Lack of exclusivity might mean sharing the same lanes for multiple modes (what you're suggesting), or it might mean giving up some real estate to build dedicate

Lack of exclusivity might mean sharing the same lanes for multiple modes (what you're suggesting), or it might mean giving up some real estate to build dedicated infrastructure for other modes of transport (e.g. bike lanes, etc.). Which is appropriate will depend on context. But I don't think drivers have a right to object to both having to share lanes with cyclists and to giving up car lanes to build bike lanes. Cyclists are taxpayers, too, and should be entitled to something, but to hear some drivers talk about it, any infrastructural decision that doesn't lead to cars moving as quickly as possible ought to be verboten. That's what I find objectionable. But to more bluntly answer your question: actually, yes, at least sometimes. Though I would instead phrase it as erasing the distinction between sidewalks and streets: http://nacto.org/usdg/commercial-shared-street/ http://nacto.org/usdg/commercial-shared-street/ This kind of streetscape is common in Europe and Asia, but much less so in the States.