Then what exactly is your point? First you suggested (via your slavery analogy) that the MTBs-yield-to-peds convention is a rule that doesn't make sense and needs to be changed. Then you said that corvus was the only one who considered it to be a done-deal, and when I pointed out that this is clearly not so you walked away from that argument.

At this point I honestly have no idea of where you're coming from. I suspect that you are running out of self restraint (I have been warned), and I have no expectation that your position (whatever it is) will become any more lucid, so perhaps we should just call it a day and move on.