So I may have just heard of the worst urbanism takes put there,
"It was clear to me that to make a place friendly to cycling, it was more important to restrict cars than it was to build a bunch of expensive bicycle infrastructure. After all protected bike lanes are really just an extension of car infrastructure right"
First of all Bicycle infrastructure is far cheaper than car infrastructure to build, secondly Protected bike lanes are not car infrastructure, they are anti car infrastructure. They remove space from cars. This is on a video about the Netherlands, you should know that. Plus do you think the Netherlands got to be cycling friendly purely through traffic calming measures, no that’s fucking ridiculous. It got there through the big infrastructure projects that you praise when talking about if they happened in the past, but complain about the cost of making if they are new. This is one of the most maddening takes I have heard in a while