"The quality of roads is relevant, but not really the answer. Bicycles can be ridden on dirt roads or sidewalks"
Bicycles can only be ridden safely on rough surfaces with good pneumatic tyres. As for the sidewalks, 1) their quality was also very variable, 2) they didn't offer a continuous path anywhere unless you only wanted to cycle around a single block (often not even then), 3) they were full of pedestrians trying to avoid the rough, filthy road surface, 4) hopping on and off kerbs is not a good idea without pneumatic tyres and a lightweight frame (early bicycles were ponderous and heavy).
The description of the technical progression needed to make the bicycle practical is fine, but the author seems to need to dismiss all previous thought on bicycles simply to justify their argument. Firstly, that's not a motivation I admire, secondly the dismissal of those obstacles and the other cited disincentives is just wrong: those obstacles were definitely there, something technical and social progress had to address before a bicycle was a reasonable and useful idea.
Bicycles can only be ridden safely on rough surfaces with good pneumatic tyres. As for the sidewalks, 1) their quality was also very variable, 2) they didn't offer a continuous path anywhere unless you only wanted to cycle around a single block (often not even then), 3) they were full of pedestrians trying to avoid the rough, filthy road surface, 4) hopping on and off kerbs is not a good idea without pneumatic tyres and a lightweight frame (early bicycles were ponderous and heavy).
The description of the technical progression needed to make the bicycle practical is fine, but the author seems to need to dismiss all previous thought on bicycles simply to justify their argument. Firstly, that's not a motivation I admire, secondly the dismissal of those obstacles and the other cited disincentives is just wrong: those obstacles were definitely there, something technical and social progress had to address before a bicycle was a reasonable and useful idea.