It doesn't refute it because I think it's a mischaracterization of what "anti-car" or bike/transit/pedestrians advocates are typically asking for What I and ma

It doesn't refute it because I think it's a mischaracterization of what "anti-car" or bike/transit/pedestrians advocates are typically asking for What I and many other advocates in the US want is for anything besides cars to be even considered in public infrastructure and urban design. Living without access to a car is near impossible in lots of US cities. The default is to design around the car, if bikes or pedestrians are mentioned it's tacked on as an afterthought. An example I had just last night was my US city presented their first phase of the "bike master plan". Essentially the engineers told us they didn't want to maintain protected bike infrastructure or interfere with traffic. About half of the "improvements" they listed out were "sharrows", bike symbols painted in the travel lane. The other half were striped bike lanes with no protection from vehicles. And this is in a city that's inherited some bike/ped/transit friendliness by the nature of it being built pre-war. Good luck in the exurban sprawl, South and Sunbelt - you'll be lucky to even have a sidewalk, nevermind a bike lane on the 8 lane road. The car is default in the US.