not if you can't see them because of no light and maybe not effective reflectors ...

otherwise i would be driving with 5mph in the evening, because there could be a bike pulling in front of me with no light :(

the minimal refloctors they didnt include either the red back light, or the ones on the spokes.   nothing they had met any regulations.   We have rules for a reason,  the bike reflector one just happens to be for safety.

Completely missed that line reading it. Woops. I suppose it depends on the cercumstances for suing but in this case I don't think its right to sue but since we dont know anymore I cant say anything else.

Well, the same can be said of the speed limit rule. Lots of things that don't wear reflectors can wander into the road, and if you're driving faster than you can see, I don't see how you aren't to blame if you hit one of them whether or not you are legally at fault in that particular jurisdiction.

Your forgetting that she was speeding (10km over). In Canada, that makes you at fault as well. 

the results of the investigation included findings that even at 80,  your driving faster than your sight, that is also why the city is included in the lawsuit.  The police did extensive work to figured out what happened.   they said the woman wasnt at fault.  Insurance would do their own and they came to the same conclusion. 

not always,  the police do an investigation and accident reconstruction.   If your going 10 over and someone t-bones you, is it still your fualt?    you can also be ticketed for driving to slowly as your a danger and a hazored, and riding side by side taking up the entire lane is pretty much the same as an extremly slow moving vehicle.

I'm still not understanding that line of argument. If going the posted speed limit causes you to outrun your headlamps, then... you go slower than the speed limit. It doesn't give you the carte blanche to go that speed no matter what. And you certainly don't go faster.