sure but this frames it as if cars are the only way to get people to work. There are more efficient means that would require less subsidy and cause less waste (heavy rail transit, building places to live that don't require a car, bike roads, etc)
The difference is that the latter would happily NOT work, or at least not work at what they do, if they could support their life. The former will happily change their life to make work easier.
It's okay that you like bikes, that you design your life around bikes. You're offended that other people don't or that bikes don't work for what they want to do.
FWIW, my wife and I worked >50 miles apart for over a decade.
I know, we shouldn't have done that.
The "getting to work experience" isn't the only thing that is important.
You don't know, or care about, the benefits that people get from living a life that you don't want.
I never said that. I'm Dutch, but my work is further than biking distance also, so I take a bus to work. Previously I worked even further away and took a shorter bus ride, then switched to a train, and walked five minutes on each end. That was a bit further than is comfortable to do >1 year, but in the train I could relax for an hour and in a car you can't relax and read a book, code something, nap, etc. for even thirty seconds without running into some barrier. Audio books kinda work but that's about the limit.
I'm not saying "organise your life so you live next to your job". At this point I'm saying "wtf is wrong with a bike lane", though, reading back, my original point I guess was more about "what is wrong with more efficient transport than >1 ton metal box transportation with an occupancy rate of one point something"
Of course, you do have to be okay with spending time around other people. That seems to be a tough sell for the rich that can afford other options
Buses and trains are only efficient than cars if they have a reasonable number of riders who want to go between roughly the same two places at roughly the same time. (Note that the number of people passing by two points is NOT a good proxy for going to the same places.) That's easy with a lot of population density, especially in a small area. But, without those conditions, cars are more efficient.
The Netherlands is a great case for buses, trains, and bikes. The US is different. (As the saying goes, Europeans think that 100km is a long way while Americans think that 100 years is a long time. The typical US car travels 20-25km per year and 50km/year is not rare.)
The Netherlands has less than 18 million people in roughly the area of New Jersey, which the fourth smallest US state. (New Jersey plus New York City have roughly 17M people.) The US is 240-270x as large, depending on whether you count water. (To put that in context, the land part of the Netherlands is less than 280x larger than Disneyworld.)
As to "spending time around other people", the "fraction of population in urban regions" numbers look similar, 90% for the Netherlands and 80% for the US, but half of the US "urban population" lives in small towns that are dozens of kilometers from the next town. That's simply not possible in the Netherlands.
The Netherlands has roughly 15x the population density of the US and even the "rural" regions are close to the cities because they can't be far away.
The longest distance across the Netherlands is roughly 300km. The short way across the US (Mexico to Canada) is over 2,500km and the long way (Atlantic to Pacific) is around 4,500km.
I work from home, so my "to work" is down the hall. That said, when I did work on site, I never worked where mass-transit between near to my house and near to my work made sense and I never worked close enough to bike. (Note that I live in Silicon Valley, which is pretty high density for the US.)
But, there's more than work.
Most weekends, I travel over 250km. About once a month, I travel about 630km. None of those trips have enough people going the same places at the same time to justify small vans, let alone buses, and trains are completely out of the question.