Maelochs

Actually this ties in well with your "lifestyle" idea ... but possibly what you want to do is not to sell people on a cycling lifestyle, but to find ways for people to add bicycles to their lifestyles ... or so it seems to me.

You cannot do this by attacking people for whom riding is a major part of their lives---"lifestyle" be damned, I don't have one. I have a life, and some of the time, I like to ride my bicycles.

if you tell people who like riding bikes that they need to compromise or are doing it wrong, or if you tell the retailers who are making their livings selling bikes to these people, that they are doing it wrong ... then all you will meet will be opposition.

You are looking to expand cycling, so be very careful not to impinge on the lives and habits of the people who have been biking happily for a long time, or making decent money selling bikes for a long time.

Particularly with bike shops: They Know they are not doing it wrong ... because they have seen the ones that Are doing it wrong, go broke.

If you want bike shops to feature more and more varied bicycles, you need to First prove that there is a customer base.

And if you (or more often, the folks who jumped into your threads) try to tell everyone that there is "One Perfect Bike" which everyone should be riding, one bike which is "Good Enough" .... the people who ride seriously (whatever that means, in each different case) will dismiss you because they Know that your proposed "One Bike" is Not good enough.

Most of us started, back as children, with some version of the "Do Everything" bike you propose, and we have advanced past that. Telling us to go back is never going to work.

Augmenting existing riding options, both via bikes and bike paths and facilities, is a positive thing. Getting non-cyclists to ride bikes (without necessarily identifying as "cyclists" and without making the sacrifices which "cycling" at a higher level demand) is a wonderful goal---Europe shows that it can work ... and that it takes a lot of work.

If you tell people you are trying to develop and market a bike for non-cyclists, and "normal-people-friendly" bike, or a "non-cyclist-friendly" bike, that would be both more accurate and easier to understand.

As I have said repeatedly, those bikes already exist, but currently don't sell. I think the approach needs to be two-pronged, and you represent both prongs: Infrastructure needs to be improved, and people need to be told that cycling is not Cycling ... it can just be using a bike to do things.

I think I am starting to understand what you have been trying to say all along.

I appreciate your patience.