Car-oriented transport infrastructure has been a terrible mistake. Don't blame the cyclists for trying to salvage something from the wreckage.
I don't blame them for trying to salvage/use something from what exists, I've been there. I found the behavior of ignoring established traffic law as if it were optional to be dangerous and selfish.
Don't they pay income tax? I think I read that most of the cost of roads in the USA is raised from income tax and sales tax.
> I found the behavior of ignoring established traffic law as if it were optional to be dangerous and selfish.
A lot of car drivers are out there too running lights, breaking speed limits and driving under the influence. People are the problem, not their transport.
Hong Kong is not car oriented and it develop just fine…
Strong Towns also have some good examples of how car-oriented infrastructure can also be economically unsustainable in that it encourages low-density neighbourhoods with a lot of roads, so long term cities can't afford to maintain the roads without cross-subsidising it from new developments. So if the city stops growing, it often can't sustain the infrastructure it has! Whereas somewhat more dense areas (especially where retail and small business tenancies are mixed in with housing) can have much more property tax income per unit area as well as less road infrastructure to maintain which can tip the balance to being economically sustainable in itself.
It seems likely that cars actually hindered average GDP growth from '45 to today, rather than helping it.