I'm loath to get into this discussion, but i'm actually very much in the Dutch camp on this one. Here in France cars and bicycles are considered 'equals' as far as road rules go, and it's a nightmare. 1000kg of death metal (no reference to the band) versus about 15kg and an exposed human are no match. I've learned to cycle really defensively here, since motorists just don't treat you with the proper respect. Mind, by 'proper respect' i don't mean that cyclists should be treated like holy cows, but simply that people should all be conscious of the hierarchy of vulnerability. If a cyclist crashes into a pedestrian (even if the pedestrian did stray into the bicycle path) i find it reasonable that the cyclist, being the heavier faster object, should pay more attention. Likewise for the car. It's a disgrace that cyclists end up having to pay for car repairs when in many cases there would've been no accident if the car had been driving respectfully [0] — even if the infrastructure (that is, in France a "bicycle path" is simply an already narrow 50km/h car lane with a bicycle icon painted on post facto) doesn't encourage it.

0. This happened to me. It taught me to drive extremely defensively. You will not believe the number of times i have had (for example) a green traffic light, and have had to stop for oncoming traffic turning left in front of me. I have right of way, but 1000kg of steel trumps right of way Every Time. If i sound a little ranty, it's because i'm rather bitter about the state of affairs here.

It definitely helps as a cyclist if you live in a place where all the drivers on the road are also cyclists. They respect you more. In many cities here in the Netherlands, many roads do not even allow cars; only bikes can cross the car barriers, so you only have pedestrians and bikes on the street.

There are actually more bicycles in Holland than there are people!

This has to do with the fact that cyclists are more vulnerable than cars and thats why a car is always responsible. Kinda like in skiing or snowboarding that you're responsible for who is in front of you..

It works fine because the most roads dont have cycling paths next to them, if they do it is divided so cars cant easily get on the bike path and viceversa.

The dutch implemented presumed liability. The more vulnerable road users is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. On UK roads, you only have this for driving into the back of somebody.

Just a small note to add is that we implemented this in the 90s, long after cycling was ubiquitous and cycling infrastructure was, too.

Not that you made this claim but I just want to add that this wasn't what made cycling popular or safe if anyone is wondering. It was a relative afterthought that surely must have helped, although how significant it has been to improve safety is hard to say. Cycling deaths dropped by about 20% - 25% since then, but that was a relatively minimal drop compared to say car deaths (80%) or even pedestrians.

It's important also to know what this liability refers to, it's not criminal (i.e. you go to jail because you're in an accident that kills someone and you're in the car, thus presumed liable. It's not like that at all. You might go to jail but only for the right reasons, it's not presumed.). The liability refers to financial liability to the insurer of the car (and such insurance is mandatory by law in the Netherlands and virtually everyone sticks by that). Apart from a possible increase in insurance premiums because the accident puts you in a 'higher risk' category, there aren't any consequences for the driver.

Which means that a lot of people in the Netherlands aren't even aware of this rule. In fact most of the time they aren't even aware after an accident, because it's mostly a thing insurance companies deal with behind the scenes. Not likely to affect driving, then.