If cyclists are meant to "share the road" then why aren't they held to the same safety standards as cars?

I think you have the wrong community...

I misunderstood. I thought the community title meant you are VERY attracted to cars.

What safety standards are they not held to?

No airbags
- They aren't moving fast enough for airbags to deploy.

I think almost everyone misunderstood what you were getting at. To be fair, it was pretty confusing.

You're saying "Cyclists are told to be on the road. Cyclists aren't protected as well as drivers are. Why should bikes be on the road if that's the case?"

To address your question pragmatically, because the next best option most of the time is to be on the sidewalk, and cyclists die more often per km cycled on the sidewalk than on the road.
- cyclists die more often per km cycled on the sidewalk than on the road.
  Really? That surprises me. Do you have a source for that?

Bicycles aren't held to the same safety standards as cars because bicycles are inherently way less dangerous than cars.

Your question is like asking why BB guns aren't held to the same safety standards as actual guns.

My question stems from the fact that certain areas expect cyclists to share the road with cars while drivers are protected by higher safety standards, and cyclists are exposed to a higher level of danger.
- Cars are the danger.

It's a lot less mass and speed (and thus momentum) and it also isn't a room-sized suit-of-armor that can allow accidentally plowing through the brick wall of a store (unscathed) because they dropped their cellphone between the couch cushions.

Aside from lower lethality for pedestrians than vs cars (especially 30mph+, high hood height trucks, blind spots or malfunctions), a bike rider is at risk to injure themselves in any sort of adverse event (be it flipping over the handlebars, falls/skids, or something like a faulty bicycle frame/fork).

That makes sense, so why aren't bikes allowed on the side walk? Based on your argument.
- I mean... they sometimes are (if the sidewalk is designed for it), look at multi-use trails. A city near me allows bikes (coming from the trail) on wide sidewalks to the main street.
  It depends on the flow of pedestrians (too many people would be difficult to navigate with a bicycle anyway) and it can be a visibility issue with doors of storefronts (especially as people leaving likely aren't expecting/looking-for someone passing on a bike).
- They're allowed in some places.
- Depends on the location. In some states bikes HAVE to be on the sidewalk if it exists.

How so?

On a bicycle in Ontario I can get stopped roadside and forced to prove I can stop from 20kph in 30m on flat pavement, have a working head and tail light, have two separate functioning brake systems, have a bell, and have reflectors on forks.

There's another tranche of rules for ebikes.

No similar rules exist for cars, with maybe the exception of the stereotypical busted tail light.

What safety standards are you thinking of? Vehicle maintenance? Proof of competence to operate it? Following laws while moving?

The easy answer to it is probably “because enforcing cyclists is hard and doesn’t pay for itself in fines.”

Safety standards like seat belts, airbags, turn signals, brake lights. Things that protect the individual operating the vehicle.
- I think you’d get your answer by looking into how that works with motorcycles, since that’s a better analogy than cars.
- Cyclists on the road are supposed to use hand signals to indicate turns, just like cars whose blinkers are not functioning
- please tell me it's a joke.

Cars are not held by the same safety standards that trucks or buses neither. Is about the potential of damage that every vehicle could cause the standard they are subject to.

OP thought that this was "Fuck, cars!" But it is actually "Fuck cars!"

Nope, I read the description pretty clearly "A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all."