scale. It seems only natural to apply a certain level of responsibility to the most powerful road user, even if an accident isn’t their “fault”.

Again, strict liability does not affect the possibility of bicyclists being ticketed. So, at worst, it results in a slight “unfairness” for the driver, failing to react in time to avoid the deviant cyclist or pedestrian. At best (and most likely), the constant vigilance it encourages saves lives.

(An aside: it does generally trouble me that cyclists’ alleged irresponsibility comes up nearly every time cycling safety or infrastructure is discussed. This popular blog post describes this phenomenon: “Basically, it’s the ‘White Man’s Burden’ approach to sharing the road–drivers are the great imperialists who must save the savage cyclists from themselves–and it remains the prevailing notion in the United States of the USA to this day.”)

I think we have to NOT put presumed blame on all drivers of cars, and presumed virtue on all riders of bicycles; that is an unfair assumption.

Some bicycle riders ignore traffic signals, whiz through stop signs even when a car that has been stopped is beginning to cross the intersection, turn in front of slowly moving cars, and make other riding decisions that seem to presume a more agile vehicle having a right to maneuver in a possibly unsafe manner.

I think the facts must always take precedence; presumption is a dangerous mode, both in driving or matters of law.

So does not setting this ‘precedent’ allow all structures, even if they violate the structural restrictions of the LDC, to move forward until such time as a more specific wording is arrived at… and won’t the same argument about financial harm to both builder and client occur then when some project overlaps the time frame?

That said, I know that in practice, drivers can become quite irritable if a bicyclist is in their way if a bike lane (or parking lane, or even sidewalk) is available. One general strike for bike lanes, but that other site you link to makes a good point: “the #1 reason that more people don’t ride is because they think cycling is dangerous, and [...] the #1 thing that would make them more comfortable is bike lanes”

But let’s just look at the most basic underlying principle: I would think that a ward representative, regardless of how strong the feeling for their ward’s specific needs are, should never violate any of the principles of the city’s governing documents… Right?

So that says, the common good trumps all…

But that does not mean that any at-large rep cannot take on a cause that needs to be represented for a neighborhood, even the same cause for two neighborhoods: i.e. that could be off campus student housing on the east and west sides of town;
and,
All of our manufactured housing (trailer parks) are now located on the northern edge of town; that is an underserved/underrepresented community that should be more fully represented by all councilors.

So that says the emphasis can shift around, and be taken up by any number of councilors.

There’s nothing to say that an at-large rep cannot pay close attention to the needs of their own neighborhood;
but,
I think the need for a ‘common good’ policy which benefits all, should be the strongest policy directive for each and every councilor.