I imagine dedicated bike lanes would help with this, but at least where I am, there are dozens of cars for every bike, so I’m not sure how much sense it makes.
I don’t know that there’s all that much ‘hatred’, my road rides are by and large peaceful, but the cars that do seem upset by cyclists tend to be unwilling to respect bikes that are following the rules of the road; they don’t like bikes using a full lane and they will often break the rules of the road to pass a cyclist unreasonably quickly and unreasonably close.
One thing I’ve noticed about e-bikes is that they are increasing the number of cyclists considerably. I feel like this is very very good for cyclists, it’s making bikes much more present on the road, increasing the city’s interest in maintaining bike paths, normalizing bikes in traffic for powered vehicle drivers, etc.
The solution is better infrastructure for bikes. Separate bike lanes from cars and pedestrians, slow the cars down, and improve visibility at conflict points.
I don't think that's true, though. The alternative is not "endanger pedestrians", the alternative is "walk". A biker has a choice to not bike. And that's what I do; I walk when I'm in Boston, because I don't think urban biking is safe enough for me to make that choice.
Like, yes, better bike infrastructure is a good idea and separated bike lanes is something that I absolutely support, but biking is a choice, and right now a lot of people on e-bikes (not so much regular bikes, to be honest) make me feel unsafe to walk in places that they tend to congregate.
If we're all on board with punishing bicyclists (and, again, especially e-bikes), who get to act like vehicles when it suits them, from being on sidewalks and potentially endangering pedestrians, I think there's a great dialogue to have about that.
And large vehicles are dangerous too. But that's orthogonal.