This might be one of those San Francisco problems. In most places a combination of law enforcement and peer shaming would discourage cyclists from breaking the law.
Cracking down on law-breaking cyclists in SF would "send the wrong message" though, and the local culture trends more towards self-regard than self-awareness.
Cyclists constantly break the law in literally every city I’ve ever seen cyclists in. As long as they’re being safe, I don’t really blame them either - very few cities are designed with cyclists in mind and the letter of the law is usually hugely inconvenient.
Saying things like "blowing through a stop sign" is stupid in the vast majority of cases, as stopping can actually be more unsafe.
Also, its so freaking tiresome to assume that every single human being is a fucking moron.
Cyclists have all their faculties, they can see, hear, move, discern. Thus, they are making a judgement to "blow through" a stop-sign in the same way anyone else makes a decision.
I once was yelled at by a guy who was waiting for a crosswalk, but all lights were red and all traffic was stopped - there was literally no traffic, and I was on the side of the T in the street, on Embarcadero in SF, where the bike lane continued through the intersection. There was literally no reason for a bike to stop for the light, as there was no reason for any other vehicle to interfere with the bike lane.
So I continued on, and this guy got so angry and was yelling at me and flipping me off becuase I didnt obey the red light.
It didnt make sense to "obey" so I didnt.
This can happen a lot, where the rule is to stop, but all other inputs are contrary to the rule.
So, be smart, be aware, stop when it is necessary, but not necessarily when it is "required".
The issue with this is that, on my motorcycle, I nearly take out (especially on left turns) bicyclists blowing through reds that don't see me. I can't stop midturn without high risk of going down and taking out the cyclist (and pedestrians) with my sliding motorcycle, it's a risky situation all around.
The laws like "just stop at red" don't care about your perceptive ability, they care about everyone's perceptive ability. It takes a HUGE amount of swarm intelligence and error-correcting to make traffic work, single bad actors are auto-corrected for usually, but get two in one instance, or have a faulty error-corrector present (a tired driver, a bicyclist failing to see a motorcyclist in dark gear, etc) and there's your accident.
So while I understand the argument that you, or jaywalkers, make, I don't agree. Partly because of tragedy of the commons, but also because I simply don't trust the perceptivity of you + all other cyclists. It's too prone to error. Just go with the safe option.
I don't disagree with you, and as you clerly point out - its not a level playing field.
I just cant agree with saying that the lowest common denominator is correct in all cases, and thus, people should have personal responsibility for personal risk, and thats just how the world needs to be.
I'm inclined to be sympathetic to cyclists, however, I strongly disagree with you. When people get to choose which of the rules they get to follow, they always choose the rules that benefit themselves without regards to those of others.
Cyclists aren't only putting themselves at risk, they are putting others as well, as is the case with anyone operating a vehicle. A cyclist choosing to ignore traffic rules can indirectly cause someone who expected them to follow those rules to take an action that greatly amplifies the risk of that cyclists' own decisions.
The fact that cities are not designed well for traffic that is not traditional vehicular should not be an excuse for people to put themselves and others in greater danger.
This reminds me of one time at an old job in Philadelphia. We had a visitor from California, and we were walking with them to lunch, and they were stunned that we ignored the traffic lights. I told them to look at the cars not the lights, because the lights have no real bearing on whether or not a car is coming. Which in turn reminded me of this George Carlin bit:
As an example of how hopeless California is, when I first got there, a policeman gave me a ticket for jaywalking. You have to understand the kind of people who live in California. They are willing to stand, passive and inert, on a curb, when absolutely no traffic is coming, or maybe just a little traffic that could easily be dodged. They simply stand there obediently and wait for an electric light to give them permisiion to proceed. I couldn't believe this cop. I laughed at him. The ticket cost me twenty dollars in 1966. Since that time, I figure I have jaywalked an additional thousand times or so without being caught. Fuck that lame-ass cop! I've managed to pro-rate that ticket down to about two cents a jaywalk.
If you can see a mile in any direction when in a car, and there is nothing coming, why stop?
(also, anecdotally - this is in my DNA, my great grand-father was driving in San Francisco when they were installing stop-lights. He refused to have a machine tell him what to do and would run all lights.)
Not the best example because that place didn't have a stoplight, but in any case, the driver didn't see a firetruck with its lights on because the sun was right behind it.
So even in rural areas with "nothing for miles," the room for error exists.
I'm not sure I agree - I've never lived in an American city where cyclists didn't blow through reds. I hear it's the norm (though still illegal) in the UK as well.
It used to happen a lot in LA as well, until they started building out bike lanes and ticketing cyclists for traffic violations like running red lights. It still happens, but way less now than it used.
That, and a lot of the more reckless cyclists ended up donating their organs...
Cracking down on law-breaking cyclists in SF would "send the wrong message" though, and the local culture trends more towards self-regard than self-awareness.