Marshall gives the following description of "strict liability": "It means that if you, the driver, strike a pedestrian or cyclist, you are automatically at fault, even if the walker or cyclist literally jumps out in front of you. "
Marshall thinks that "Strict liability" is a kind of Commandment - learned, or even genetic - that governs the behavior of drivers (and cyclists towards pedestrians) and that it is the primary method for keeping cyclists (and pedestrians) safe in the Netherlands. This is simply not the case, but to be fair to Marshall lots of people get this wrong (hugs).
Fortunately, two of the three leading bloggers* of Dutch cycling education, David Hembrow and Marc Wagenbuur, describe the reality here in a comprehensive blogpost from the beginning of this year, "Campaign for Sustainable Safety, not Strict Liability". I won't excerpt it so it does not get misunderstood (!), so please read it now, in its entirety.
I agree that drivers in the USA have much less legal liability then they should, and am happy that groups like Transportation Alternatives in NYC have lately become emboldened to take on the NYPD (and Mayor Michael Bloomberg) and their inability or unwillingness to enforce current laws in a new campaign and recent report, but am frustrated that senior experts like Marshall believe more than anything in repercussion-based mobility safety. However, I am sure that they are willing to learn what really works!