But there were wooden bicycles without ball bearings in real-life history and they worked with the infrastructure they had. How well they worked is a different thing, but still it proves "no tech to build a bicycle" isn't the reason we waited for bicycles for thousands of years.
We had people jumping off towers with wooden wings for centuries before aeroplanes were made after all ;)
It would be perfectly possible for Romans to make bicycles from technological POV. Just wouldn't make sense because 2 slaves with some chair on sticks were cheaper.
BTW - first real world mass-produced bicycle added ball bearings after several years:
> On the new macadam paved boulevards of Paris it was easy riding, although initially still using what was essentially horse coach technology. It was still called "velocipede" in France, but in the United States, the machine was commonly called the "bone-shaker". Later improvements included solid rubber tires and ball bearings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_bicycle#1860s_a...
Anecdotally, on a bike ride recently, on a modern bike, hopping an inch curb snapped a chain.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcvFpbh2fjE
Your "proof" is unconvincing.
1. The bike looks super wobbly and seems like it takes a lot of effort to just make it function properly. Yes, it is an example of a wooden bicycle, but it is not an example of a useful wooden bicycle. It seems like it probably has a pretty short working life and low speed. In short, it's worse than just running.
2. The bike is being run on a paved road. All of my earlier criticisms get magnified by the stress of taking the bike off road. Yes, dirt roads are a thing. No, they are not nearly as smooth as asphalt. Also, much like carts, a bicycle like that would start to put ruts in a dirt road.