One point it misses is that the worst bicycle (shared usage, so less care taken, aluminium so less durable, dockless so more often dumped in rivers etc.) has a

One point it misses is that the worst bicycle (shared usage, so less care taken, aluminium so less durable, dockless so more often dumped in rivers etc.) has a lifetime emissions per km 1/3 of a car. A typical aluminium bike with the typical lifecycle of a personal bike on the other hand manages 1/20 of the emissions of a car. If by making bikes 100% more disposable and doubling their lifetime emissions per km, but the trade off is the increased usage takes away 10% of what would otherwise be someone's driving, then you've come out ahead. (also it's not clear what the car is measuring? Is it just manufacturing emissions/km? Just fuel emissions/km? Both? I suspect it's the first option, which would make it even less comparable). And these features that do make them less durable (lighter frames, nicer brakes) are an important part of enabling cycling for more people at various levels of fitness. To get that share they need to be seen as a frictionless transport option and not a puritan exercise toy. I have my own (aluminium) bike and I always sometimes use my city's ride share bikes. The ride share bikes are noticeably more effort, being steel, thicker than you'd make a bike for individual sale to cope with the abuse, and having giant chunks of plastic for instructions and advertising. Lastly it misses steel bikes are still around and made by most major brands? Most of the lower end models in your bike store are still fully steel for example. With V brakes, standard mechanisms, etc. I guess the casettes are probably still a single unit or two parter rather than a bunch of individual sprockets like old bikes, but it's not like those are the high failure rate components.