Countries at "income of about 2,500 per capita" are not exactly known for their car infrastructure. Moreover, by necessity with low car ownership they cannot have car-centric cities - most people don't have cars. I mean have you been to Hanoi or Belize City, or some place similar?

Yet, despite crappy roads, short distances and chaotic traffic (and good climate, in many cases), people get cars as soon as they can afford them - instead of staying on bikes and mopeds that they are already otherwise using. Until, if IMF is to be believed, they reach 0.85 cars per person.

Those places are freaking deathtraps. It's basically what the article is talking about! Those cities are _extremely_ anti-pedestrian. They may not be car-centric, but they are definitely moped centric.

There are usually no sidewalks, or the sidewalks are full of parked mopeds or you'll be walking along and the sidewalk will just end abruptly.

You are usually forced to walk along the road. Nobody will stop when you're crossing the road, they just weave.

A quick Google search shows that Vietnam has 29.81 per 100,000 of population deaths from traffic accidents.

These places are awful examples of safe bike/pedestrian cites. Of course people prefer cars there, it's much safer!

Well they don't have much car infrastructure either, and operating a car there is much less convenient than a moped or a bicycle, not to mention extremely expensive relative to income. Plus the car is not necessary by definition since most people don't have one. So it's not really massive spending on car infrastructure, or distances created by car-centric lifestyle that's driving the adoption. It really feels like moving the goalposts, these cities are more convenient for bikes and mopeds than cars by any standard (faster, much cheaper, easier to park etc.). I don't think safety is a primary driver either...

Or you can also just take middle-income cities, like Moscow. It wasn't built with many cars in mind, and there's severe lack of parking in particular. People used to have fistfights over public parking spots when I was a kid :) Yet, they still buy cars until traffic becomes completely unreasonable, it used to be that transit across the city (where I was going) tool ~1 hour, and my co-worker who drove a similar route would take 2 hours thru traffic, and he would still drive. Obviously so did all those other suckers stuck in traffic, that's how much they wanted to drive :)

> Well they don't have much car infrastructure either

They have hundreds of motorways -> roads exclusively for car use. They have zero cycle ways. Like this is not subjective, look at the amount of money spent on ‘active travel’ anywhere, it is never even 5% of road budget.

> Moscow

I’ve cycled in Russia. Drivers stick their hand out of the window to yank on the steering or push you. There is zero tolerance for cyclists.

We are talking about in-the-city commuting. The local roads/streets at some stage of poverty are full of mopeds and bicycles, with very few cars. When people have no choice. When they have a choice, they could get better bicycles or mopeds. Instead they get more cars, before these cars are even convenient to use (e.g. you may get stuck behind a bicycle with a produce cart for 10 minutes at 5mph as mopeds stream around both of you).

These cities start out in no way optimized for cars, basically by definition (nobody has cars). The reasons cars do better in them too, before the govt responds with more car infrastructure, is because cars are just simply better in terms of convenience. If people wanted to continue cycling after they get more rich, the govt could have built infrastructure for that much cheaper and easier.

Also btw, no matter what, bicycling is still marginal in most climates and for many people who are not fit. The real thing to discuss is transit... many of the middle-income and even poor cities have great transit, but people don't clog the transit and then grudgingly switch to driving, it's the other way around :)