Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

> we found that emissions from cycling can be more than 30 times lower for each trip than driving a fossil fuel car, and about ten times lower than driving an electric one

Assuming we’re comparing single occupant passenger vehicles to bicycles (incl. e-bikes), this seems fairly self-evident and hardly actionable.

> We observed around 4,000 people living in London, Antwerp, Barcelona, Vienna, Orebro, Rome and Zurich.

> [...]people who walk or cycle have lower carbon footprints from daily travel, including in cities where lots of people are already doing this.

Okay, again, big surprise. Where that infrastructure exists to support such a move in dense cities, abolishing private car ownership would surely have some climate impact, but can we quantify it any better than .03x of ‘?’?

Large parts of the population are too old, too infirm or handicapped in some way to make it more than a few blocks. Yes, some could be forced to lose some weight and get in better shape, but that's not going to work for many people with chronic conditions.

Then you need to take into account that the weather is bad for a significant part of the year. In the north, snow and ice make it dangerous to drive a car with all wheel drive. Bikes are downright dangerous in those conditions. Gentle rain may be workable but many rainy days make it dangerous to ride. Even a sunny, summer day is not-so-good for those who need to go into an office or a meeting without taking a shower to wash off the sweat.

Now mix in the fact that bikes can't carry more than a token amount of luggage. Parents with small kids, people with groceries, and anyone working on any project bigger than say, knitting or watchmaking, can't carry their stuff on a bike. The extra weight exacerbates all of the issues with hills, health and weather.

Now mix in darkness. In winter, many people leave home before it gets light and come home after darkness. Sure, you can manage with a good light, but it's just markedly more dangerous at night on a bike.

Now let's talk about how this dream of biking hurts the poor. By definition, people who can't afford very much end up in the worst homes and that almost always means the places with the longest commutes. Sure bikes are cheaper than cars and that sounds good for the poor, but the reality is that their poverty consigns them to live much, much further away.

I like bikes and I would like them to be used when possible, but bike-rights advocates don't do themselves any favors by making extreme statements like this. Bikes just can't replace cars for a significant number of people. Oh, sure, the young, unmarried, childless hipsters who write these things can do okay, but they're ignoring that there are many, many people who can't. Bike talk like this is anti-old, anti-family, anti-worker and anti-poor.

- Your commute is sufficiently short

- You have facilities to shower and dress at work

- You have sufficient time to shower and dress at work

- You don't have to bring kids or sizable cargo

- Weather is sufficiently good

- You're sufficiently healthy