Imagine for a moment you are walking along a pavement, a vehicle passes you, it kicks up a stone and blinds you in one eye.
If you have to prove negligence then you will not be entitled to compensation, the driver did nothing wrong.
Strict liability says that the possibility of kicking up a stone and blinding someone is an inherent risk of driving, the fact the driver chose to drive the car and put you at risk in that way means that they have accepted they will be held liable if that risk is realised.
Strict liability is nothing to do with criminal responsibility, strict liability recognises that the driver is the one who has introduced the risk to the public space and they have done so to their advantage .
Driving in an urban setting is morally hazardous, the driver accrues the benefits of driving but not the risks.
All strict liability does is recognise that if you wish to benefit by taking risks at the expense of others, you should be prepared to pay up (or rather, your insurer should) when that risk is realised, consequently strict liability isn't limited to cars vs bicycles, it says the larger vehicle, the one owing the greater risk is more liable HGV>car>bicycle>pedestrian.
Strict liabilty is reserved for "inherently dangerous" activities or products. The classic example used is that of a circus: If a lion escapes and injures an audience member, it doesn't matter how strong the lion's cage was, or how closely the lion was watched.
The reasoning behind strict liability is to hold whoever benefits from a dangerous activity - demolition, transporting hazardous materials, using dangerous machines, etc. - accountable for any damaged caused by that activity.