Well, yeah. If you were tasked with designing a bike that hundreds of thousands of people would use and design for the lowest common denominator, you might come up with a similar design. To be durable, they are heavy, i.e. about 50 pounds (23 kg). To be easy to ride, the rider position is upright, and the handling is similar to that on a French moped. (Turn the handlebars, hardly leaning the bike at all.) To be possible to pedal all that weight with a not-all-that-strong physique, you provide three very low gears.

All of that combines to make a very slow bike. When I try to pedal it hard, it punishes me. I barely get any extra speed, but I create a whole lot more sweat. I get the most out of the bike when I pedal very gently.

As someone else said, all the gears are insanely low. Well, not insane, given the design requirements. But I call them slow, super-slow, and oh-forget-it. Since the bike is heavy, I almost always start from a standing stop in 2nd gear and then immediately shift to 3rd. I can't imagine using 1st myself, but some people will find it useful. At least they can't complain there isn't a low enough gear.

Also, the brakes and bell are barely adequate. The brakes are chosen for durability and reliability, and I don't blame them, but I have to squeeze them pretty darned hard to get some good power. I have large and strong hands. And the levers are straight out in front of the handlebars, which seems pretty stupid to me. Maybe that's better for short people whose shoulders are level with the handlebars, but then how can they operate the brakes? Probably by not letting the bike coast fast down a hill.