It is incredibly if they are going straight on the same road a car is turning right.

The Idaho Stop says they must yield, I'm not saying that a bike going 40kmph can safely run a stop sign. I specifically said "roll" a stop sign. And yeah, the data shows that it is safe (just not legal everywhere).

But to your point about car turning and bike going straight, this situation is actually dangerous whether the bike stops or rolls. The car needs to see the bike or the bike needs to wait in order to not be ran over. There are multiple intersections of this exact make on my daily commute. It's always scary. Stopping or rolling doesn't change if I'm seen though. I always have to wait to go until it's safe. To be clear, rolling doesn't mean not waiting for your turn at a 4 way stop or anything. It just means you don't have to come to a complete stop.

not because it’s a worse road infraction but because the risk they are taking is orders of magnitude greater

You can read about the safety of Idaho Stops here: Understanding the Idaho Stop/Stop-as-Yield Law.

Cyclist on the other hand usually follow a hybrid pattern

This is totally true and definitely a safety concern. Driving (or biking) predictably is always safest. It's something taught to motorcycles too. But yeah sometimes a bike has to move from the bike path into the road. It often happens at intersections and it's not really possible to predict. Mind you, tons and tons of bike paths abruptly end, forcing this situation. I don't really know what the solution is. I do think it's an exaggeration to say that bikes regularly jump on or off the road though (not that you specified frequency).

The problem is that if you simply ask a question here, it immediately goes “car bad, bike good” and a conversation cannot take place

I still do not believe your question was a good faith one. Maybe it was, but you just refuse to accept any answers. Like I mentioned in other comments, I gave some answers and perspective, but the goal post has shifted. Feels to me more like you simply just wanted to complain about bikes on the road. As if there could be no reason for it when a bike path exists. Hoping you have time to watch the video I linked in another comment. Your opinions are not unique, but even though lots of drivers share them, doesn't mean they carry much weight. But undoubtedly I could go on for hours on why cars are bad and bikes are good. That's a joke, but it's also not.

I am starting to think you're trolling. We've gone in a few circles... Could be a communication issue on my part, but it feels more like dishonest debating on your part, to me... Benefit of the doubt and all that though:

No, I am trying to understand why they are not used when they are, by far, the safest option.

I gave reasons why I sometimes don't use the bike path, hopefully you understood those reasons. If not, just say so and I can try to explain better. Unfortunately I can't say why some bikers don't use your specific 3k section, but feel free to ask them I guess. But I do still think "In Ottawa, bike lanes mean nothing" is rhetoric against bike lanes/paths. Even if your next statement is that you don't understand why bikes are still in the road.

A bit unrelated but a bike lane (or even just the car lane) is sometimes safer than a bike path due to visibility at crosswalks (probably not in your 3k bike path situation though).

So it’s a surprise to you that erratic behaviour on the road may lead to more accidents?! ....

I... actually didn't say that though... So who is assigning opinions? I pointed out that what you said implies that another's behavior may not justify your extra caution if they're doing something illegal. The correct drunk driving example would be this statement:

I always give drunk drivers extra space, even if drunk driving is against the law

See how the "even if" part suggest they might not deserve your goodwill? As if you'd be more inclined to give space to bikes if they never broke the law. Maybe my interpretation of your statement isn't what you actually meant? (Side note, just checked your original comment and it actually said "even though" - doesn't change anything I think).

It turns out, people like you rather put themselves in danger and blame everyone else for, saving a few minutes in commute

This is kinda rich. Because while I did say that the road is more dangerous than a separated bike path, I didn't suggest that I blamed cars or others for the increased risk I take when I chose the road over the bike path. I weigh the risks and chose convenience. If I had it my way, bike infrastructure would just meet my needs on a bike better than road infrastructure so that I never wanted/needed to be in the road. So then is this a moot point? Maybe even a strawman? You've accused me of a few strawmans but I'm starting to think you either don't know what that means, or just don't hold yourself to a similar standard.

Also, all people in all parts of life do dangerous things for convenience? Cars speed, or maintenance is ignored, actually just driving at all is likely the most dangerous thing anyone does in their life on a regular basis. Biking and walking are safer without cars around, but around cars, cars disproportionately endanger bikes and pedestrians. Most people don't care (because of personal convenience at the expense of others), but I think it could make a legitimate argument for the need for safer biking and walking infrastructure.

As far as I’m concerned those sarcastic comments of mine are still your opinion.

Oh so you issue an opinion, assign it to me and then attack me for it?.. well that’s a new level of strawmaning

This actually kind of is the fault of me - I was thinking you never answered my question of ~"so then what nefarious reason are bikes in the road when a bike path exists?" But you actually did clarify that you don't know and don't think the answer has to be nefarious. Where I got confused is that my base claim is that <they probably have a reason, and it probably isn't to make cars angry> and since it felt like you didn't accept my claim, it led me to believe that you hold <they don't have a good reason, or the reason could be to make cars angry>. So I guess maybe we agree here, and maybe we don't. I'd appreciate some clarity though

Edit: I also want to throw in that your original claim was for Ottawa but the goal post has shifted to your 3k section of bike path. Yet you haven't specified that you're only confused about the actions of cyclists at your 3k section of bike path. But since I've sort of exhausted any input for your 3k section, here's a video that may give you some clarity: Why Don’t Cyclists Use Bike Lanes?