I think it's fair to say that jerk-cyclists make it hard (i.e., more dangerous) for the rest of us. Drivers are not in any significant danger from pissed-off cyclists.
The sheriff's comments are pretty typical, and I've run into police several times who were jaw-droppingly ignorant on the law themselves. Ignorance of traffic laws - in all quarters - makes for emotional encounters, and dangerous ones. That's why I support licensing cyclists just like drivers. Everyone who's going to use the road should be required to know the law for motorists and cyclists.
I think we need to take a hard look at the laws themselves. There's a lot of gray area (try to find out in your state whether it's legal to ride a bike on the sidewalk). Some laws are contradictory, some are downright silly, and some are worded poorly. For example, CA 21202 permits cyclists to occupy a full lane "wherever a right turn is authorized". The intent is clearly so cyclists can swing out to round off the corner as they turn, but there is one rider who feels this includes 100ft on either side of the intersection - effectively opening up every city street to full lane use by cyclists - whether they're going 35mph or 5mph. This same rider wrote the Wikipedia article on Bicycle Law on California, and is spreading this interpretation as if it were gospel.
Making cyclists come to a complete stop at a stop sign, when no one else is present, is burdensome. I think even most drivers would agree that is intuitively obvious. I'm hoping other states adopt Idaho's law, which treats stop signs as Yield signs for cyclists.
= new reply since forum marked as read