There is no significant tax pool coming from cyclists to build or maintain said infrastructure.

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.

> There is no significant tax pool coming from cyclists to build or maintain said infrastructure.

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.

Car-oriented infra structure was responsible for a sizable portion of the economical development for quite a while.

But it seems to produce economically terrible outcomes longer term... Induced demand is a good example - you get to the point where you need to pay huge amounts of money to expand road infrastructure, but as soon as you do it encourages even more use so after widening a highway, there is often an increase in travel times fairly soon after the upgrade after the initial short-term benefit!

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.

I would argue the opposite actually. If the US had embraced trains as people movers early on, with local subway systems, I'd imagine we'd have seen even more economic growth than we did. Our cities would be far more prosperous, our people healthier, our energy footprint lower. Better social mobility..

It seems likely that cars actually hindered average GDP growth from '45 to today, rather than helping it.

Because we made it that way, cars had nothing to do with it.

Hong Kong is not car oriented and it develop just fine…

Hong Kong is inserted on the global economy last time I've checked.

running red lights is not 'fighting'. it's being an ass.