Bad habits to look out for depending on rating range?

Do you guys notice bad habits for each rating range that show commonly?
No need to be super accurate with ranging, also a list of bad habits especially for beginner levels can be helpful to keep mindful of.

in example
0-400 rating commonly not check if a move is safe. (just an example, not sure if this is correct) 

yes thats true i just throw random pieces

Yup.

I have been thinking about my own personal bad habits, being 750 rated.
I definitely still can get scholar's mated due to not losing to it enough to be like "now I will properly educated myself on it". I guess that goes down to not studying tactics to defend against tricks. Less of a habit, but something I wanted to include.

Also I probably don't analyze my games enough. And sometimes I don't calculate moves what my opponent might want to do (if it's not clear and there feels to be too many possibilities, after trying).

You're absolutely correct.

Yup.

Few times I catch myself after moving a piece that the piece I moved was protecting another and I left it hanging. I try so hard not to keep doing that.
I want to get to a point where I review every threat opponent has and counting defenders and attackers including xrays and skewers (before and after my move). Few times recently I let my queen get pinned, I am not on the lookout for that yet.

Believing your opponent(400-1000). If your opponent confidently takes your stuff doesn't mean he didn't blunder his piece

allowing knight outposts without taking action

After teaching and playing a wide variety of players, here's generally what I usually see happening in terms of bad habits in elo range:

100-800 - Hanging free pieces and basic tactics, trying openings they don't know how to play, not knowing what to do after opening

800-1200 - Same problems as above, but less hanging free pieces + tactics and more not having a plan

1200-1500 - Not calculating far enough ahead, especially when attempting to execute one of their own threats, occasionally hanging stalemates and especially winning endgames due to lack of theory

1500-1900 - Playing to attack WAY too much

1900-2000 - same as above but also not playing positionally well

2000-2200 - not preventing opponent tactics/space gain

2200+ - unknown, haven't played enough players to be able to be conclusive.

Hope this helps!

This is great!
Ngl I have tried openings I don't know how to play and tried to deviate from them especially when I first started, now I just attempt to play sound, I have short attack plans by applying pressure and taking a piece if they don't respect it.
Also about paying too much respect to opponents, I definitely do that. I keep assuming everybody else has WAY more experience in chess than I do.
Knight outpost stuff, I need to research into that a bit more.

I think there is a case to be made for 1600s.
I think they think their biggest weakness is tunnel vision, They often times just cant even see a free rook when they just wanna play f5...

Elo 500 range is just constant blunders from both sides, one thing I noticed is that 9/10 players around 500 elo will refuse queen trades. This can be very advantageous to draw them, or yourself, into another 100 blunder moves.

They also rely heavily on their queen a lot, you can catch some very early queen blunders or set a trap

Also London opening is very common from white, and easily foiled / trapped by a Carro Kan with a pawn threat to the white pawn and bishop. They will always capture with the pawn instead of move the bishop, giving up both centre squares to the black player.

Problem though is after I take the centre, I end up blundering away every piece anyway welp.

A common beginner mistake is getting greedy and taking pieces without thinking

Last opponent tried Queen to H2 backed by a bishop to checkmate my castled king, but my knight was still on F3 like wow. Theres blunders and then theres whatever that was.

Also then there was the game I tried paying attention and playing carefully. I had 2 queens, was 2 or 3 moves away from a win, then I lost due to time out.

Theres being mad over just losing then theres that. I hadn't even looked at the time at all.

< 1100, giving checks with no continuation plan.

Still happens even at higher levels

Lot of habits likely won't fall into range of rating, especially if it's "I want it to work like this" type. But I think it's also great when people broaden the rating range or at least mention that it happens outside of the range. I personally think any input is great, just have to take some of them with a grain of salt or just try to see the commonality between "reports" and create a picture out of that.
For me it's also helping to understand weaknesses of especially stronger opponents than I am so I won't end up giving them too much respect.