The problem isn't about rights; as I said, we have segregated infrastructure AND we can use public roadways in Ontario. I don't think anyone's going to take tha

The problem isn't about rights; as I said, we have segregated infrastructure AND we can use public roadways in Ontario. I don't think anyone's going to take that away. The problem is the way segregated infrastructure is promoted: here in Ottawa, they have green circle signs with bicycles, as if to say 'bicycles are allowed here'. This gives drivers the impression that bicycles won't be on streets without the signs, and that they can be inattentive (dooring, cutting people off while turning, etc). All of our cycling fatalities locally come from driver inattention, not malice - even though it's douchey to overtake aggressively, it doesn't kill nearly as often as opening your door without looking. I guess my point is that road cycling culture is a chicken and egg problem. If more people of all ages are riding, drivers will be more conscious, and it will be safer. If everyone stays constrained to the walking paths and bike lanes, the utility isn't there ( because the lanes and paths don't go where you want ), and the drivers get to stay oblivious. Finally, your last point about the dual carriageway misses the point completely. Yes, people who like biking a lot are the 'early adopters' who push for more radical social change. For all the reasons I've mentioned, highways are actually very safe: wide lanes, wide shoulders, very little direction changing (no turns, no dooring) and pretty attentive drivers. I'd wager you have less fatalities on highways than congested metropolitan areas, because the drivers are less distracted and overburdened.