I'm not sure I'm following. Are you saying that in the US unless people put themselves in dangerous situations in the first place, nobody will ever vote to improve the safety of the infrastructure? If so, what is the connection? If not can you clarify what you mean?
Here in the Netherlands we didn't get to good bicycle infrastructure by trying to maximize the number of people in dangerous situations as a stepping stone, so maybe I'm missing something unique about the US.
Edit: asked an American friend and apparently in the US cyclists have to assert their presence since there aren't dedicated lanes, up to things like keeping a stick on your bike to hit cars that impinge on your rights. So that's certainly different. I still wouldn't put young children in that situation but it's certainly something quite different from here.
Sorry for the late reply. Yeah it's a chicken and egg problem here in the US.
If there aren't enough riders, then the planners won't have the data to support painting some bike lanes to attract more riders and get people out of cars.
And then the car people will complain that the bike lane is taking up "their" road and planners will be forced to remove the bike lane or let it rot.
Here in the Netherlands we didn't get to good bicycle infrastructure by trying to maximize the number of people in dangerous situations as a stepping stone, so maybe I'm missing something unique about the US.
Edit: asked an American friend and apparently in the US cyclists have to assert their presence since there aren't dedicated lanes, up to things like keeping a stick on your bike to hit cars that impinge on your rights. So that's certainly different. I still wouldn't put young children in that situation but it's certainly something quite different from here.