Bikes are nice, but the bike lovers keep writing pieces like this. Don't get me wrong. I like them, but I think we should balance our love with these points:<p>* Only fit people can use the human powered ones for more than a short distance. If you've got cardio issues, a bad knee or worse, it's not for you.
* eBikes help but even they're not powerful enough for many situations. If you take someone moderately obese and put a hill in the way, the bike is in trouble. 40%++ of America is obese.
* Many jobs require commuting in the dark during the winter. Bikes are much less safe in the dark, even if there are no cars around.
* You can't carry very much on a bike at all. Oh yeah, a few have clever trailers but even they can't carry much.
* It's not so easy to carry a toddler. Sure, you can carry a baby -- if you can find a baby helmet that fits. But a toddler is too big to share a bike but too small to ride a separate one.
* Bikes are dangerous, even without cars around. Bikes toss people over the handlebars all of the time. The tires lose traction and people crash. Cars make things worse, but getting rid of cars won't make bikes safe.
* Rain, snow and ice are danger multipliers. Take all of the danger of a sunny day and multiple by a large fraction.
* Many people live too far away to bike to work. My job is a 60-80 minute ride each way. Driving takes 25 minutes. Guess which one I choose?
* Bikes are unfair to the poor. Poor people live further away. That's how real estate works. If the rich people don't have time to ride, the poor are going to be riding even longer.<p>The bike riders can dream. They can claim it's a future. But none of my objections will change in the near term. They can keep putting out propaganda. But the Americans are not buying for good and practical reasons.
The bike maybe the vehicle of the future for many young downtown city residents who live close enough to use it.<p>Mass transit still owns the crown of vehicle of the present and I would suggest perhaps still vehicle of the future.<p>Bikes for me represent the vehicles of my past.
To even sort of make sense, you have to have high population density. That's looking less and less like a good idea right now.<p>Even without that, <i>xhkkffbf</i>'s points pretty much demolish this idea.<p>Bikes are great and a nice occasional complement to cars, just as flugelhorns are a nice occasional complement to trumpets. But replacement? No.
If only it wasn't for all those young, old or sick people /s
I sometimes imagine how my city would look like if there were no car lanes and pavement but grass and trees along the middle of the "road". Then I remember I can't physically be outside 6 months of the year due to asthma and allergies so I have to use the car
The bike is the vehicle of the present in many places around the world (Netherlands!). As for bike-shares - they have their place, but it's limited.<p>The story itself sounds like some marketing copy for some get-rich-quick shared-bike provider.<p>PS - Remember, though, that some cities are built on hillsides (e.g. San Francisco), and are not very bike-able.
As far as dockless last-mile transport goes, I'm actually a big fan of those electric kick scooters... but I acknowledge I'm an imbecile and they're really dangerous.<p>One issue I have with that model in general is that for many of the distances I'd like to use a share bike or scooter, it would take longer and cost money to walk to the vehicle and unlock it. It's frequently faster and free just to walk to my final destination.
In the future there will be no rain, there will be no snow, it will never be 100 degrees F, there will be no prostate problems and everyone will be 28 years old forever! All happy on bikes.