What I and many other advocates in the US want is for anything besides cars to be even considered in public infrastructure and urban design. Living without access to a car is near impossible in lots of US cities.
The default is to design around the car, if bikes or pedestrians are mentioned it's tacked on as an afterthought.
An example I had just last night was my US city presented their first phase of the "bike master plan". Essentially the engineers told us they didn't want to maintain protected bike infrastructure or interfere with traffic. About half of the "improvements" they listed out were "sharrows", bike symbols painted in the travel lane. The other half were striped bike lanes with no protection from vehicles.
And this is in a city that's inherited some bike/ped/transit friendliness by the nature of it being built pre-war.
Good luck in the exurban sprawl, South and Sunbelt - you'll be lucky to even have a sidewalk, nevermind a bike lane on the 8 lane road. The car is default in the US.
For some trips, cycling or public transport really is faster than driving, but for others obviously not. The most important thing is that all three are viable options. Forcing everybody into only one of those three will hurt everybody.
Japan seems to have the least driving per capita of any wealthy nation (at least from the data I see), so maybe people should be using that as an example more, but I think a lot of people in the US really appreciate the physical protection that people on bikes often get in the NL (even if it isn't everywhere). It sends a different message about priorities.
In the US, even if you don't want to drive, that is often your only choice for most trips, whereas in the NL you can drive if you want, but it is easier to find an alternative. That is a 'car-oriented' mindset versus 'multi-modal transit' mindset. However, I am sure that the NL could still make many changes to reduce car ownership if it really wanted to.
https://internationalcomparisons.org/environmental/transport...
We're talking specifically about self-designated "anti-car" people. I doubt there are any surveys, so we're all just conjecturing, but the rhetoric I see definitely holds NL and Europe generally up as a car-less utopia. For example, the first post on r/anticar is titled "cities built for people rather than cars are so beautiful" and it shows an idyllic picture of a German street. https://www.reddit.com/r/Anticar/comments/mp6t4p/cities_buil...
> The amount of miles driven per capita in the US is twice as much as that of the NL. The percent of trips on bike is 25% in the NL vs 2% in the US. About half of all trips made in the NL are on bike, transit or walking. The other half of trips are made with cars.
I don't see how this is relevant? I don't think anyone in this thread disputes that cycling is more prevalent in NL versus US, and none of this refutes the toplevel claim that NL is a car country nor supports the anti-car rhetoric which suggests that NL is a car-free utopia. Like many "non-anti-car" Americans, I would like to see American transit become more multi-modal, but that's not what we're debating at present.
> However, I am sure that the NL could still make many changes to reduce car ownership if it really wanted to.
Sure (the obvious/extreme example is banning cars by legislation), but this seems circular, because we're implicitly interested in why doesn't the NL public want fewer cars (on the contrary, car ownership was increasing as of 2016)? Like in the US we can plausibly argue that Americans haven't experienced the Dutch cycling/pubtransit system and thus doesn't know what they're missing out on, but that's a much harder argument to make about the Dutch. :)