the worst transport freeloaders are cyclists who pay zero usage taxes yet use the roads and have their own special lanes/paths built for them.

Those aren't really for bicyclists. They're for motorists, to get bicyclists out of their way, because motorists don't want to have to share the road with bicyclists.

But you're correct that bicyclists don't pay any user fees for the roads. I propose a mileage fee to cover the road damage caused by the vehicle which is proportional to the 4th power of the weight of the vehicle. If a 2-ton vehicle owner pays $200 per year for the roads, then a 200-pound bicyclist going the same distance would pay 1/8th of a cent per year. Plus maybe an administrative fee of $10 per vehicle. That's fair, isn't it?

Airports are not expensive to set up and maintain...

In cities, they are extremely expensive, if you include the opportunity cost of capital. In other words, how much could you earn in a year by investing $(the monetary value of the land occupied by an airport) in the market? That is how much the land alone costs the city every year.

Phoenix uses the Proposition 400 sales tax to finance freeways, San Francisco has Proposition K, Los Angeles has Measure R, and San Diego has TransNet. Texas found that "no road [in the state] pays for itself in gas taxes and [user] fees."

Are there any cities in the USA where cars are economical without road subsidies or preferential treatment such as minimum parking requirements?

I'll never live anywhere that won't let me have a car or where for whatever reason cars are uneconomical.

Please name one city in your country where cars are economical without subsidies, such as sales taxes to finance freeways, and without preferential treatment, such as minimum parking requirements to force business owners to build more than the economically optimal amount of parking.

In my country (the USA), I don't think any such city exists.

And what if the driver doing 45 pulled in front of the one doing 90, leaving less than a second for the latter to react?

That's probably an unsafe lane change, unless the person going 45 couldn't see you because you were speeding around a blind curve or weaving in and out of traffic.

But bumping someone who's going 45 when you're going 90 will result in a major accident.

The one going 90 should have watched where he was going. Unless it's more important to pay attention to what's behind you than to what's in front of you?

It would be good if the USA adopted the Autobahn's rule of cruising in the right lane and passing only on the left, to separate fast moving traffic from slow moving traffic.

The driver's handbook in California explicitly states that you should at all times keep up with traffic, even if it means exceeding the speed limit a little bit, so that all cars are driving at roughly the same speed.

The 2014 manual says, on page 69:

Driving slower than other vehicles or stopping suddenly can be just as dangerous as speeding, if not more dangerous, because you may cause a rear end collision or cause other drivers to swerve to avoid hitting your vehicle. If you are in the fast lane and you notice vehicles moving to the right lane to pass you, or a line of vehicles is forming behind you, the best thing to do is move into the right lane, when it is safe, and let the vehicle(s) pass.

From the link I posted above:

Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic...

(emphasis added)

If a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, peeping tom laws already say you cannot look or take photos. So it doesn't appear that the proposed law will bring any meaningful benefit. It's bloatware.

"[E]nergy companies [are feeling] the pinch from...weak demand..."

"[M]any EU countries...are facing an energy capacity crunch"

The above two quotes contradict each other. The first says there's weak demand, but the second says there's a "capacity crunch" (a shortage) which means there's too much demand. So which is it, a surplus of energy or a shortage of energy? It can't be both.

Resolving this contradiction will lead to the real problem. Then we can think about ways to solve it.