Yes, but I notice that many of those who want subsidised driving also complain about subsidised state-education and push for it to be made more-and-more market-based. There is a clear double-standard - tax money for building roads appears almost unlimited, while suddenly cash is in short supply when it comes to any other form of transport.
Also, children are not the same as cars. I don't mind paying for educating and keeping-alive other people's children, I resent paying for their cars. Cars don't have human rights.
And I have to pay for car users in so many different ways (I have to pay a service charge to maintain the car park where I live, even though I never use it, when I go to the supermarket I am paying a surcharge on prices to pay for the cost of the large car park, with all that wasted space, I have to pay for the damage constantly done to the pavements by cars parking on them, and on and on it goes...).
Just tonight I noticed a car that had crashed at, some speed from the looks of it, into a lamp-post just down the road (the driver must have been drunk or just an idiot!) - local taxes have to pay for the repairs to all the street infrastructure that gets damaged by drivers driving into them, especially as most of the time it's a hit-and-run situation. The taxes motorists never stop complaining about don't pay for all the costs they impose.
And just consider the disproportionate amount of throughfare space cars take up compared to bicycles or buses or pedestrians, per traveller. That's valuable land they are using for free, never mind for parking on. That space is a scarce resource in cities, so using it for storing vehicles or for travelling using over-sized ones, is plain greedy.
All of this only applies to cities, of course, 'highways' that run between cities are not so much of a valuable resource. The more expensive land is the less justifiable it is to use it for cars.