Yes, but that's in civil law, there's no punitive damages or other form of punishment, that's a seperate course of action that will only be taken in case of purpose or negligence to quite an extend. So this concerns the paying of the bills related to an accident in relative amoral way, where it's about causation and responsability, not guilt in a moral sense.

As I understand it and I'll happily stand corrected if necessary, the civil legal protection of cyclists and pedestrians is threeway:
- As the user of the more dangerous vehicle, the driver has the responsibility to avoid accidents by considering how things are on the road, not how the rules say they should be. Erratic riding kids, drunk students without light in the dark, playing kids near a schoolyard, those are things that are part of traffic and have to be expected and the driver should be able to react to that in time.
- There is behaviour of cyclists and pedestrians that goes beyond the margins of what could be reasonably expected by a skilled and alert driver, but the burden of proof is on the driver.
- Even if the driver isn't to blame in any way or any part for causing the accident, he has to pay half of the damage because it's his choice of vehicle that causes the damage to be that high. With two cyclists hitting eachother, the damage usually willl be very limited. This is the starting point, case specific circumstances can change the ratio.

These are insurance matters, insurance for the damage to others is mandatory for cars, and these 'precedents' (different legal system, but this is closest) are the results of insurance companies litigating. So all drivers pay for their potential to cause damage in their monthly insurance bill. But the companies give them no claim discounts, so they end up paying little damages themselves because that's less expensive.

In slow city traffic this often makes the driver the more vulnerable road user. If you're not careful enough and hit a cyclist, the paint is scratched, the front light is broken and you have to prove, in court if necessary, the cyclist was extremely reckless to get half of your repair bill payed by that cyclist. With a lot of blame but not full blame on the cyclist, it's often both parties pay their own damage. Often the cyclist just bends his fender in the right or workable shape again on the spot and goes on his way. So to save money on driving make sure you don't hit anybody.

These liability rules preceeded the rule that cyclists are equal to cars and don't have to yield when a car is coming from the left in a situation with no other rules of precedence. But because of the influence of that liability on driver behaviour and other factors on the mindset of drivers, that rule change didn't make a lot of difference, drivers already stopped taking precedence and made sure they didn't hit a cyclist who refused to yield.

Maybe, depends on what you like. Groningen is a cycling city extreme, but cycling there isn't as 'adventurous' as in Amsterdam, it's way more relaxed. It's a nice city to visit but it hasn't that enourmous density in things to see and experience that Amsterdam has. Cycling in and around Assen is nice if you like peace and quiet in a rural environment.

Personally I don't believe the infrastructure is that interesting. It's the behaviour of cyclists and their anarchism that is much more interesting and much more important part of making mass cycling work. If a tourist knows and respects the rules of the road and uses the best infrastructure like it was intended, he will still get in trouble in any city. Not in serious trouble, but the flow of traffic depends on unwritten rules and all kinds of non verbal communication.