>>1816588>car drivers can do this as well, safe and courteous until there is an unseen cyclist going down the road and the car slams on the side of him.They are then, by definition, not being safe. Same as if i roll a red on my bicycle and hit someone. Then, it was not safe to do so. By definition.
>traffic lights exists for a reasonTraffic lights basically exist to facilitate cars. Cars are an order of magnitude more dangerous than bicycles. A world without cars (not my dream, i like cars) would not need traffic lights.
>The entire point is that there are CERTAIN rules that are easy, effortless and quick to follow that drastically help avoiding incidents in the roadLmao. So now we're just trying to agree on which rules make sense for cyclists and which don't. You've already accepted you think people should only follow rules if they want to. I think Idaho stop rules are veryyy sensible. Red light becomes a stop, stop becomes a yield. Do you really disagree with that?
The whole idea about cars and bicycles having to act completely the same way and have all the same rules is just absurd, in both directions. If that was the case i'd drive my car onto any sidewalk in the city and park it chained to a lamppost, and i'd ride my bike in the middle of the lane, at the speed I want, and no cars could ever pass me.
