I'm not saying to ban cars, just to de-prioritize them
The use case for bicycle-and-similars is way more than the use case for cars specially urban places (also outside urban places)
"Corporate culture" has had a downward history everywhere since companies started weaponizing "culture" to demand a one-way loyalty from employees so as to extract more unpaid labor from them.
Cycle infrastructure needs to be continuous, feel safe to ride, and exist where people actually go to, not near the riverside.
Build them and they will come.
Cycle infra is not only cycle lanes. Cycle lanes are needed only where cars move fast (>30kmh). What is even more important is traffic calming in residential streets. LTNs, modal filters etc. Build for people, not cars.
> it is better to cry in a Mercedes than on a bike
Do you perceive bicycle as a poor man's mode of transport?
Rich countries is where everyone can travel by public transport or bicycle (or car).
Poor countries is where everyone HAS to travel by car (locked in car dependency)
I see what you are trying to say: its better to cry and have wealth than to cry and not have wealth. But bike=poor, car=rich is not a good analogy. It sends the message bikes/public transport are for loosers, when its not. Well it might be in car-centric societies, but not in more fair societies.
Bicycle is the least discriminatory private mode of transport: it caters to all ages, almost-all abilities. It give you free exercise, its good for the environment, for the community, for the local economy: small commercial shops benefit from cycle infra.
Private car is space and energy inefficient, and car infra is hostile to cycling and walking.
Build for what you want (walking,cycling,public transport), not for what you have (private car).
Yes its a massive no-brainer. Amazing how we as a society fail to see this.