If its clearly the biker its still 0% for the car.

It's a bit more complicated than that. The car is only 0% responsible in the case of 'force majeur'. Which means that it was impossible for the driver of the motorized vehicle to avoid the accident.

https://letselschade.com/kennisbank/wat-is-overmacht-zoals-b...

Note that (translated): "an appeal to force majeur will rarely by successful in practice, because it's rarely the case that the driver cannot be reproached.

IANAL, but e.g. when a cyclist crosses a red light and gets hit by a car. Even though the cyclist is responsible, in most cases the car driver could have avoided the accident by looking carefully and not accelerating too quickly near bike/pedestrian crossings. This has always been my understanding of Dutch law and is also how all Dutch drivers I know drive - acutely aware and careful near bikes and pedestrians.

And this is how it should be, because to pedestrians and bikes, cars are like a continuous stream of bullets.

Someone recently had a nice description of the law: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41625337

Quoting it here:

I briefly studied law in the Netherlands and it was used as an example. Our lecturer told us that if "A person on a bike would jump out of an airplane on a bike, land with a parachute on a highway and get hit by a car, just maybe would the car have a case." The reasons for this are varied. Cars are insured, bikes are not. But most importantly, in basically all traffic situations with cars and bikes the car introduces the danger and should thus bear the responsibility of any accidents.