>>1972416>Not necessarily.Yes necessarily. I live in a condo across a 4-line arterial from a grocery store and a bunch of restaurants. To completely remove us from interacting with cars, they'd need a pedestrian overpass in multiple places. Most municipalities are not going to spend that kind of money. Instead, they'll give pedestrian signal priority, change crossings to pedestrian scrambles instead of one direction, ban right-turn on red, etc. All of these things slow car throughput on those roads, so drivers understandably fight it.
>Peachtree City, Georgia, which has a bike/golf cart system entirely separated from vehicles.It does not. Say I live at this cute little house in Peachtree City. I need to do my weekly grocery run, which I do at Fresh Market. I might also take some cash out at Wells Fargo. I'm going to have to drive my golfcart in traffic across a 5 lane state highway to get from my house to the grocery store.
>Privileged implies that there is nothing inherently better about somethingCorrect, driving is not inherently better than cycling or walking. It is a tradeoff. A car is helpful when you need to carry a whole lot of stuff or go a longer distance than is feasible to walk or bike, but it costs $20k+ and you're sedentary while using it. A decent bike is less than $1k, and walking is free. A bike can still carry a lot, and both bikes and walking exercise your body. Driving my car 50 miles to visit family is a good use case, driving it 1 mile to take my dog to the park is counter-productive and wasteful. Giving me the infrastructure to walk that 1 mile to the park slows cars down though, so as I keep saying, drivers fight it.
>Most streets don't need protected bike lanesSeems like a stretch when most drivers go into apoplectic rage if they're forced to slow down for 30 seconds to pass a bike. Better for everyone's safety and blood pressure to just remove the interaction entirely.
