Comment & Analysis: Why every American family should have an e-bike at home was the title of an article published last week by electric vehicle website Electrek.co, but even with a clear disclaimer, everybody and their mother felt like piping in to add their own extra disclaimers.The article has two clear disclaimers: Sure, not every person and not every trip. Maybe not even as a complete replacement for cars. But as a standard household tool? Absolutely! was included at the start of the article, and soon after a second disclaimer: An e-bike wont replace every car trip. Nobody is pretending otherwise. But it can replace a shocking number of them.But even with those disclaimers, some people couldnt help themselves.The excuses rolled in: What about investing in public transport? What about people who live in apartments? What about disabled people? Few these were posed as actual questions; they were more statements. And no, it was not just where people can only see the headline. On Bluesky, even when the disclaimer Sure, not every person and not every trip was the central part of the post, there were people posting about how it wouldnt suit them because they live up a mountain, and others questioning how disabled people who dont have the use of their arms or legs wouldnt survive if you got rid of other forms of transport (Im not joking here and nor was the poster).Of course, nobody suggested that we get rid of all other forms of transport, and the reality is that a wider range of disabled people can cycle than can those who can drive. And thats true even if some cannot cycle and some cannot, some can drive and some cannot, some can do both, and some can do neither.The idea of investing in public transport first seems to attract many well-meaning people, but in most towns and cities, public transport on its own is no more of a solution than cycling on its own. Others said they support cycling, but the infrastructure needs to come first. I get this. I avoid heavily recommending cycling to people in places where the infrastructure is poor, but theres no city which just got all its cycling infrastructure all at once. Its a process, and part of it is more and more people cycling while infrastructure is ramped up. If there isnt some level of use on a growing network, the case for continuing to build is weakened. Getting cycling before the experience on our streets is like Utrecht will suit some people and not others.One comment replying to the article with a photo of more than one child on a bicycle said:And where pray tell are people in apartments supposed to store these? How does one use them for grocery shopping without an attached cart (and where does one store that)? Transporting more than one child?This is not realistic for nearly as many families as white suburban people think they are.Responding to this comment, Doug Gordon, co-host of the War on Cars podcast, said: This person is responding to a post about using e-bikes that includes the qualifier, Sure, not every person and not every trip. There is no amount of carving out exceptions that matters. Theres something about bike discourse that makes a lot of people lose all ability to reason or process nuance.He added: Thats why we push back a little when people say The War on Cars is too aggressive a title or pushes folks away. Had we named the show The Look We Understand That Most People Need Cars but Wouldnt It Be Nice to Change Things Just a Little Podcast wed have received just as much pushback.And this is the thing: nearly any time cycling is suggested, theres somebody who reacts with exceptionalism. Basically: Thats fine for the Dutch, but its not for us, or something like that.Tom Flood, the bicycle advocacy worlds unofficial marketing and advertising manager, regularly re-posts his posters, such as the car-to-cargo bike poster (see below). Today, he jokingly added the following disclaimer *disclaimer, the cargo bike is meant to replace every trip for every person in every situation, in every place for all of time.He might as well be saying unironically, because theres a cluster of people who go around acting as if someone is suggesting that everybody can or will cycle. Some of them really sound as if they think somebody is going to force them to cycle.I recall a comment a few months ago mentioning how cycling was being shoved down peoples throats. And this was just in response to a council (a municipality) posting about cycling on Facebook, as if they couldnt just keep scrolling.Meanwhile, car companies advertise their products to everyone without disclaimers, and their messaging is often saturated across radio, TV, online and billboards.Most of the people who shout about bicycles not suiting disabled people dont seem to mind that theres a range of people who cannot drive, from the young to the old to people with different abilities.Car advertising is not just really pushed on us a lot of it is pure fantasy, such as cars drifting through city streets that are congested at the best of times. Yet these advertisements are rarely questioned by the broad group of people who dissect any article or social media post advocating for cycling.