> At the moment biking is dominated by young fit and generally healthy people. That's a cultural difference, not a physical limitation. Cultures change. > I

> At the moment biking is dominated by young fit and generally healthy people. That's a cultural difference, not a physical limitation. Cultures change. > I see lots of young parents going to work by bike, but do they take their kids to school on bikes? I see this quite a bit. I plan on taking my daughter to school on my bike. I bike to work every day. I'm neither young, nor particularly fit. I see a very fair representation of 60+ commuters on my route. > Does grandma get to the doctor on a tricycle? I doubt many sick people ride too much. Fortunately, this use case is relatively rare. The overwhelming majority on the road are on the way to work, school, or run errands, not doctor visits. > And what about the growing number of people who need to be brought places, who cannot drive themselves? They would be very grateful that the roads are not congested with people making a 5 or 10m commute to work. > There are a great many people with special needs/requirements who will never be able to move themselves safely by bike or any other vehicle. They and their carers should not be cut out of city planning, nor should they be confined to special communities. I'm not sure where you're going with this line of reasoning. There's a growing number of people who cannot drive due to failing eye sight or injury. Does this mean we should eliminate all funding for roads all together? Is there some city design policy you're advocating? It seems like you're somehow equivocating the creation of more options for short distance travel with elimination of highways all together. More commuter options, e.g. bike, train, bus, etc. Only serve to alleviate congestion and make existing travel options more efficient.