You mean in the USA. In a cyclist-friendly country like the Netherlands, it is considered completely normal even by pedestrians.

That it is normal doesn't mean it's not pedestrian hostile. I catch myself cycling over-aggressively. For example, everyone knows that pedestrians have right of way on a zebra-crossing. Good luck with that in The Netherlands. Cyclists will simply not give you right of way, they'll swerve around you, ignore you, and generally make you uncomfortable.

The Netherlands is a cyclists country in much the same way as the U.S. is car country, pedestrians are second class.

Interestingly enough, right of way for ships/boats in waterways tends to favor the largest/heaviest over the smallest/lightest. It's oftentimes more dangerous for a larger thing to take evasive action than a smaller thing. I think this should carry over to vehicle/pedestrian right-of-way laws. Pedestrians should assume responsibility for their safety and pay attention (including taking evasive action), just as cyclists should do the same in the presence of cars, and cars should in the presence of semi-trucks, etc. I think that's what you are seeing in The Netherlands. Based on my travels in Europe and Asia, it seems a good portion of the world follows this model, and it's the US that is different.

Your analogy works for 99% of the road, where cars and bicycles are indeed favored and passengers have to risk their lives to use the same pavement. The whole point of traffic crossings is to provide some exception to this rule, wherein pedestrians can use the street without having to exercise athletic skills and hyper-awareness to avoid getting struck. The whole idea that pedestrians are lighter/nimbler is false anyway - a teenager on a bike will react better than a nonagenarian with a walker or a parent with a four-year-old by their hand.

I've always thought the reason many cyclists treat red lights and stop signs mere warnings instead of rules is because it's annoying to have to speed up from standstill with your own power.

IMO it's a flaw in human-powered vehicles, although some purists will certainly vehemently disagree such a thing can even exist.

Well.. though I'll admit to cycling aggressively, I don't think I've ever ignored a traffic light unless there was literally no traffic around (and even then only when I was in a hurry), and I don't think many cyclists I know do ignore traffic lights very often.

I definitely get not wanting to stop, and I'll try and optimize. For example in Amsterdam there's traffic lights with counters, and as a cyclist you can usually safely go when there's 5 seconds left, but I don't count that as ignoring the traffic light.

Cutting a red light into slow traffic would be very rude.. I don't think that happens a lot here.

As a cyclist myself, I would never run a red light or stop sign, and I have a history of shouting at fellow cyclists that do. Running traffic signals is an utterly stupid thing for a cyclist to do.

You got it the wrong way around. We only have lights and stop signs because of cars. They are a necessity for motor traffic, not bikes and pedestrians.

The flaw is strictly in the box that extends two more metres forward of the actual driver vision and all around offers terrible visibility.

In most places in the US it is unlawful for cyclists in the road not to follow traffic law. It is pedestrian hostile in the sense that people don't expect it because it is unlawful.

"Widely" ? Maybe in altruism-display places like SoCal, where the expectation for traffic interaction is to stop and have a ten minute meeting about how to proceed so everyone can feel leave feeling superior.

In general it's just called yielding, and that it happens in all four dimensions is implicit. The difference in China is that the tolerances are smaller.

The law as written means you have to yield on a bicycle in exactly the same way you would a car. There’s no room for China-level tolerances, as you describe.

People may also be picturing different scenarios: NYC couriers and delivery people swerving around them inspires scorn, as do cars driving around you at 30mph in a crosswalk even if no contact will be made. Edit: but the former scenario should happen more often than the latter simply because the car is often too big to pull the same stunt without actually causing physical injury.

I love the picture of a 10 minute traffic meeting, though.

Can you elaborate on where this is coming from? I know you're exaggerating, but in my limited experience I haven't noticed abnormally long yield times at intersections in southern California.

Try walking at a moving car in a parking lot, such that if both of you maintain your velocity you will clearly pass behind the car after it has passed. 9/10 times the driver will "helpfully" stop and "helpfully" wave you on in front of them, delaying both of you.

There used to be something called a "Californian stop" that was a partial stop rather than a full stop, but after living in LA for a year, I never saw it happen.