I think that bit is the article's editorialising. Actual quotes from the study say:
> The study authors recognise that not everyone lives in a cycle-friendly place - but call for an “urgent” expansion of cycling infrastructure worldwide.
> “Lessons learned from successful experiences in countries like Denmark and the Netherlands, particularly on the city level such as Copenhagen and Amsterdam, would be essential,” they write.
> “These include but are not limited to, for example, proper bicycle lanes planning and construction, pro-bicycle education and culture, and policies to discourage car use through tax.”
Even in San Francisco, the second densest major city in America, the automobile lobby put a proposition on the ballot to remove the only car-free street in the city.
The amount of push back from the against any infrastructure that limits the automobile here is so overwhelming, it's completely ridiculous. I've been pushing for more cycling infrastructure my entire adult life. In NYC, Austin, and SF. Basically the only way to get it done is for the politicians to actually take a risk like Bloomberg did, and just do it by fiat. So long as you're trying to build a cycling system, the existing NIMBY populace will freak out.
And this shows the fundamental problem: it's the people themselves, the voting public, who in car-centric places oppose any attempts at making the place less car-centric. Then they whine about how it's infeasible to be less car-centric. Yes, that's true: it's because they, themselves, have opposed such efforts!
I cycle to and from work. It's also wet and windy here, but it's not remotely flat. It's hard work. So yeah being flat is an extreme advantage.
Also Ebikes are more expensive to buy, maintain, and run. I doubt they last even half as long too. I'm still using a hybrid buy I bought 10 years ago for 200 (exdisplay).
> Also Ebikes are more expensive to buy, maintain, and run. I doubt they last even half as long too. I'm still using a hybrid buy I bought 10 years ago for 200 (exdisplay).
Do you have any stats to back that up? Sure, an ebike will be more expensive than an equivalent non electric version. But if you’re more likely to take it out over a car or paying for public transit, that’s much cheaper per mile of use.
For some anecdata, I bought an ebike 4-5years ago for about $1600 and put a little over 1,000 miles a year on it mainly in NYC. In total I’ve spent $600 on repairs and upgrades, with $300 being a new battery after 4 years. The rest was just replacing brakes and changing some of the stock items, mainly for aesthetic reasons. This bike replaced $40-60 cab rides to other boroughs and my unlimited metro card($130/mo). In less than a year it paid for itself and more, and I definitely would not have put as many miles on my regular bike.
Like I said I bought my bike 10 years ago for 200. I do at least 2600 a year, to and from work and errands I can use it for. I don't have exact figures but in that time I definitely haven't spent more than 1000 on maintenance. So 1200 for 26000 miles and it's never needed a software update and the battery (me) is still strong.
It's hard work and keeps me fit so that's an added benefit ebikes don't offer. And I'm not beholden to vendors deciding not to support my bike anymore or maybe locking features unless you pay monthly for them.
> Also Ebikes are more expensive to buy, maintain, and run. I doubt they last even half as long too. I'm still using a hybrid buy I bought 10 years ago for 200 (exdisplay).
That's only really an issue for those who buy them, though. When a significant number who can afford them, do, that's still a lot fewer cars on the road, which also benefits those who still are in a car.
Perhaps, except that my automobile can move more people and property at a much farther distance while being protected from the environment, both the natural environment and the environment of a high speed highway.
As an ancestor comment by Vinnl points out, "The study authors recognise that not everyone lives in a cycle-friendly place - but call for an “urgent” expansion of cycling infrastructure worldwide."
If you are a plumber making home visits in suburbs best accessed through a high speed highway, and need to have supplies and tools with you, then of course a vehicle is better.
If you are a wind surfer, and need something to carry your gear with you back and forth to the beach, then of course a vehicle is better.
There are many people in exactly the situation you are, and for good reasons need a vehicle.
But those needs don't represent everyone.
And with the right infrastructure, some things which require a car now, disappear. If the kids can (e)bike to/from after-school events, then there's much less need for one of the parents to be a dedicated chauffeur.
With frequent bus service, it's easier to take the bus into town, so perhaps a family doesn't need one car per adult.
When those who decide to go car-free still need to be able to move more people and property, they use a taxi, rent a car, or join a car share club, depending on their needs.
But it's not easy! 50 years ago Amsterdam was car-centered, like US cities. It took decades to get where they are now. The point is to learn from that experience, not reject the possibility outright.
> The study authors recognise that not everyone lives in a cycle-friendly place - but call for an “urgent” expansion of cycling infrastructure worldwide.
> “Lessons learned from successful experiences in countries like Denmark and the Netherlands, particularly on the city level such as Copenhagen and Amsterdam, would be essential,” they write.
> “These include but are not limited to, for example, proper bicycle lanes planning and construction, pro-bicycle education and culture, and policies to discourage car use through tax.”