I think the article misses: 1) Those 'hypotheses' seem like a perfectly good starting point for a very long list of cumulative reasons as to "Why not to get a

I think the article misses: 1) Those 'hypotheses' seem like a perfectly good starting point for a very long list of cumulative reasons as to "Why not to get a bike". 2) It doesn't separate bicycle 'the tool' from bicycle 'the toy'. All those original machines were fashionable playthings for the wealthy. Bicycles the tool took off they were demonstrably better than walking (which is then the combination of improved tech and reduced cost overtook walking and alternative transports)