I didn't say second-class citizen. Not trying to be pedantic, but that's bundled with meanings I didn't intend.
We don't, and shouldn't, have a pure fee-for-service setup with our government. Indeed, we don't even have that with roads, which are built with money that comes from more sources than just gas taxes or registration fees. However, with very, very few exceptions, the norm is for vehicles driven on the roads to pay for at least part of the cost of those roads with what amounts to usage fees. The exceptions to this tend to be conveyances that infrequently use the roads and that don't require special concessions like extra lanes (think farm tractors briefly on the road moving between fields). I think bikes historically qualified as an exception, but as cycling becomes more pervasive and cyclists demand more infrastructure, they really ought to be contributing.
I acknowledge that there are implementation problems - little Timmy shouldn't have to pony up to ride around the neighborhood - but there are ways we could work around that while still making cyclists' pay-in more equitable.
The pedestrian example doesn't really hold up here because they're not vehicles and don't use the road other than crossings. There's also no real, widespread precedent for usage-based taxation of sidewalks.