That's my impression to. Bikers apparently think that those funny white stripes on the roads and bike roads are some kind of decoration, not passage for pedestrian. Many bikers think that they have priority there...
That being said, when I was in driving school way later than most people who got their driver's license, I suddenly noticed a few things as a cyclist: People in cars don't see anything from inside in comparison. So some things cyclists do end up endangering them needlessly because they may lack awareness about the problems drivers may have reacting to that behavior. This probably cuts both ways and we'd all be safer if there are more cyclists on the streets so drivers get accustomed to looking out for them and there are perhaps fewer instances where anyone, cyclist or driver, would be compelled to resort to something dangerous just out of inconvenience. But at least for me I basically changed my cycling behavior to act like a car. And when in a car I at least know how cyclists feel in certain situations and can avoid them. Leaving space, not overtaking where you can't, anticipating somewhat erratic behavior (cyclists can't always give hand signals when turning, for example). And honestly, it's not a big deal or an inconvenience. But then again, it's also how to behave on the road in general according to the laws (first paragraph of the German highway code is literally to exhibit caution looking out for each other, and that goes for everyone in theory).
It's just a lot more energy expensive to stop and start again for a bike, while it is essentially free for a pedestrian.
As a pedestrian I always try to avoid making bikes stop unnecessarily, and most people seem to do the same here, even if pedestrians technically have priority. Most people here are also bikers at times, so I suppose they understand this better than pedestrians in places where bikes are seen as something special/annoying/for other people.
Should cars then have priority over people in a crosswalk?
There are two different reasons to consider for pedestrians having priority over cars, unlike over bikes.
First, as the sibling comment says, there is no energy personally spent by the driver to stop and start their car. It's effortless, while in the case of a bike, the energy is the biker's own.
The other reason is that it is generally more difficult to cross a stream of cars that don't stop compared to crossing a stream of bikes that don't stop. Cars drive faster and cannot really deviate from their path (more than a few tens of centimeters) while bikes drive slower and can more easily move while staying in their lane to make way for a pedestrian without stopping.
Of course, reading comments here (and generally, comments on American websites) you would think that bikers in general are found in the form of a swarm of dangerous, malevolent savages that are totally unpredictable at best. Maybe that's the case in the US (that was definitely not the case in Québec when I was living there but that's my only point of reference in North America) but it was not the case in any of the cities of Europe and Asia where I've lived.
Bikers are just more averse to stopping because they are more physically affected by it than users of other forms of transportation, and not because they are a despicable subspecies of humans with a particular propensity towards bothering others.
Funny, in a way. An old ... acquaintance used a corollary of this back in the 90's. Because he drove a truck, stopping it and then getting it moving again took considerable amount of energy. Much more than what a pedestrian would require.
As such, he considered himself having the drive of way over pedestrians and the heavier the vehicle he was driving, the better the reason he had to run the lights. And if necessary, over pedestrians.
Yes, he was an arse.
Not for the driver. This isn't an environmental argument. This is an argument that a pedestrian just has to stand for a moment, a driver just has to slightly move their feet, and a bicyclist has to do a bunch of physically strenuous shit to stop.
edit: I'm not a bicyclist.
The argument sounds ridiculous when framed from a drivers point of view. And it's the same from the cyclists. Either you want traffic laws to be obeyed or you don't. Offering up that "really sucks" isn't a valid reason to ignore the laws.
In fact, no, it isn't binary. Driving laws are written in blood. When a driver speeds or runs a red light they massively increase the chance of severe injury, death, or catastrophic property damage, for both themselves and everybody around them.
This is just simply not the case for all other modes of travel. So, no, I don't want the laws to be either "enforced or not." I care way more about enforcing laws on the drivers of multi-ton machines traveling at high rates of speed than I do the guy on a bicycle or the pedestrian.
This frustrates drivers, who demand that everybody be treated the same. But it's absurd to treat all modes of travel the same, which is why a ground crew isn't required for you to back out of your driveway, even though it is for commercial jets.