This sounds like dishwashers complaining about paper plates not surviving enough rinses in the sink. Of course someone whose living depends on adjusting, overhauling and replacing parts on bikes is going to claim that the central principles of what makes bikes great is their ability to be adjusted, overhauled, and have parts replaced, and of course they are going to push for all bikes to be required to be repairable. It's also worth noting that no one walks into a bike repair shop to show off the bike they purchased at walmart which doesn't need any repairs; mechanics are predisposed towards seeing the worst cases. I'm sure the mechaincs feel bikes should be made to a higher standard, but is this actually what's best for consumers?
If someone is going to be biking a lot, it makes sense to invest in a quality bike which will stand up to extensive usage and be easily repaired when something inevitably does fail. But lots of people bike only occasionally, and would rather not bike at all than pay for much more bike than they need. For these people a budget bike could be a great compromise. Paying a lower price for an inferior quality product is not some alien concept confusing the unwashed masses, it's standard practice that everyone expects. People can take their time deciding on a bicycle to purchase, and can completely walk away if they're not satisfied with any options; consumers worried about a bad deal can easily go online and look at reviews and recommendations for bikes.
While there may be some merit to requiring budget bike makers or sellers to perhaps label their products to indicate their expected lifespan and thus make it easier for consumers to make informed decisions, people should have the option to go to a convenient location and quickly buy a cheap bike if that's what they want. While I'm sure its proponents mean well, the proposed "minimum durability standard" would make cycling more inaccessible and restrict legitimate design choices.
Many of these bikes are not a great compromise at all, they are just all together bad.
A "dual suspension bikes" for $200, will be both bad on a trail, and on a road. It will have terrible rims, terrible tires, terrible everything, and will be designed to break near-immediately. All sizzle, no steak.
Walmart could have a bike for the same price with simpler, less flashy features, that was better in everyway. Except it wouldn't pretend to be a capable full squish bike.
IF walmart was to put their heft behind a rock solid single speed it would be be an exceptional win for consumers.
The thing is people are often not all that clued up on 'the tech jargon' and so would be unlikely to purchase a single speed, non-suspension plain jane bike when right next to it (for the same or similar price) is something that has (fake) suspension, shoddy gears etc but loudly proclaims 24 Speed, Comfort Suspension etc.
I mean caveat emptor but when manufacturers stoop to such deceptive practices as fake/non-functional suspension pieces then you can't always blame the purchaser*
(* not that you were btw - just a seperate train of thought).
I don't mean compromising between different use cases, I mean compromising on budget. Different people have different needs. Many people are okay with terrible rims, tires, etc, because they're not expecting to use the bike much. A bike that lasts 90 hours may sound like crap to you, but that's enough for a twenty minute round trip every weekday for a year, which for many people could be perfectly adequate.
The claim that something can be made higher quality for the same price seems highly dubious. Cheap bike makers are throwing on these flashy features instead of making something high quality because it is cheaper to do so. I'm sure walmart would love to sell a bike for the same price that more people wanted, or at least something people liked enough to repurchase. The fact is people looking for high quality bikes aren't looking at walmart, or at the very least would look at reviews prior to their purchase. Those who don't know what they are buying generally don't really care what they are buying - and there's nothing wrong with that.
If someone is going to be biking a lot, it makes sense to invest in a quality bike which will stand up to extensive usage and be easily repaired when something inevitably does fail. But lots of people bike only occasionally, and would rather not bike at all than pay for much more bike than they need. For these people a budget bike could be a great compromise. Paying a lower price for an inferior quality product is not some alien concept confusing the unwashed masses, it's standard practice that everyone expects. People can take their time deciding on a bicycle to purchase, and can completely walk away if they're not satisfied with any options; consumers worried about a bad deal can easily go online and look at reviews and recommendations for bikes.
While there may be some merit to requiring budget bike makers or sellers to perhaps label their products to indicate their expected lifespan and thus make it easier for consumers to make informed decisions, people should have the option to go to a convenient location and quickly buy a cheap bike if that's what they want. While I'm sure its proponents mean well, the proposed "minimum durability standard" would make cycling more inaccessible and restrict legitimate design choices.