We have real life examples. There's several places in the country that have had bike facilities for a long time. Here in Minneapolis I found dedicated off road bike lanes from the first time I ventured out of my neighborhood in 1974. Yet, the fact that the infacstucture exists has not led to an effort to force us to use it in more than 30 years. I think Portland, Seattle, Madison, and Cleveland would be other examples of the same dynamic. Places with long standing bike infastructure have not seen an effort from restrict bike access to traffic lanes. Next door in North Dakota, where you would be hard pressed to find any bike infastructure at all, they have a mandatory sidepath law. In North Dakota, bikes are requiried to use adjacent paths and exit the traffic lane. Fortunately there are no adjacent paths in ND, so it dosn't really matter.

But that's sort of my point. Here in Minnesota, the politician that introduced a mandatory sidepath law could likely measure their polictical career along side man made isotopes. No elected official wants to see their name in a headline like this "Johnson to make biking around Lake Harriet illegal". But in North Dakota, nobody cares it's a meaningless regulation for a circumstance that largely does not exist. So it passes without debate.

With this history in mind. It could be argued that the presense of dedicated bike infastructure secures our place on the road vs jepordizes it. Take a look at the places with mandatory side path laws. Are they the places famous for their bike infastructure or are they the places where almost none exist.