It really depends on the context. Driving is often the only feasible way to get around in sparsely populated areas, or areas with extreme weather.
In densely populated temperate areas, cars are often no faster than other modes of transport (although they may be more comfortable), and they impose a very high cost on others, including: fatalities and injuries associated with traffic accidents, premature deaths and reduced quality of life due to air pollution and noise pollution. Parking and road lanes typically consume a great deal more space per passenger mile than buses, trains, trams, bike or walking.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by hurting 'people who need help the most', but in most urban situations owning a car for personal transport is not an option for those with the lowest income, and no realistic policy will make it affordable.
Again, I'm happy to have my views challenged on this.
I live in Boston, in the 90's it was way easier to have a car. The bike lanes have cut our two lane main roads down to one which has created a lot of traffic, a lot more than in the past. And there's much less parking due to the bikes, but also the new developments. The Mayor of Boston in the 90's wouldn't let anyone build housing unless they provided a parking space for every bedroom. The new mayor just green lit a big development that will provide no parking spaces. Having a car is your independence, not having one make you dependent on the public transportation system. It's great if you can choose not to have a car, but I don't think it's fair to prevent other people from making that choice, or making it expensive or difficult.
Also, it's much more difficult to manage a family without a car. A woman I worked with had to pick her kids every now and then. She wasn't making a lot of money and she had to pay for her own parking. It was a good job for her, so she tried to make the commute work, but it's difficult. It was difficult before, but the quality of life has gone down because people want their bicycle utopia.
I've ridden a bike in Boston since the early nineties and I don't think it's any easier or any safer. I can't tell if the bike lanes are really for bicycles or for people who want to create a hassle for people who depend on their car for their family or job.
Ultimately it just depends on your vision of what you'd like your city to be like.
I would like everyone to have the option of cycling or walking around their city without fear of death or hospitalisation. It doesn't seem like an extremist position - the roads are for everyone, there is no intrinsic reason to prioritise cars.
It's so frustrating that it becomes part of some car vs bike culture war.
I would also like the option of using whatever transportation you like to get around. But my observation has been that the roads are unfortunately not for all in Boston and we need to make a choice. Boston is a great pedestrian city, so I would focus on public transit and prioritize cars over bicycles, it worked better that way in the recent past.
The public transit buses have been highly impacted by the bike lanes. By reducing the main roads to one lane because of the bike lanes has created more traffic so it's harder for the busses. The solution to that was to create lanes that only busses can travel, in certain parts of the road, which in turn has created even more traffic and not really improved things. I applaud them for trying, but it really doesn't look like it working from a quality of life stand point.
I think your right how it's become a part of the culture war.
Just to put some perspective on this, I looked up Boston's bike lanes. There are 8 miles of separated bike lanes in Boston, out of 800 miles of down town roads.
Drivers in Boston are being asked to _share_ 1% of the road infrastructure with bikes.
The 60 miles of regular bike lanes caused the loss of parking and loss of two lanes in most of the city's main roads. The main roads are just wide enough to have two lanes of cars, one lane for parking and a nice sidewalk.
I don't even think cyclists make up 1% of the users of the road. Maybe at rush hour you'll see more, but it's not much. And there are only a few diehards that bike in the winter and in the rain. So we're cutting the main roads in half for 1% of the road users that don't use the roads all the time? I'm not sure that makes sense. They don't run the subway or busses after 12 when I'm sure people would use it to get home from the bars. Although the subway and busses cost money to operate whereas the bike lanes don't.
In densely populated temperate areas, cars are often no faster than other modes of transport (although they may be more comfortable), and they impose a very high cost on others, including: fatalities and injuries associated with traffic accidents, premature deaths and reduced quality of life due to air pollution and noise pollution. Parking and road lanes typically consume a great deal more space per passenger mile than buses, trains, trams, bike or walking.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by hurting 'people who need help the most', but in most urban situations owning a car for personal transport is not an option for those with the lowest income, and no realistic policy will make it affordable.
Again, I'm happy to have my views challenged on this.