> What perplexes me though is how hostile both bicyclists and car drivers are becoming towards each other lately, and the only thing I can imagine that is driving the ire is online partisanship or the "us versus them" ideals that the Internet creates, which in reality is really not sane.

Speaking from someone that once did a 20 mile, one way bike commute for a year (just a really notable example of a commute), it's quite something when for the third time on a commute you have someone in a car with no perspective literally almost kill you. Eventually you get a bit more aggressive with asserting road position and space in order not to have people try and squeeze around you and do other dumb and dangerous maneuvers. It's not just the internet for cyclists, just ride long enough and accumulate enough near misses on the same ride, it's difficult to stay cool.

Meanwhile, drivers do tend to get naturally a bit more aggro when they drive a lot (I notice this in myself). It's hard to stay super patient every day, when spending an hour or more in a car. At that point shaving 10 minutes one way is worth a lot, it adds up. To me, that speaks to unsustainability more than anything else.

> There is some kind of shadow campaign across Reddit right now ... r/fuckcars that threatens the very meaning of the right to own personal property in the world.

This is an interesting commentary. Car ownership extends so far beyond just you owning your car. The majority of city space is dedicated to car owners. On-street parking, the streets themselves, the vast parking garages. So, it's not just "your personal property", but the whole structure that revolves and around that. If there were no petrol stations, no roads for cars, you could still own your private property all you wish. That is all just to say is the societal accomodation for cars is actually quite extreme.

> It has also become kind of a brigade that lobbies and protests in many other online and real world places too, without any clear message or leadership.

Yeah, it's reddit; and /fuckcars is about memes and is not about advocacy.

> I may be wrong, but it seems like a lobby run by people who want bicycles and public transportation to be the norm for everyone worldwide.

I think you are right. Why, because our current state of car travel is not sustainable. We can't make all cars be EV, and we got to this place by building infrastructure assuming that everyone would drive 10 miles (no big deal). There are many towns where zoning as pictured in the opening of Bobs Burgers is illegal. This goes back to the 40s, where the US decided to build its cities around cars and highways. Europe did the same and their cities looked really similar. Europe decided to diverge in about the 70s or so when they saw a lot of car fatalities piling up; the US has stayed the course and is still building car-centric everything.

> The logic seems highly unreasonable in a capitalist society at least, and as infectious disease threatens us all that these solutions could ever be imposed on a free society of people.

This again is a car-centric view where public transit is there for the poor, not for general travel. In Japan and many places in Europe, the trains are excellent and are the way to travel. Now, you can't take a car on a train, so if there were no way to travel when you get off that train, then it wouldn't be a good way to travel.

I mention the above to note the hole in the logic. If mass, mass public transit were unreasonable in capitalist socieities, why is it so reasonable in so many other capitalist societies? (Just not in the US and several other select societies)?

> That also being said, pedestrian, public transport, and bicyclist infrastructure is also majorly funded in part by car-related taxes,

This is a common trope. Cars _do_ _not_ pay for themselves in the US. Federal slush funds & property taxes make up the large gap. Furhter, the cost of bicycle infrastructure is cheap, yet still often not funded to its proportionate due. Cyclists wind up subsidizing car drivers (if not, I'd love my property taxes back since a lot of those go to roads which I put zero wear on and do not otherwise use; and yes, those property taxes go far more into car related infrastructure than it does bike infrastructure; most bike infrastructure budgets are 0.2% of the car infrastructure budget even when the faction of cyclists far exceeds 0.2%)

> to which there is no alternate source of funding if cars completely go away, meaning that biking, public transport, and walking would all see new taxes...

So, this is therefore wrong since cars are being subsidized and do not pay for themselves.

> I think we all need a better dose of reduced sensationalism and more rational thought in this world when it comes to public safety and transportation, without veiled political agendas pushed online for profit.

I appreciate the even tone, but the points not responded to are dispersions or straw-arguments. Ever try to evacuate a city by car during a hurricane? How many cars run out of gas? Why did people fleeing wildfires have to abandon their car.. I say this to denote how invalid some of the other points are.