Not exactly. In America, distances are too long for bikes to effectively cover in most places that are not the east and west coasts. However, this also means that when inconsiderate bicyclists max out at 20-25mph on a 55mph road, they slow every one else down too (even those in cars). When you fail to drive the speed of traffic and slow every one else down, you have no business on the road and are a hazard. Bicyclists ought to stay off roads faster than they can ride.
You know we have fast roads and long rural stretches of road between cities in Europe also? Yet there are cyclists on those too here, including on 70mph dual carriageways. Sure, people sometimes complain about the inconvenience of being briefly stuck behind a cyclist, but people still mostly drive courteously around them and try not to kill them. Indeed, nearly all roads have a higher speed limit than most cyclists are capable of - though with the new e-bikes/s-pedelecs that's beginning to shift.
The fundamental problem is that in order for infrastructure to be built, people need to first start cycling. If there are enough cyclists on those roads for it to become a traffic problem, eventually politicians and urban planners will build cycle paths, then hopefully more people will use them, etc.
However I think in the US you have more than anything a cultural affinity toward the car. In the UK and much of western Europe, the roads (besides motorways) predate cars. Cars have to share that space with cyclists, horses, pedestrians. And generally speaking, the more vulnerable and untrained road users have the legal priority and the drivers of the fast metal boxes owe them a duty of care.
I personally find incompetent drivers to be far more hazardous than cyclists. Your point in defence of drivers here doesn't seem to address my issue of the ease with which drivers get licenced to drive but calls to question a matter of lack of infrastructure for cyclists. That would be great. It would also be great to improve everyone's driving.
