Same here. Because bike commuting is still relatively uncommon, it's a conversation topic. Folks see my bike, or my helmet, and like to chat about it. The questions that people ask reveal their concerns:

1. How far do you ride?

2. How do you avoid traffic and intersections?

Oddly enough, weather doesn't come up. I think folks simply assume that they will drive to if it's too hot, cold, or wet. The Midwest has much more extreme weather than the major cities of northern Europe. My locale gets about 30 °F colder, and 10 °F hotter, than Amsterdam. I'm not making excuses for people, but just documenting what reality looks like. Even as a fairly dedicated cyclist, it took me a few years before I was comfortable riding to work at -15 °F.

I live in a town that has seen a steady increase in bike commuting, and we have been developing our bike infrastructure. But I think in addition to cyclists and infrastructure, a third thing has happened, which you could call Gentrification: People are developing housing, and moving into neighborhoods that are regarded as bike- and pedestrian-friendly, and that happen to be closer to the major hubs of employment such as the state government, university, and hospitals. Distance remains a factor, but people are shortening their distance.

In this climate, I think it has to be assumed that people will seek an alternative when the weather is unsuitable (real or perceived) for riding. So we should encourage compromises where the alternative is something other than driving a car, such as walking and/or using transit. My spouse hangs up her bike when it gets icy, and hops on the bus. The bus ride takes longer, and costs money, but she avoids having to pay for parking at her workplace.

A separate topic: Weight. Folks seem to assume that concerns about weight, efficiency, and comfort, are either 1) admissions of weakness, to be attacked; or, 2) misappropriations of racing technology. But people have tried to make things lighter and more efficient, without sacrificing durability, since the dawn of civilization. We borrow from advances in racing and military technology, because those are areas where there is more money to spend on cutting edge R&D. And when a new technology becomes widespread, folks look on the old technology as gratuitous or nostalgic. And the older technologies always have their adherents, who have reasons why the new gear is unacceptable. These things aren't unique to cycling.

I know that I would object to the weight, riding posture, or styling, of the "Dutch" bike -- at least as it's promoted in the US -- but I realize that those things are all non-essential features that could be engineered away without sacrificing utility for my purposes. So I don't worry about it.