Few people find the bicycle useful for distances longer than 5 km (3 miles). In the USA, for instance, 85% of bicycle trips involve a trip of less than 5 km. Even in the Netherlands, the most bicycle-friendly country in the western world, 77% of bike trips are less than 5 km. Only 1% of Dutch bicycle trips are more than 15 km (9 miles).
This is extremely disingenuous. For reference, over half of all car trips in the US are also less than 5km. The reason people don't use bicycles in the US for longer trips is not because "few people find the bicycle useful", but because most of the roads here are designed for cars. Going far on a bike is a death trap in the US. There's also the fact that if an area is bikeable, you usually don't need to bike far because you don't live in suburban hell. This does not make the bike less useful. In fact, it's more useful because it doesn't take as long to get to your destination if it's nearby.
In contrast, the average car trip amounts to 15.5 km in the USA and 16.5 km in the Netherlands, with the average trip to work being 19.5 km in the USA and 22 km in the Netherlands.
In the Netherlands, what fraction of those 22km trips are taken by train or bus? This is important information. You can't just assume "long trip + not bike = car"!
The electric motor can be used to reach a destination faster, or with less effort, but the cyclist remains unprotected from the weather.
Or, more importantly, the cyclist remains unprotected from cagers (i.e., car drivers).
Overall, this article was frustrating in that it was trying to sell some "alternative to bikes" but the author didn't really seem to understand the advantages/problems bikes have.
