[bluGill]

There are many families with two cars that could drop to one car plus ebikes. The things you cannot do on an ebike can be done on the car that remains. It requires some coordination of trips because you can't just take 'your car' when you want to go someplace that needs a car, but most families are rarely in the situation where they have two such trips at the same time. YMMV of course, but if you are car dependent there is still a good change you can be a one car family.

[robertlagrant]

> The things you cannot do on an ebike can be done on the car that remains

Imagine you are in the normal situation of having two parents, both driving to their jobs, and dropping one or two children to school or other activities.

If you can replace one of your cars with an e-bike, you:

- at least one of you is white collar and can work from home or have flexible hours

- live somewhere that transportation is simple for at least half of your journeys, and that half of your driving journeys can all be done by the same person

- have only one full-time worker, who has a big enough salary to cover all needs

- live in an expensive metropolis with excellent public transport

Now, my family has only one car, but we tick three of those boxes and live in a cycling-friendly city. I would never pretend that what we do is particularly doable by a large number of people.

[lheck]

I don't understand the "cycling is for rich people" argument where it's actually the case that people with low wages are the ones that overwhelmingly do not own a car.

[bluGill]

You don't need to work form home, you only need to have a job within bike distance of home. This isn't everyone, but it is a fair number of people. Most people are in a long term marriage like relationship, and the other doesn't need to be in this situation.

I agree that there more of what you list you check, the better a bike is, but I think most people could check enough of those boxes if their tried just a little. It would be worth it for them for health reasons.

[robertlagrant]

> This isn't everyone, but it is a fair number of people

As my list indicates, anyone who has this has an easier time of it, but they quite possibly paid more for their house if they live near their employer.\

> Most people are in a long term marriage like relationship

Are they? Why does this matter?

> I think most people could check enough of those boxes if their tried just a little

Most of them need relatively little effort if they have a tech job - that's my situation. They get far, far more difficult if they have a blue collar / low paying job / kids with issues / health issues of their own.

[bluGill]

Marriage matters because with two people you can share one car, including the costs. If you need a car 10% of the time you still pay for it, so you may as well use it. However if you are married share the partners car. Odds are good that even a 10% use of a car overlaps with your partners use if you don't have some other alternative, and so most buy a second car, but a bike could cover enough transport that your remaining use doesn't overlap.

I said "marriage like" relationship. Marriage as other legal and cultural connotations that may not apply, but your relationship is still such that you can share one car.

[robertlagrant]

My original case was considering a two parent family, so unless you're mentioning the case of two people and no kids, which would just be a different case entirely, I don't understand your point.

[greenaboveall]

Your post works without the "e" in front of "bike".

[bluGill]

For some people. The distance you can go is less on a regular bike. When I was young the idea of putting a tent on my bike and camping someplace remote sounded good, but these days I actually do put that load on my bike only for very short trips.