I am a non-car owner, but I still loath euphemisms like "road diet" to describe the systematic reduction of main arteries in our region into lower volume cow paths.
Maybe a hyperbole diet is what's called for here - any reallotment of roadway results in a "cow path"?
The fact is this: bicycles are road users. There is no cars vs. bikes. They are both enshrined in the law to use the roads.
So what's the deal with bike lanes then? Why does one* road user get special treatment**? I see bike lanes as a convenience for motor vehicles. With the presence of bike lanes it is less likely*** that a car will be "stuck" behind a bike or need to pass the bike, the latter of which is a challenging manoeuvre for some drivers (as per my observations).
Ok, maybe a footnote diet is what's called for here.
* Not counting pedestrians which get their own infrastructure that no one seems to complain about. If speed differential is the issue there (no bikes on sidewalks) then don't complain that bikes are slower than cars but can't have separate infrastructure.
** Or more accurately, redressing decades of car-centricism. See affirmative action vs. institutional racism****.
*** Not guaranteed. See "both enshrined".
**** I'm not comparing transport infrastructure to racism, just one method used to redress it.