>But let's back up for a second and look at this dynamic differently.

Then, let's think for a second and realize that a driver is not an evil demon who will just laugh when a bicycle gets in the way and, while trying to avoid killing a cyclist, may as well get into danger himself/endanger other people.

Ffs, people create pileups trying to avoid dogs jumping in the traffic, you believe nobody will blink an eye when a cyclist does the same?

The mountain of hit and runs that go unsolved in cyclist deaths creates an unsafe atmosphere for cyckists and says otherwise.

Not only is the driver not an evil demon, but s/he doesn't drive 100% of the time. S/he might well ride, run, or walk as well. How many cyclists who complain about drivers speeding also speed themselves as soon as they put the bike on the rack and start driving? I'd also find cyclists' eternal sense of grievance more palatable if I didn't constantly see them turn right around and treat runners or other pedestrians exactly the same way they abhor being treated themselves (e.g. close passing). Sure, cyclist collisions don't usually result in deaths - although a pregnant pedestrian was killed when run down from behind on an explicitly multi-use trail near me - but it still erodes that moral standing. It's easy to argue for the highest standards of caution and diligence when it benefits you. The true test of sincerity comes when it doesn't.

> If a driver behaves dangerously near a cyclist, the cyclist dies. [...] If a cyclist misbehaves near a driver, the driver is very far from harm.

But the cyclist is not. Why is it ok for the cyclist to behave unsafe, end up in in the hospital, crippled for life, or dead?

Because hurting yourself is far less egregious than hurting others?

Are the children going to feel a lot better if father is dead because he decided to cross the red light or or someone else did instead. They might, but they still won't have a father. So I'll go for less egregious, but I am not sure about the "far" part.

Is ambulance ride going to cost less because the person did it to the themselves or it was someone else' fault? I don't think it will.

Would you say that people shouldn't wear seatbelts, after all, they are just hurting themselves mostly? How is this different?

People shouldn't be required to wear seatbelts. Of course if they don't they also shouldn't expect the public to pay their medical bills via NHS, Obamacare, or what have you.

So going by this, different rules should apply for

  Car vs. Motorcycle
  Truck vs. Car

If you're on a road that's being shared by other vehicles, you need to follow the same rules as everyone else.

Motorcycles and trucks do have different laws...

Yes, but they don't get to break them selectively based solely on who would come to greater harm, like the parent commenter suggested. There are common rules of the road that apply to everyone.

For example, it's not okay for a car to rear end a truck or for a pedestrian to jaywalk.

They do have different laws. And there is a mountain of difference between powered, engined vehicles and bicycles.

Yes. They are different things it's okay to have different rules for them.