"The way I see it - even if the links between bridge/router/switch are operating in full duplex which means that no collisions are present on those segments, they are still regarded as collision domains. . ."
Personally, if the link is running FD, I believe calling it a collision domain is misleading because collisions are not possible (excluding misconfigurations or non standard Ethernet [if I remember correctly, FD was an option for FE, and HD not an option for 10g]) and CSMA/CD is no longer being used. On all those non hub connected links, in theory, I could use fiber Ethernet, and we wouldn't call them CD segments.
That said, such copper Ethernet FD segments are still more commonly called CD segments but also with a footnote that when FD, collisions will not happen (nor CSMA/CD being used).
I suspect, having personally having lived through switches, initially, only supporting HD, the CD reference just "stuck" when actually not really applicable.
(My favorite example, when I entered the industry, experienced IBM programmers would ask for the "green" card, but at the time it was actually a "yellow" card. Basically, 10 years earlier, for the 360 series, the card was green, but for the, then current, 370 series, it was yellow. Oh, and I recall about 10 years later for the 390 series, it was no longer a card, but a booklet. But, also by that time, most programers no longer needed machine instructions reference material.)
Also from at the time Cisco introduced FD FE, they often emphasized it was 200 Mbps, but that didn't seem to catch on, as most continued to refer to a FE as 100 Mbps regardless whether running HD or FD.
