[panglott]

The extra time it takes to ride a bicycle can be minimal. When I drive to work, it takes about 20 minutes; when I cycle it takes about 30. In urban traffic a car tavels only about twice as fast as a bicycle on average, and bicycles are easier to launch and park. I find that trips of 2 miles are less are faster by bicycle, and that's the most common kind of trip.

Most people who insist on riding bicycles for commutes organize their lives around that: living in a place close to work, for example. The author is a person who took up cycling and never stopped; in that case, bike commutability is something he probably planned for when choosing a home, work, and career. People who have organized their lives around driving everywhere have different considerations.

What his argument boils down to is that bicycles have similar or lower accident risk, much lower operating costs, and traveling by bicycle improves your health—and health is extremely valuable.

[r00fus]

My problem with bike commuting is sweat. So when I used to commute (7mi), I showered after arriving at work, and after my ride back.

It really made my day, but seriously it added non-negligible time to my commute. Showering @ home is easier, showers at work can be occupied, and the 2nd shower after coming back was an extra 15m too.

[panglott]

I only have the sweat problem in July and August where I live, and it's easily fixed for me by simply wiping off my arms and face with a damp towel when I come in. It's quick and works surprisingly well.

Everyone's situation is different of course. Bicycle commuting is frequently oversold; The sweet spot for cycling is 2 miles or less or 2-5 miles, which accounts for a lot of trips, but lots of people live farther than that from work.