What would you suggest cyclists do until that happens? Never go faster than walking speed? Then I can leave my bike at home. Cycle on the road, where cars can hit me, instead of the dedicated bike lane, use of which is often mandatory?
> a court is really not going to take this line of reasoning very well
A court will rule in favor of the pedestrian stepping onto a bike lane without looking getting hit by a bike that's too close to do anything?
I don't know where you live but it's quite unusual here to be cycling through areas that have a lot of pedestrians. If the bike lane is a dedicated one, pedestrians are very rarely in it. But yes if all else fails, the road is preferable to the pavement if you're unwilling to cycle slowly enough.
> how do you prevent pedestrians from crossing said dedicated infrastructure without looking?
That's a UX problem. You can also ask how to prevent cars driving on the cycle lane. Which we do in a multitude of ways. You just need to physically communicate segregation and danger.
> A court will rule in favor of the pedestrian stepping onto a bike lane without looking getting hit by a bike that's too close to do anything?
Here, absolutely, if they consider the cyclist is going too fast for the conditions. There's a concept of a hierarchy whereby the more vulnerable class is almost assumed not to be at fault. Same for a car hitting a cyclist, or a motorbike, even.
Pedestrians step onto the dedicated bike lane I use to commute on average at least once per way for me.
> But yes if all else fails, the road is preferable to the pavement if you're unwilling to cycle slowly enough.
Of course I'm taking the road if there's no dedicated bike lane. Cycling faster than walking speed on the sidewalk seems reckless to me.
> That's a UX problem. You can also ask how to prevent cars driving on the cycle lane. Which we do in a multitude of ways. You just need to physically communicate segregation.
Yes, but I can only use the bike lane that already exists. Of course I prefer the ones with better UX.
> There's a concept of a hierarchy whereby the more vulnerable class is almost assumed not to be at fault.
Not where I live. You are allowed to e.g. trust adult pedestrians without any visible signs of impairment to not randomly step into the road. Otherwise, driving cars next to sidewalks or crossing intersections would only be possible at walking speed as well.
Of course, if you already see somebody approaching the road, somebody walking unsteadily, visibly intoxicated etc. you are obliged to still brake preemptively. The question here is whether visible noise-cancelling headphones would be considered a similar visible impairment, I suppose.
Personally, I just always assume I haven't been noticed, because ultimately I don't want to run somebody over even if I would be legally in the clear. That's a different story, though.
I had to mount an airhorn onto my bike. At least people listen to that, though it's so loud I only use it in emergencies.