[ravenstine]

That's because cars are way more useful. They have a much longer range than bikes or scooters, are fueled more easily, carry cargo, transport multiple people at once, can run on both gas and electric, have air conditioning, stereo systems, safety features, etc. Bicycles are obsolete in every way and aren't practical for most commuters. You bet cars take up 1000000x the space of bikes.

[esoterica]

This reeks of suburban provincialism. Bikes are more useful in an urban context. On an individual level they are faster because they don’t get stuck in traffic and you don’t have to pay for parking. On a macro level cars are fundamentally incompatible with density because there is literally not enough space in a city for everyone to store and drive their cars.

[ravenstine]

> This reeks of suburban provincialism.

This reeks of intelligence signaling, and isn't an argument.

> an urban context

Yes, in an urban context, where one lives close enough to work and other conveniences, and one happens to have a shower in their office building. Most people don't live that close to work and they don't want to constantly show up to work sweaty. Bicycling certainly does work for same people, but it's not practical or sustainable for most people.

What do you think is going to happen in a scenario where most people are bicycling everywhere? They'd potentially spend just as much time on the road as they would in car traffic, have to constantly dodge other bikes and vehicles, and city officials would make them pay for parking.

People don't want to experience riding a bike day in and day out. Cars are a bestseller for a reason. If riding a bicycle was as obvious as you think it is, more people would be doing it.

> On a macro level cars are fundamentally incompatible with density because there is literally not enough space in a city for everyone to store and drive their cars.

And yet most cities are able to make it work with cars.

[esoterica]

> Yes, in an urban context,

You made the claim that bikes were obsolete in “every way”.

Most cities do not make it work with cars. In actual cities (not giant suburbs like Houston or Phoenix) a large fraction of the population does not drive or own a car.

> What do you think is going to happen in a scenario where most people are bicycling everywhere? They'd potentially spend just as much time on the road as they would in car traffic, have to constantly dodge other bikes and vehicles, and city officials would make them pay for parking.

Do you really not grasp the fact that bikes take up less space than cars. If people switched from cars to bikes there would be far less congestion.