Well probably because whatever they were using to pull the data is wrong or their analysis is wrong.

Let’s just look at Webster City. I lived in Iowa for the better part of 10 years and had to look it up. It has 7,756 people in it. I’m going out on a limb and saying it’s not a big a cycling hot bed...

Putting that on the same list as LA is assanine and makes me disregard the whole ranking.

Edit: Also to add I went to the page where the “study” had the informations. They made up what each metric counts for they also only used like 790 cities. There are over 3000 cities that are over 10k people. So why did they randomly select 790 and then also include one that isn’t even a city and barely a town?

I have to laugh...as a kid we drove across Iowa a few times each year to visit Grandma and the running joke was that Webster City has the worst drivers in the world...every time we passed through that tiny town something would happen to demonstrate this fact.

The methodology is obviously lacking. Since they only ranked 790 cities, I'm surprised Webster City even makes the list. Number of cars and number of bikes per mile of road seem to make the biggest differences to me.