The above-linked protests led to re-drawing urban development plans for most major Dutch cities with the effect of reducing the prevalence (and necessity) of cars in city centers. Whole housing blocks were getting destroyed as to build highways, canals were dried so cars could run in their place. All that was undone, and more, and nowadays Dutch cities are a shining example of how liveable urban centers are with fewer/close to no cars. Those are well documented facts, I don't know what you are even arguing about.
So we are playing semantics. I don't think "Kicking-out" is universally understood as "getting rid of the entirety of something", you are encouraged to prove me wrong, I certainly don't care enough to die on this hill.
It doesn't matter whether it's universally understood. It matters whether it is commonly understood. You're communicating with a wide variety of readers on the internet.
You're also using the type of phrasing hyperbole that the anti-bike-lane zealots use.
Berlin has amazing public transport (I moved here in 2018, I never needed to get a car), I've not heard anyone complain about the experience of driving.
But anyways, the order of causation is probably reversed. Cities with high density are forced to invest in good public transport by sheer public demand and pressure.
It appears that driving a private car in the Netherlands isn't near as nightmarish as elsewhere.
The Netherlands is peculiar in that cyclists reclaimed their rights to the cities by kicking cars out of them.
Cars haven't been kicked out of cities in the Netherlands.
https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollecti...
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2025/03/05/a-rare-glimpse...
https://old.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/ittddm/how_a_busy_r...
https://www.iamexpat.nl/expat-info/dutch-news/history-amster...
Removing cars from a street or two and decreasing the number of lanes on many streets is a far cry from "kicking cars out of cities"
The above-linked protests led to re-drawing urban development plans for most major Dutch cities with the effect of reducing the prevalence (and necessity) of cars in city centers. Whole housing blocks were getting destroyed as to build highways, canals were dried so cars could run in their place. All that was undone, and more, and nowadays Dutch cities are a shining example of how liveable urban centers are with fewer/close to no cars. Those are well documented facts, I don't know what you are even arguing about.
Fewer cars. not no cars
So we are playing semantics. I don't think "Kicking-out" is universally understood as "getting rid of the entirety of something", you are encouraged to prove me wrong, I certainly don't care enough to die on this hill.
It doesn't matter whether it's universally understood. It matters whether it is commonly understood. You're communicating with a wide variety of readers on the internet.
You're also using the type of phrasing hyperbole that the anti-bike-lane zealots use.
Berlin has amazing public transport (I moved here in 2018, I never needed to get a car), I've not heard anyone complain about the experience of driving.
Singapore.
But anyways, the order of causation is probably reversed. Cities with high density are forced to invest in good public transport by sheer public demand and pressure.
Singapore has an expensive plate tax that has to be renewed. They make owning a private car very expensive.
The nightmare there is paying for the car.
I don't know any city with amazing public transport, except for the lucky ones that can afford to live directly into the city center.