> These are good laws, even if those without actual driving experience may not understand them.
No, they are not. You didn't even touch the arguments I gave.
If there is a risk of collision with the car behind you, then not you but the driver of the car behind you is at fault for not keeping a safe distance to account for their reaction time and brake performance.
> but the driver of the car behind you is at fault
That will be small consolation if you cause harm to others' persons or property when trying to avoid an animal such as a deer. That is the practical upshot.
If you hit a deer, insurance will pay you under comprehensive coverage and your rates will not go up. On the other hand, if, because of your attempt to save the deer's life, you hit a guardrail and smash your car, and get hurt in the process, you'll be lucky to collect anything.
The main point I tried to make above is this: I am speculating that the car's "AI" thought the person walking a bicycle fit the profile of an animal which interacted with a ruleset that embodies this principle in a simplistic way because the code for these stupid self-driving cars is being written by people with little to no experience driving in less than ideal conditions.
No, they are not. You didn't even touch the arguments I gave.
If there is a risk of collision with the car behind you, then not you but the driver of the car behind you is at fault for not keeping a safe distance to account for their reaction time and brake performance.