I'm somewhat disturbed by the idea that anyone would think that you shouldn't stop when "driving in even semi-dense traffic in any bigger city" if you can't see. Of course you should slowly come to a halt and put warning slights on to give people time to react, but not coming to a stop in such a situation seems at the very least highly negligent. Sure, stopping in the middle of the road will be annoying to other drivers, but it's generally preferred to annoy people over killing them.

Do you drive a car and did such a situation happen to you, in situations I describe?

It did happen to me in dense traffic, there are few ways to mitigate it but stopping in multilane road for anything but a serious medical condition or car dying would be about weighting which risk is greater, this is not about annoying somebody but safety. If I had 0 visibility through windshield and nothing else helped, in lower speed I would pop my head out a bit for example (which would clear the windshield too).

But maybe you don't drive around many french drivers :) They run very aggressively with minimal gaps, and our roads (and parking spaces) are much narrower than US ones for example. You have to drive at the limit, whole crowd always does.

Not always of course, but I dont understand this reasoning. For every example you give, one can make up a different one where stopping would yield a better outcome.

I do believe though that if we took literally all possible scenarios and weighed them by the probability of them occuring, the results would show that a stopped vehicle is safer than a moving vehicle whose driver can not see.

In all those cases, it is safer to come to a stop - an action advertised by your brake lights - than to continue on without proper visibility.

In fact, I feel confident in saying that based on this comment, you are an unsafe driver and should voluntarily undertake remedial training, as you are unfit to be on the road.