Wow that's really strange. Everything you said that happened is illegal and those drivers should have been punished. In Vancouver there were a lot more cyclists but then there is hardly any snow there. I guess cyclists can really only ride bikes for a few months of the year in the rest of Canada, so new drivers aren't given the right amount of training about sharing lanes and dealing with cyclists. 

Ofcourse comparing it to Netherlands is a bit unfair since that country has more bicycles than residents ;) . 

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23587916

There are no specific laws, I guess it falls under dangerous driving. Maybe the law should be more specific for bad weather. In a country used to bad weather conditions things like these still happen every year:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/hwy-401-reopens-after-80-vehicle-pileup-1.1404179
http://globalnews.ca/news/1176063/at-least-60-vehicles-involved-in-crash-on-southbound-hwy-400-opp/
At least people went slow enough for nobody to die.

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/topics/speed.shtml

• Lower your speed in bad weather, in heavy traffic or in a construction zone;
• Slow down when driving at night, especially on unlit roads;

How can somebody be that fucking evil? It boggles the mind.

We went back through this about the Australian lady who struck a cyclist and acted all indignant that she had her license suspended over it. If you're walking on the road and you get hit, god help the person who hit you, no matter what you were doing. If you're a cyclist, then god help you, pretty much no matter what they were doing unless they were intoxicated.

That said, this is egregious. The family should countersue for emotional damages brought on by her audacity.

I would be happy to see that woman getting capital punishment.

Seems like PTSD is the new "anxiety" for kids these days just like how all kids in school who have trouble paying attention has ADHD.

This women is beyond fucked up and I have no sympathy for her.

At least in Australia, even if the speed limit is faster than what is deemed safe for the conditions, it is still the drivers responsibility to drive in a safe manner, even if that means they drive 20 kmh under the speed limit. Its called a speed LIMIT after all, its the maximum, not the 'do this speed whenever you want'. I don't understand the line of reasoning that the city is at fault for having the speed limit at 80, even if in this particular circumstance it was too fast. After all, if thats the case, then every speed limit would be super low because you can't change the speed limit for every potential circumstance. 'Well a meteorite might hit nearby and blanket the area in dust killing the visibility, better make the speed limit 10'.

Stuff like this is also why everyone in most states in Oz have to buy third party insurance up to $20 million coverage to cover the expenses if you hit anyone or anything, regardless of their insurance level. That way in the case of this, both parties can have at it and the insurance companies will pay it out.

It is fair to suggest that killing someone in an accident would definitely lead to a fair amount of emotional stress, which could possibly interfere with your daily life. Where common decency comes into play is the part where you realize that what you feel is the same as what the family feels, instead of fucking suing them.

Victim blame culture allows criminals to get off for their crimes and the victim is blamed. Criminal commits a violent criminal act and injures or kills someone and in his defense he claims that his childhood made him the way he is today and the victim is to blame because the victim provoked them to act out violently. Now to evade criminal responsibility he sues the victim and their family for his emotional trauma. How about using the victim blame defense to evade criminal responsibility and then sue the victim because they gave you emotional trauma as a result of being arrested and the inconvenience it has created in your life?

Well that's not going to happen. It's banned here. Also she's been proven not the main cause of fault, and she is being sued, so why should she get capital punishment?