Based on European safety concepts (I assume that they're referring to the 5th Motorist Directive from the EU), the law states (and I quote from Mr. Thomas on the show)
"if you hurt or kill a vulnerable user, and are guilty of careless driving, there's an enhanced penalty that (and it's more than punishment) that allows you to to have a reconciliation and atonement by going through a community service program, by going through a driver improvement program, so that you're less likely to be a hazard out there. And if you decide that you don't want to participate in this sort of alternative sentence, you get hit with a mandatory one-year license suspension, and a fine."I like the sound of this law, obviously, but I can see one major problem with it: proving that the driver is guilty of careless driving. We've all heard stories of cyclists or pedestrians being hit, and the driver gets away with it because "I just didn't see them."
It'd take some education of the police force, that's for sure.
Thomas also brought up a point that I found very poignant in the discussion of cyclists who don't obey traffic codes:
"For those of us who are bicyclists, I'll tell you: you can do something that I do. And that is every time I'm tempted to run a stop sign or go through a red light, I think about what is going to go through the mind of all of those motorists who are watching me. And what do they think about me as a bicyclist? And then what happens if one of my friends or clients is in a court of law in front of a jury comprised of folks who have watched us do that? What do those people think about bicyclists and are they going to be able to be fair to us? Because when I talk to people on juries, what they tell me is 'You know, I think the bicyclists are fine, and they're nice, and everything, but why don't they follow the same laws as the rest of us?'"People, not speed.