>>1970029"Cycling friendly infrastructure" is basically an oxymoron with the emphasis on moron as in anyone who actually thinks that bike lane will make it safer for cyclists is a moron
Also whenever you see an apparent paradox in "urbanism" you are probably misunderstanding the motives behind the characters. In the majority of cases, it's people who either will profit in some way, or have been tricked into thinking they will profit in some way. But profit-seeking is stigmatized, so they wrap their agenda into some bullshit "I support cycling" nonsense, which appears incoherent when you take that claim at face value but makes a lot more sense when you realize they were promised some material gain directly related to the use of real estate as a speculative asset
