Wow, don't they teach Driver's Ed in schools any more? Here's a legal definition of prudent speed:
And like many legal definitions, it's a broad blanket definition to make sure they have something on the books just in case. If I'm doing 20mph in a 25 and you suddenly drive your bike out of a side street and I hit you, technically I violated the prudent speed definition you gave. That's never going to hold up in court though, especially if there were any witnesses.
So your problem isn't in avoiding cyclists, it's that it's hard to see them? How could you see a pedestrian in the road if you can't see a cyclist, since they are about the same size?
Cayenne gave a specific example about stupid cyclists being on the road in poor visibility conditions. That's what this is about. And yes, pedestrians doing the same are equally stupid and equally likely to get hit.
As you said, cyclists already face *far* more punishment and face disproportionate risk for traffic accidents.
And yet they refuse to obey the laws of the road and do stupid shit all the time, and want to blame car drivers if they get hit.
I'm sorry, did I use words that were too big for you?
What did you think I meant when I said "Oh, I understand my mortality when I'm on my bike, and since I know i'm not going to change the laws of physics
I thought you meant exactly what you said. You know you can get killed, and yet you'd still rather point fingers and yell about your rights than do the prudent thing. What did you think I meant when I said your attitude about it was stupid?
otherwise drivers will continue to do things like drive when the sun is in their eyes
Yes, drivers will on occasion drive with the sun in their eyes because they have no other reasonable choice.
and they can't see safely ahead of them
Even if the sun is in your eyes, you can see safely enough ahead of you to see things that should be on the road.
and then if they hit a cyclist
If you're on the road in traffic with your bike when it's hard to see you, that's on YOU.