That's people who cycled "once" in the previous year. This discussion so about people who cycle to commute or otherwise regularly and I agree with the vibe that it's only for the rich or otherwise fortunate in the US. I don't have access to that data you linked but the headline suggests that it's more or less irrelevant to this discussion.

Unfortunately I can't agree or argue against vibes so I'm not sure how to properly respond. Do I disagree on vibes?

EDIT: To be a bit more productive about this, I referenced Guerra et al. [1] which shows that cycle commuting seems to be negatively correlated to income in the US and sharply negatively correlated with single vehicle ownership and positively correlated with being male. But this is just commuting and we know that there's more to transportation than just commuting and commuters tend to be more male as a whole anyway.

[1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136192092...

thanks for the link, that article does challenge some of the views I had on cycle commuting and income. Where I live, there is definitely seems to be a positive correlation but reading the "archetypes" from that abstract made me realize that there my city is probably not typical.

People tend to notice the neon clad roadie on an expensive bike taking the lane on a busy thoroughfare.

People don't tend to notice the guy riding his Wal-Mart mountain bike on the sidewalk on his way to work.

And they also don't tend to notice all the sensible, practical, riders who know to take the (relatively) car free residential side streets en route to wherever they need to be.

People also don't notice all the single-occupant cars that make up the bulk of road congestion. Drivers should want more people to ride bikes, because each represents approximately one single-occupant car removed from the road.

People tend to see what they want to see. If they want the riders be the rich sports guys, they will notice all the rich sport guys and ignore everyone else.

Honestly once a year is a good measurement. You want numbers on people who might bicycle. Doing it seldom means there is a chance you will start doing it. My feeling is that bicyclists are one of the most misunderstood groups just because we are so different from each other.

In cultures where the car is a status symbol, cycling is bimodally distributed by income - people who can't afford a car, and people who very definitely can afford a very nice car. For everyone in the middle, cycling is a status threat unless it's congruent with their identity as e.g. an athlete, an environmentalist or a bohemian.

Successful cycling cultures elevate the status of cycling, but they also denigrate the status of the car; people in these cultures are slightly embarrassed when they drive, because cars are recognised as being somewhat antisocial.