If I want a car, I go to a dealership and I can find a bunch of packages and customizations and there's a dealer to help. The cars have all sorts of technology and it's well integrated. You don't have to buy a car and decide if you want the bright headlights or the bad headlights and then pay extra to have them installed.

There's so much that a bike should/could have: automatic emergency braking, turn signals, automatic lighting, regenerative braking, gps/anti theft tracking, speedometor, rear radar, etc.

You can get most of those things, but then you have to install them all, there's no standard, each has to be charged separately.

Bike nerds ask about your derailleur and nonsense about tires and how the bike should be totally custom, and how turn signals are a stupid idea because you can just balance one-handed while waving and mirrors are bad because you can just look over your shoulder and it's all just a lot. And then they have the nerve to ask why more people don't bike?

Why don't more people bike? Because the entire biking community, culture, and market is built around making it hard and dangerous.

Edit: my point is that the biking community should embrace electronics/batteries since they're necessary for safety lights anyway, and use that as the foundation to build an integrated consumer product. If you want the world to switch to biking (I do) you can't treat it as a hobbyist market. Car manufacturers figured this out long ago.

No, it is because in most countries road infrastructure is built for cars, not bikes. To make life even more dangerous for cyclists, the laws do not protect them enough.

Here in The Netherlands we have many separate bike likes, inside and outside cities, so-called bike highways, etc. Some city centers are even largely car-free (e.g. Groningen). E.g. from home to my office (~3-4km) roughly 70% of the stretch is on dedicated bike roads.

On average, Dutch citizens [1] make 250-300 bike rides per year, cycling 880km on average. Most people I know cycle to work, do groceries by bike, etc.

We do not have automatic emergency braking, turn signals, regenerative breaking, anti-theft tracking (though it becomes more common with e-biks), rear radar, etc.

First you have to make cycling safe by providing separate bike lanes where possible (preferably physically separated). Secondly, you have to change the culture. Most people in other countries do not even consider cycling to work as an option. Emphasize the health benefits, etc. You also need to educate drivers on how drive safely around cyclists (this is less of a problem here, since most car drivers are also cyclists, and tend to be aware).

[1] https://www.fietsersbond.nl/ons-werk/mobiliteit/fietsen-cijf...

If this were the primary factor, the top cities for cycling would be places with mild climates and active-oriented population. That is not the reality as I see it.

> No doubt some combination of all these factors are at play

The primary factor is unambiguously the infrastructure. Among top cycling cities, the only common trait is good bike infrastructure.

> presuming that a materially greater portion of the population would start biking if we could only solve this one aspect of law or gear

No presumption needed, that is what literally happened in the Netherlands. They created good infrastructure, and went from basically zero cyclists in the 70s to the hefty majority they have today. The top cities for cycling (by ridership) in Europe are in northern climes with good cycling infrastructure. People in these cities are exposed to cold rain and snow.

see: https://copenhagenizeindex.eu/ , no correlation between climate and ridership.

Speaking to your broader point that people are getting lazier - I believe that humans are exceedingly adaptable above all else. If it is fast and convenient to get from A to B in a city by bike, people will ride bikes. That is what happened in the Netherlands and other top cycling cities.

Its also physically difficult to get comfortable biking if you're not used to it. That's fine, but when the roads are like mad max post-COVID, you don't want to be wobbling when you're trying to signal.

Yes, the roads need to have bike lanes, but at least in portland, there's a stunning lack of reflection on why more people aren't taking advantage of them.

E-bikes probably help with the appearance part. It is just weird seeing a market where the entire culture is so hostile to innovation or improvement. The biking community should really be trying to remove all the barriers and not just saying it will get better when every road has a bike lane, because it won't.

Heck, even trying to find a class to learn how to bike is a massive pain. Each town and city has a different standard for hand signals (which I think refutes the claim that drivers would be completely unable to recognize or understand a turn signal on a bike) and the laws are different everywhere around things like lights and bells.

I think it's easy to confuse the cycling community fighting for bike lanes with them believing it's the optimal solution. The truth is, it's hard enough to get this bare minimum that it becomes the thing we fight over most often. But of course, the dream is separate bike infrastructure.

> Each town and city has a different standard for hand signals (which I think refutes the claim that drivers would be completely unable to recognize or understand a turn signal on a bike) and the laws are different everywhere around things like lights and bells.

I think you may be overthinking this part? Hand signals couldn't be more simple, and I can't imagine them changing much between cities. If you don't like letting go of the bars in traffic, that's another issue, and I agree turn signals could be helpful. Lights and bells ... I'd just get a bike with a bell and a dynamo light system from the factory. I can't imagine ending up on the wrong side of the law that way.

