Originally Posted by
pacificaslim
As Botto would say..."Incorrect".
Explain Japan. How many times do I have to remind you guys that there are places where there is no bike infrastructure that have way more bike usage than anywhere in the usa and most of europe? Japan has just as many cars, just as much wealth... no bike infrastructure (other than parking)...and tons of bike riders.
The things that cause or allow for high bike ridership are largely independent of bike infrastructure. Infrastructure can increase rates a few percentage points. But it will never give you more than that. To get true high bike ridership numbers, you have to have solid public transportation, a healthy population, multi-use neighborhoods, etc. If you just do those last things, and skip the bike infrastructure, you'll increase cycling much more than any bike infrastructure changes are capable of doing.
So why put your energy into bike infrastructure? It's the least effective method of increasing cycling.
What you are saying makes some sense. But don't consider the issue as "needing bike infrastructure," see it as needing a system that is not "auto only." Often times bike infrastructure simply means "not slanted to autos only." I do tend to agree about mass transit too, but the other factor in Japan is population density.
In the dense urban core there are places where the practicality of everyone having a personal auto is quite questionable... London, NYC, SF, Bogata et. al. all for instance have come to realize that mass transit, walking and cycling are far more practical than moving about "mostly empty wheeled boxes." The suburban settings of much of America however, make even mass transit largely impractical.
The motor car is not a dismal failure, but expecting the motor car to have access everywhere IS a doomed plan... overall it is best to plan for a multimodal transportation system, as America once had, before it was all given up for a single mode.