Cycling infrastructure is essential. It's by far the most efficient form of transport, and not having it costs people their lives.

It returns 5x to the economy what we spend on it, in contrast to road spending, which returns less than 1x what we spend on it.

It benefits everybody, because contrary to the belief of our politicians, building ever more, wider roads does not help with traffic congestion. The only solution to traffic is alternatives to driving. And that means building excellent bike paths and funding excellent public transport—as much as possible, public transport that doesn't use the same roads as cars, which means light or heavy rail, with BRTs as a supplement. One of the reasons bike paths are able to return 5x is because by reducing the number of cars on the road, those who still do drive—which will disproportionately be those who genuinely do actually need to drive, which currently is a tiny fraction of the total users of the road—can get to their destinations faster.

But if you cared one iota, you'd have heard this already. I've said it. Others in this thread have said it. Doubtless this one thread isn't the only time you've seen this debate come up. So what's your excuse? Do you just wilfully ignore reality and substitute your ideological bias?