I think saying it hasn't worked is misleading. It has worked overall, it just hasn't worked for your preference. Most people prefer driving in the US. That's the preference of the constituency and it must be respected to some extent. Disrupting society because you didn't get your way doesn't seem compatible with accommodating a diversity of perspectives and the Democratic process.

Put another way, how would you feel if car drivers rebel and park their cars across all the bike lanes?

To be clear, I'm not opposed to angering drivers period, just certain activities which accomplish nothing other than angering drivers. For example, I will often briefly take the lane if it is the safest option for me or legally required (e.g., making a turn). Yes, many drivers hate this but the benefits seem clear to me, and their anger really is misplaced here.

I don't know much about the history of cycling in the Netherlands. Where can I read about how angering drivers helped there?

But that's the point — just because a tactic worked in some societies, does not mean it will work in all of them.

In the Netherlands these disruptions effected policy change. In the US disruptive protests result in police brutality, protestors getting run over, and then public support for policies restricting disruptive protests.

When policies get implemented in the US, it's through corruption — including policies we'd agree are good, like bike-friendly policies being pushed through municipal governments by major corporations who want them for their employees, so they get implemented where it benefits them and not where it benefits marginalized communities who don't work for them.

As long as there's enough money pumped into a policy, no amount of disruption will affect it in the US. Disruptive actions _that don't target who's funding the policies_ won't accomplish anything here, no matter how effective they were there.

So that's why people say "disrupting commutes won't work" here. The people commuting aren't funding these policies; they could all be voters and change out the entire city government and the same money will just pump through different people, and policies won't change, and the next time a disruptive protest happens the public turns against them because what did it accomplish last time?

Meanwhile, the people who do fund policy are flying over them or riding past them in private or restricted lanes that they pushed through municipal government, looking over at the protests, maybe even cheering them on.