Your overall experience is super interesting to me, just want to say that, as someone deeply interested in cycling and the barriers to adoption.

It's visible, drivers understand it perfectly, and it's a very mature, well-tested road safety technology (unlike much bike lighting). It seems obvious to me, but I haven't seen it anywhere.

Cycling has a lot of cliques. There’s an absolute world of difference between a Rapha boutique and a hole-in-the-wall that primarily services deliverymen. Unfortunately, most cycling shops are staffed by people who can't see past their own walls. (I'm a "fixed gear hipster doofus" who very much wants to select every part and service it myself. The notion of glomming "emergency braking" (this is actually a crazy dangerous idea), turn signals, etc. is deeply unappealing to me.)

There actually are bike shops that run exactly like car dealerships, and the number is growing all the time as the market extends in the direction of riders like you. Specifically, I would have urged you to find a Vanmoof retailer.

- automatic emergency braking: this is a terrible idea. I can't imagine any circumstance where ones bike would suddenly stop underneath them and not send the rider head-first into whatever made the bike stop.

- turn signals: This exists but I suspect that in practice you'd find it less useful than you expect. Drivers and cyclists simply don't expect to see them, so they'd be mostly confused or annoyed.

- automatic lighting: I agree. More importantly, lighting should be integrated into most bicycle frames

- regenerative braking: this exists

- gps/anti theft tracking: this exists

- speedometor: this exists, but if you're not an actual racer… why?

- rear radar: this sounds bizarre… but rear view mirrors actually are commonplace

You really walked into the wrong bicycle shop. I hope the experience didn't put you off cycling, it's the best regardless of your approach.

AFAIK, it undermines the integrity of the helmet in a crash. Perhaps it's worth the trade-off, but also having some loose stick of metal flying around my head in a crash is conceptually unappealing.

The way I think about safety equipment is that the most effective kind is the one that you always have with you, that doesn't run out of batteries.

Maybe the idea of having a mirror near your face is a concern, but hey, you're already in a bicycle crash, it's not going to be great either way. Wear some safety glasses for the flying debris. The best plan is to prevent that situation in the first place.

I've seen it in a few places. I dug up some notes:

The following is from: "The Do's and Don'ts of Bike Helmet Care" at Consumer Reports (15 April 2017) https://www.consumerreports.org/bike-helmets/the-dos-and-don...

* "The strap and/or adhesive mounts could damage the helmet, especially if they’re installed less than perfectly."

* "the larger problem is the camera itself. A helmet is designed to have a surface without protrusions, and a camera represents a significant one. / ... "Anytime you add an external component to a helmet, you can change the performance of that helmet," says [Ian] Hall, [Consumer Product Safety Commission engineer]. "A helmet-mounted camera may become a projectile if it detaches in a crash, but a camera that remains attached could focus the forces applied to the rider’s head, increasing the risk of injury."

And from a Specialized helmet owner's manual: "Do not attach anything to your helmet, including mirrors or lights."

Agreed, though I was thinking of anti-lock breaking, to prevent skids.

They said they owned a bicycle shop!

Bike ridership IMO is much more heavily determined based upon how bikable a space is. If it's an environment where you don't have access to safe roads/trails, nearby destinations, or places to lock your bike at a destination no one will bike. The bikes themselves may have quirks, but that's rarely the complaints people voice in the wild from my experience.

I think it has more to do with the lack of biking infrastructure. Instead bikes are forced to share car infrastructure or pedestrian infrastructure (where available). This makes it very difficult to get serious about cycling for daily use. Most times you're stuck competing with 3000+ lb death machines flying past within 2ft of you.

All of the things you want added to a bicycle are relatively cheap and easy to install on your own if you want them.

If you don’t you pay an expert at your local bike shop to do it for you. In fact, if you were in the process of buying a bike shop from an LBS you could tell them all of the things you wanted. They will literally build whatever bike you want lol.

But if the trivial amount of practice that it takes to “balance” while gesturing a turn signal is too much for you, maybe bicycling just isn’t your thing. If getting accustomed to navigating in Vim is too much for you, maybe you just need an IDE, instead.

and also the way that essentially a single idea can cover so many bases... high speed racing, hauling materials, going shopping, travelling with everything you need for thousands of miles, bombing down mountainsides, climbing up huge mountains ... all this from essentially one simple idea. So wonderful!

The problem with lighted turn signals is that motorists don't expect them, and don't look for them. Pointing with your hand and head are just more safe and effective.

