> This extensive list of skills is exactly why cycling is > a lifestyle choice/hobby, not an effective method of > transportation. > > Car ownership isn't much better.

But that's it, isn't it? There's an investment in time/energy you have to make. Is the investment worth it for you?

> Instead, I can live my life. It's actually quite liberating.

For me, being car-free is very liberating. There's just more pluses to using a bike for my primary transportation.

Where have you lived that cycling is not an effective method of transportation? All of your arguments can be exactly adapted for Uber/Lyft, and even if I were to do that it doesn't mean ride sharing is an ineffective method of transportation.

I assure you in MOST of the rest of the world cycling is a very effective method of transportation.

Don't know where the parent is from but I live in a largish Canadian city. Using a bike for primary travel is not viable except for short leisure/weekend errands. I even live in the part of town where biking would be the most viable.

1) the city isn't built for biking. It's long distances between where people work and their homes. Not many live downtown like other large cities. 2) you can only do it for six months of the year. The other six are too cold.

Why is it not viable?

In northern Ohio bicycling all year is becoming more practical as there is less snow lately. Parts of Canada may have a lot more snow and severe cold.

The weather would be the main one.

Do I understand you correctly that you _only_ get around via Uber/Lyft? That seems expensive or at the least, very boring because you don't get out much.

Really, I think the minimum knowledge needed to use a bike for transportation is quite small. Walk into a local bike shop, list your needs/abilities, pay money, and start riding a bike. When you stop, use the u-lock they gave you to lock up the frame. Every week, put some air in the tire and recharge your lights. If something breaks, take it back to the shop.

>Do I understand you correctly that you _only_ get around via Uber/Lyft?

Back in Europe at least, I know several of people who use taxis for all their getting around -- with the occasional subway ride thrown in.

And those are people that get around a lot, though that's mostly true for above a certain income source and usually on creative professions (directors, composers, journalists, etc. -- kind of like people whose work doesn't necessitate commuting every day to some office, and who couldn't afford a 24/7 personal chauffeur, but could still pay for 2-5 taxi rides per day).

Uber/Lyft, aircraft, and walking for short distances, yes. I realize now that I live in very walkable areas, so I have a little more variety available than people in the suburbs.

That said, this post was intended to encourage people to think about the future of transportation, not saying that everyone should immediately switch to Lyft/Uber.

Car/bike ownership will certainly make sense for some people for quite some time, even after we have fully autonomous vehicles. But I maintain that cycling is more recreation than an effective method of everyday transportation, and it is frustrating to see the biking contingent pushing it as a transportation option to encourage public expenditure on their recreational needs.

> This extensive list of skills is exactly why cycling is a lifestyle choice/hobby, not an effective method of transportation. > Car ownership isn't much better.

I suspect the list for car ownership would look much longer, actually. It's just that the skills necessary for car ownership are taught much more effectively because of the prevalence of driving in our society.

> This extensive list of skills is exactly why cycling is a lifestyle choice/hobby, not an effective method of transportation.

I take it you've never been to Denmark. I don't think I know of anyone who doesn't own one or more, young or old.

The only means of transportation that is more effective is public transportation here.