Sorry, but you seem to have missed this part (though it's even bolded): "one small seed of truth. Indeed, the life of a road is determined by what runs on it. Why do you think we have roads built by the Romans thousands of years ago and lasted that long? Carts, horses, and humans were a lot lighter. The heavier the vehicle, the more often the road deteriorates and needs maintained or entirely rebuilt. This aspect is true. Bikes are infinitely lighter, their tires are barely a few cm wide, roads would last infinitely longer."

I knew from the get-go that this article would piss off cyclists, that's partly the reason for writing it in the first place. Cyclists have this tendency to be utterly unable to see beyond the saddle, and that is the whole point of the article. Any climate solution we propose, we must be objective about it. We must not fall into the same trap as we did when ICE vehicles were presented as the the magic wand to everything from poverty to independence.

The point is, no-one needs to stay at home, but nor are bicycles a very good solution to the climate crisis. Either way, my article is proving the point. Very little to no objectivity among cyclists, and that worries me, because the the crisis we're facing needs objective minds to be avoided or at the very least, managed.