If you are asking if there is a law preventing it, no there is no law preventing it.
If you are asking if it is practical, the answer is no it is not practical.

Yes, F=MA, to be sure.

So, no one should ride a bike, ever?

I had a similar thing ( car turning across bike lane ) happen to me. Old dude in a huge convertible, top down.
Took me right into the curb and laid me down, just barely passed me, then turned.
I'm lying on the ground, he drove off.
Didn't get hurt, I started braking and turned into the curb ( which stopped me cold and put a big gash in my RH crank arm ) while it was happening.

So, yeah, I would avoid night riding, were I actively cycling, and be similarly reserved.

( and for what it is worth, I don't get belligerent while riding, I do realize you are right about "i had the right of way" wont help when dead or maimed or ... ).

I agree completely. There are many "cyclists" that I would like to make it so they are not allowed to ride any more.
Course, there are a good number of car drivers I would extend the same privilege to...

So, yeah, there will be car/bike accidents where the car driver did everything right. But I have had too many almosts with boneheads to think that is anything like a small percentage. And there will be ones where the cyclist was a bonehead and did it to themselves. And I see too many idiot cyclists to believe that that is a small percentage.

Definitely, protect yourself cyclists, and idiots, stop being idiots!
Car drivers, keep your eyes and minds on your responsibilities.

That is pretty sad. And quite true.

How does anyone operate a machine capable of creating so much death and destruction without having a fair idea of it's parameters?

But yeah, I do expect them to follow that guideline. I think in most places, the law would hold them to it also.
My personal opinion is that most people should not be driving. My oldest daughter just started driving, and I hope and believe I have impressed an appreciation that driving is much more than just pointing the car in a given direction....

You made it sound like there was a big gap between their car's ability to stop and the distance out they can see.

If that is the case, then, yeah, I expect them to drive at speeds consonant with safety, and to ignore ( within the bounds of safety ) what other cars are doing ( and those other cars should be driving in a manner consonant with safety ). If they cant see out far enough so they can brake if something comes in view, that seems like a problem to me.

You cant really be arguing that it would be OK to drive at such a speed and in such conditions that a surprise like bad road, a box in the middle of the road, or an unexpected cyclist would result in a high probability of trouble/collision.

Yikes. There is a lot of hostility out there, it seems.

Invisible is not the right word. Harder to see? Sure.
Also, the light doesn't stop at 30 meters.

And if someone is driving fast enough that they cant stop when something comes within range of the headlights and it truly is that dark out, then I would argue that they were driving unsafely, period.

Yeah, that would suck.

exception = expectation

Your presentation didn't match my exception of "Devils Advocate"....

But, something to consider, even without lights and a reflector, a cyclist is not invisible. Hard to see, yeah, not invisible.
Anyone driving should be looking for stuff, kids or animals running between cars, etc, etc.
It's not supposed to be "git the heck out of my way, I'm in a car!".

And on the slowing and swerving, that is what was in the article. It might be wrong, which would require a reevaluation.

On the driving away, even with a lower responsibility, it is hard to comprehend that they could think that driving away without checking would be a good idea.

I get what you are saying, you have a point.
I think I have one also.

He just tried to pull the, "You aren't really tolerant unless you tolerate my hate" bit.

If he would own his hate and apologize for it, say he's realized that gays are people too and most importantly that he was wrong then he would deserve forgiveness. But he's just trying to have his cake and eat it too.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from being judged for your speech.

If the order of events is correct in TFA, the driver slowed, then swerved.
Still could be swerving away, but if the driver slowed in reaction to seeing the cyclist, why was he/she/it close enough to need to swerve?

Seen cars do that too. Yes, cyclists need to obey the rules of the road. Where I am , that is the law.

I would like to gently suggest you reconsider what appears to be prejudgment of cyclists as "bad".
Yes, there are bad cyclists, there are bad car drivers, there are bad manicurists, etc.
There are good ones also.