I would still bet way more pedestrians are killed or injured by car drivers than bicyclists.

It's a weird context for the bet. What's your point on cyclists not respecting pedestrians even though when they've got more bike lanes? I bet their attitude hasn't changed with the grown number of dedicated lanes. Are you arguing that as long as pedestrians are not being killed at the same rate, being disrespectful to them and causing danger by another kind of a higher risk vehicle is fine?

somehow they manage to handle it just fine in Amsterdam and the Netherlands in general. maybe Americans are just very rude and entitled?

For several years now I have commuted almost exclusively by biking and walking to & from work, and I can say that both the pedestrian and biker populations have a small but very noticeable number of idiots in them who just don't seem to care.

On one long bridge here, pedestrians and bikes have dedicated roads, on the opposites sides. I regularly see bikers use the sidewalk side, and the same with pedestrians on the biker side; neither is "fun" nor safe. I've actually been yelled at by a biker on the pedestrian side for not noticing him zipping by me... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Elsewhere, I regularly see people walking in the middle of the bike lane, where it's a mixed use sidewalk. The road is clearly marked, yet these people are walking there, playing chicken with each cyclist, on purpose.

The reality is that these people are a fairly small minority, but we tend to notice them. So, I wouldn't make blanket statements.

I've been told to get off the pavement by a pedestrian while on a shared path with an actual sign up right in front of us both - I pointed at it and laughed at him.

Cyclists use a higher risk vehicle, pedestrians have a natural right to higher priority on shared use paths and in crossings, by the virtue of using the most harmless means of moving in space. That means giving way to pedestrians when they need it, keeping a safe distance, and not causing dangerous situations for them. If you think otherwise, by that same token you'll have to convince all the cyclists around you that cars overtaking cyclists on shared roads, or cutting them off on turns is a fine attitude as well.

you made up a story in your head and then ran with it.

I did not do anything to put said pedestrian cunt at risk. the shared path was wide enough for 5 people, and I passed far enough away from them that I was in no danger of hitting them. I also passed them at barely over walking speed, because I always slow down when passing potentially inattentive creatures.

he, like you, assumed too much and make a fool of himself.

I've seen plenty of pedestrians just begging to get run over - no spatial awareness, just randomly dancing across the shared path or straying into the bike lane.

I'm paranoid though and just assume hostile intentions. I slow down to walking speed or even just stop until I'm certain they're clued in.

I've seen plenty of cyclists just begging to get run over by cars or collide with pedestrians - no spatial awareness, just randomly chosing their way, without realising they use a higher risk vehicle, and that pedestrians have a natural right to higher priority on shared use paths and in crossings, by the virtue of using the most basic and harmless means of moving in space.

This happens when there is no bike lane. Cyclists take the pavement because the street is unsafe.

Cyclists shouldn't take the pavements whatever the reason, they operate a higher risk vehicles, and spreading those risks on pedestrians who didn't chose to pick a higher risk for the purpose of moving around is exactly the disrespectul attitude I mentioned in my original comment.

> they operate a higher risk vehicles

Are you serious? How can you say that? Cars are, by themselves, much higher risk than bikes. If bikes are dangerous at all is because of cars. The main--heck, I'd say the only--spreaders of dangerosity are cars. In a car-free city, none of the main causes of premature death would be traffic-related.