In the UK it is very common to cross even if the man is red. I've been in walking conversations with continental Europeans in London, then suddenly noticed they aren't at my side any more because they stopped at a crossing that was clear.
There is also evidence that doing away with the aggressive use of traffic furniture to separate cars and people leads to safer driving. This also reduces the risk of people being crushed against railings and so on.
I think your reasoning belongs with whatever lies behind the need for the "State law: Yield to Pedestrians in Crosswalk" signs[1] which I find confusing in the USA. In which states am I not supposed to yield?
[1] https://images.roadtrafficsigns.com/img/lg/K/Yield-To-In-Cro...
Everyone has a duty to try and prevent an accident if possible, but you do generally get to trust that a green signal means no pedestrians are going to dart out.
Giving a green light when pedestrians actually have right of way is incredibly dangerous. Why not a 4-way stop or uncontrolled to avoid a false sense of security?
No. That is unreasonable for children, the blind, the intoxicated, the mentally ill, the distracted and the reckless.
It's fine for the driver to be annoyed by having to slow or stop, but they absolutely must do that whenever it's necessary.
> "GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear." [1]
The second part very important. You must always be able to stop the car within a visible distance, and green traffic lights don't change that.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/light-signals-c...