Getting back to the original question, there is evidence that drivers tend to have a more negative outlook on the things than do cyclists, walkers or transit users. Perhaps this can explain, at least in part, why so many car advocates are drawn to this subforum and why they are fond of describing the carfree with negative terms like "holier-than-thou", "fundamentalist", "smug", and so on:
Researchers at the University of Surrey found that drivers perceive exactly the same things more negatively than those who walk, bike, or take transit, confirming the anecdotal experience of literally every person that's ever tried to find parking in an urban downtown.
Pacific Standard Magazine has a great write-up describing the results of the study, in which participants were asked to judge the traits of people they saw from a car, transit, bicyclist, or pedestrian perspective:
These findings have a few interesting implications. For example, they may help explain the "war on cars" furor of the past several years. It's easy to imagine how some individuals, so married to their windshield perspective, could see any attempt to improve active or public transportation as a direct attack on their person. Those people on the street are so threatening and unpleasant, after all. Why should the city cater to people like that? Transit and active transportation advocates, meanwhile, are baffled by the vitriol of the Dorothy Rabinowitzes of the world because the streetside perception of our changing cities has generally been positive. (...)
The researchers found that participants who saw the video from the perspective of a car rated the actors higher on negative characteristics (threatening, unpleasant) than participants in the other three conditions. Participants who saw the video from the perspective of the pedestrian rated the actors higher on positive characteristics (considerate, well-educated) than those in the car condition.