bike infrastructure quality can be more important than quantity.

A lot of what we are getting for bike infrastructure in the US is horribly designed and often ends up being statistically more dangerous than no infrastructure at all.

A lot of our urban bike lanes, even the ones protected by barriers, fall into this trap. They make things safer in between intersections, but very few accidents happen in between intersections. But the poor design of the lanes causes increased risk AT the intersections. And the intersections were already where almost all the accidents happen. We have an epidemic of bike lanes designed by people who don't bike who have the irrational fear of being rear ended by a car as the #1 risk when that's actually one of the least common accidents.

The bad infrastructure puts more cyclists who don't really know what they are doing on the road and they don't understand the pitfalls of the lane design. So you don't see reduced bike-car collision rates.

The truth is the opposite: more bike infrastructure and safer riding conditions with fewer barriers (e.g., mandatory helmet laws, cyclist licensing — another stupid idea that comes up with regularity) brings more cyclists.

Of course this is also the case. I am just saying it is hard to get cities to prioritize investments in cycling infrastructure without a large number of users.