No, your assumption is wrong and I cycled for decades. I also spent some time in Amsterdam which is the #6 best city for bikes in the world.

No it doesn't reflect "mentality"; as both a cyclist and driver and pedestrian and transit rider I'm extremely aware that different rules and practices have disparate impact, sometimes massive, sometimes for no valid reason whatsoever. Also, another thing you neglect is that in the US, adjacent or nearby traffic lights are typically not synchronized, also the crossing delay for pedestrians (or minor roads, or left-turn lanes) is often very long (sometimes 6-14 minutes at major intersections, I've measured it, it deprioritizes other users vs. heavy car traffic). To offset some of these insane practices, many US localities are allowing Idaho stops. Like I said to you. It is in many localities perfectly good and legal for a cyclist to proceed (obviously yielding to cross-traffic, if there is any) through a red light.

In the last year I've almost been killed by other drivers 50++ times but (even as a pedestrian) by cyclists 0 times (You may quibble selection bias, since there are few cyclists, esp. after 7pm in winter).

Complaining about cyclists at intersections where a bridge/overpass/underpass should reasonably have been built decades before, is missing the point. In US cities, cyclists have to pay a price in safety and speed for the sins of city councils for having deprioritized them for 50 years.

Yes, sometimes new US cyclists are traffic violators; they simply need to be taught. Like I said, not all violations are dangerous to other users; things like no reflectors, no lights, no reflective jacket, are mainly a risk to themselves not other people. Very obvious solutions exist like free or discounted helmets; very clearly painted bike lanes with optional plastic separators near intersections to prevent corner-turning cars straying into their lane; organized bike groups for newbies; bike corridors in the suburbs; proper lighting, signage and cameras at intersections, and serious enforcement against drivers who injure cyclists (the US doesn't do this, but has a fetish about drivers who've had one drink).

The city of Cupertino is pretty good for bike planning: https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/public-works/...

As to the US not devoting anywhere near enough public funding to cycling, the Dutch et al. know for decades that it's an investment in public health, in converting motorists to bicyclists/ transit riders/ pedestrians.
It's also space-efficient to do bikes + transit, since e.g. Amsterdam is essentially at sea level and physically can't do multistorey car parks.

One of the silver linings of Covid was a massive reset in cycling, transit and pedestrian policy, and a one-time golden opportunity to shift commuters from cars to better modes. Essentially reversing some of the insanity of US 1970s-style urban/suburban planning.

Complaining that a few novice cyclists initially violate some laws (before they learn) is a tiny price to pay for a longterm much healthier, more sustainable, pedestrian-friendly urban planning, that also allows higher population densities and hence enables transit. (For sure, the small minority of cyclists who actually do dangerous things should be prosecuted; I hope that's not your strawman of my comment, because I never said that either.)