I disagree with the statement that all claims require the same degree of evidence.
If you walked in the door and said that while driving home you saw a bicyclist on the side of the road, I would accept that information prima facie- not because you provided any evidence but because I often see bicyclists while driving. I find your claim ordinary and consistent with my experience so I don't really want or need evidence to back your claim.
If you walked in the door and said that while driving home you saw a bear on the side of the road, I might accept that information but with a grain of salt. I have seen bears on the side of the road although I also know that such incidents are rarer than bicyclists. My skeptical side might well consider whether the time of day or time of year was consistent with the claim. I might also consider whether you had reason to invent or misperceive the sighting.
If you walked in the door and said that while driving home you saw a bear riding a bicycle, I would greet the claim with considerable skepticism. I have seen bears ride bicycles in circus acts so I suppose it is not impossible but my experience of bears tells me that no bear would bicycle under its own initiative or indeed outside of certain cruel and well rehearsed circumstances, the side of the road not qualifying. I would require some solid proof of your claim even knowing the claim was possible- witnessing the biking bear myself or perhaps seeing it on the news. I would probably even doubt some ordinarily very good pieces of evidence such as pictures or second witnesses without at least one piece of extraordinary evidence.
If you walked in the door and said that while driving home you saw bigfoot riding a bicycle, I would refuse to believe you. Even if I witnessed the event myself or saw it on the news I would not accept it as fact without considerable testing. Given what I know about the strong evidence refuting bigfoot, I would need some well documented capture of a live or dead bigfoot, repeatable DNA testing, authoritative zoological confirmation and probably a few months of digesting and revisiting the event before I actually believed you.
The Sagan standard is more than just a standard- it is the common sense human reaction to and evaluation of claims that are unfamiliar to or inconsistent with prior experience and information.
If you are suggesting that I should accept your claims of bigfoot riding a bicycle with the same aplomb as your claim of a human riding a bicycle, I would say that your judgement is impaired.