Blimey, where does one start?
You say, without evidence of blushing or presentation of reference or reputable authority,
"If you want to use stats to prove this, how many collisions have occured in VMC conditions? Pretty much ALL of them AFAIK."
When I query this, you then say
"Why is it? It is fact. Even under IFR "see and avoid" still applies."
Wrt the Hawker/Glider accident, you say
"They were both responsible for See and Avoid being in VMC." And they failed to do so, didn't they? Perhaps the 800 pilot decided simply "In TCAS we trust".
You wanted to bring up statistics - you quote them. Don't present something you've made up and then challenge me to prove the opposite.
I note in your further elaboration of your near miss that at no time did you make a call to alert either the Tower or the other aircraft to your presence. You decided it was "safe to assume" he knew. It's
never safe to assume
anything. In fact, it's bloody stupid to make assumptions where safety is concerned.
And when you knew an aircraft was being launched on a collision course with you, and you knew where he was relative to you, you decided to get your head inside rather than keeping all your attention on where he actually was? The mind boggles.
I make no claim to be any kind of a God. I do, however, know the rules about collision avoidance, how to use TCAS, and what one does in IFR compared to VFR.
For example, if you are under positive radar control while still in VMC, I am not going to blindly plough into another aircraft simply because ATC told me to fly this heading. Nor am I going to ignor a collision avoidance call from my TCAS. I shall pull up (if that's the action advised) and tell ATC "TCAS Climb". Similarly, in IMC the rule is NOT "see and avoid" as you seem to think. Looking out can still help, however.