> Bike infrastructure IS car infrastructure for the most part. It is when it's bad, yes. Good bike infrastructure usually involves things like physically separ

> Bike infrastructure IS car infrastructure for the most part. It is when it's bad, yes. Good bike infrastructure usually involves things like physically separated bike lanes, or off-street bike paths. > Also, auto drivers pay the exact same taxes that bicyclists do and additionally pay greater taxes in gas and licensing. I already addressed this in my comment; it doesn't matter when car infrastructure is VASTLY more expensive. Why would it matter that drivers pay double when they cost 10x? Cyclists subsidize drivers. Period. > If they’re on the roads, however, they should be forced to pay all the road fees cars have to pay. The whole reason roads are super expensive is because of cars, not bikes, so of course drivers pay more. If there were only bikes (and scooters and skateboards) on a given stretch of road, it would be called a multi-use trail, and it could be made for much, much cheaper, since the engineering standards would not have to be nearly as high. Your argument is exactly like if a city got rid of all its sidewalks, forcing people to walk on the road, and then to add insult to injury forced people to be 'licensed' and pay a registration fee to walk about. No freeloading steppers here, no sir! They need to pay their fair share now that they have no good options of their own! I get that it doesn't jive with your current worldview that cyclists are subsidizing drivers, but it's true. Those cyclists you deride as 'whiners' are paying your way.