> how the bike should be totally custom

Ignore them. It should be what suits you, what makes you feel comfortable and safe when you ride.

> Why don't more people bike?

There's also not a lot of infrastructure outside of major cities (in the US). Unsafe for cyclists, annoying (at best) for motorists.

> the entire biking community, culture

Let's not paint too broadly, there are plenty of elitists, but big parts of the cycling community are inclusive; community rides, community maintenance co-ops, things like that.

You would be surprised. My wife's e-bike was stolen without its battery. When she bought a new e-bike (of a different brand), she could just purchase it without a battery and use her old one.

(Lots of e-bikes in Western Europe use Bosch batteries/motors.)

Bicycle chainrings are the perfect example. There are established mounting patterns, but since the late 90s, Shimano’s MTB division and Campagnolo loved introducing proprietary BCDs.

And disc brakes have an established "International Standard" mounting standard, but no one builds actual I.S. mount brakes--it's either post mount or flat mount. (Yes, post/I.S. are practically interchangeable due to the adapter.)

Lastly for something as simple as a derailleur hanger, you figure there may be 5 or 6 different models to choose from, but nope: https://wheelsmfg.com/derailleur-hangers/derailleur-hanger-w...

Garmin bike computers support turn signals with dual rear lights but I've never seen anyone use that feature. If you're turning near other traffic then you have to slow down anyway so sticking an arm out to signal isn't a problem.

A lot of riders already have multiple battery powered devices including bike computers, Di2 shifters, headlights, tail lights, power meters, radar, etc. But battery powered devices are expensive and heavy; many cyclists don't need or want some of them. Some people never ride at night and don't necessarily need lights. Bike computers and lights which support the ANT+ standard have automatic lighting.

The better bike computers have GPS tracking, anti-theft alarms, and support rear radars. Most bikes don't come with a computer because they're expensive and cyclists prefer to choose their own. If you buy a bike with accessories from a local store then they'll be happy to assemble everything for a nominal fee.

https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/698001

I think this should be adopted here in the US, especially because separated bike lanes from car traffic are rare.

The other electronics you mentioned are nice-to-haves, but nowhere near as critical. At some point the line between a bicycle and scooter/motorcycle starts to blur.

You have decided you want a vehicle. You head to the first dealer on your local "Golden Mile" strip. The dealer (because they are nice) starts asking you about what you're looking for. Turns out that you want to be able to haul rocks and drive on mountain forest roads in the snow. Unfortunately, you're at a Honda dealer, and they have nothing for you. You head towards the local Ford dealer but along the way change your mind about what you're looking for. The Ford dealer asks similar questions, but now you're looking for a 50mpg sub-compact with essentially zero maintainance and significant interior space. The Ford dealer grimaces.

Now, getting more realistic, we turn to bicycles. They may (mostly) all have two wheels, pedals, handlebars and a chain, but in reality there's as much of a gap in functionality between an enduro mountain bike and a time trial/triathlon bike as there is between the Ford F150 and a Honda Fit (Jazz for HN's european contingent). And into that gap there are:

  * touring bicycles
  * commuter/shopping bicycles
  * BMX bikes (which some set of young people still seem to like)
  * full suspension mountain bikes
  * hard-tail mountain/gravel bikes

Now, is there a market for "the generalist bicycle", perhaps with all or most of the features you've mentioned? Maybe. Visiting western European countries suggests that there could be, but it might be function of urban design, land use, transportation planning etc., and not really a function of the bike itself.

I agree with you that cycling's status as a hobbyist market probably does do something to limit its appeal. I just don't think that the effect is that strong, and the main reasons people don't ride a bicycle is not its confusing which accessories to get.

If you put automatic braking on a bicycle, you're going to cause an emergency.

Braking force is not the problem. Hasn't been for 25 years.

Emergency braking on a bicycle requires the rider to shift their body weight to avoid catapulting themselves off the front of the bike and directly into whatever they were trying to avoid. There is no way to achieve minimum stopping distance without substantial cooperation from the rider. The center of gravity is simply too high. You might be able to use powered brakes on a trike or recumbent, but not on any upright bicycle.

I haven't had a real bike in ages and even back then it was entirely possible to launch myself off the bike using only two fingers, from the hoods, which offer terrible leverage. If anything Shimano made the brakes too strong.

But for e-bikes, why not use internal gears? You do not really need the fine-grained shifting on e-bikes. Besides that, internal gears require less maintenance and allows for models that use a chain guard or belt drive (== less maintenance).