That's equivocation. The "trust" one has in a friend is completely different from "faith" in a god.

Religious "faith" routinely manifests as the rejection of clearly demonstrated scientific evidence -- evidence for evolution, evidence for the age of the earth, and so on -- on absolutely no logical grounds. That's not simply "trust". You don't trust complete strangers in the same way you trust close friends. You extend the friend more trust because you have evidence for their behavior.

Sometimes trust in friends is misplaced -- you've not interpreted that evidence correctly. Clearly the "faith" based on no evidence, or even the rejection of evidence, is similarly misplaced.

It's irrelevant that other humans could intervene and don't, the fact that this "god" does not intervene shows that it's not any sort of "morally perfect" being.

Even most ordinary humans want to intervene when they see evil -- they may be afraid to do so, or powerless to do so, but they generally see that as a shortcoming. So, what can be said about an omnipotent being that chooses to allow a woman to be raped, or an infant to die a slow, painful death of a wasting disease? Certainly not that it's "morally perfect".

That doesn't argue for eliminating traffic control signals in general, only some of them, and you don't even give any notion as to what kinds of guidelines should be used to decide.

There's no doubt that some intersections need signals -- busy intersections where one side would never get through because of near continuous flow of traffic on the other, intersections with difficult vantage points making it unclear whether entering is safe, and so on.