That is not my takeaway at all. And I feel like the only way you could think that were if you were already predisposed against bicyclists.
The problem the author is talking about is that there is mostly no problem at all, and therefore many people don’t think about how they can share space (because they generally don’t have to).
> All these conversations abroad made people reinterpret the street for what it truly is: the remaining space between houses, with all sorts of uses and purposes worthy of discussion. Public space does not necessarily exist to facilitate fast traffic.
The author is basically saying that drivers get angry because bikes are slower than cars, and that separating bike and car infrastructure 90% of the time makes drivers see bikes as an intrusion in the shared 10% of the infrastructure, because they're used to their particular speed profile being catered to.
I'd think the reason is simple - car runs red light, you risk getting a ticket and fine and increases to your insurance premium. Hit someone while you're doing it? Now you're guilty of manslaughter.
Bike runs a red light? No one (including cops) cares enough to do anything aside from people swearing at you or giving you the finger. A car hits you while you're running the red light? Odds are it's still more likely to be considered the car driver's fault, and many cyclists seem to think they are invincible until they actually get injured so they don't think twice about the risk.
I will admit I am guilty of intentionally running red lights on a bicycle. But I've never intentionally run a red light while driving - again, because of the aforementioned disincentives.
Her point is that the hogging of public space by bicyclists is a problem, and that the cause is bicyclists ignoring rules and not thinking about others. That is a universal problem. Here in Seattle, bicyclists think they're beyond reproach. You can't run red lights and hit pedestrians without backlash.