I guess it depends on the kind of bike experience you want. I see people riding extraordinarily impractical bikes every single day.
Of course that would make wooden bikes a matter of taste, and not superior by any stretch of the imagination.
Of course that would make wooden bikes a matter of taste, and not superior by any stretch of the imagination.
I think it's safe to assume each rider has a different utility function, in some cases drastically different. "Extraordinarily impractical" bikes may very well have other upsides for a particular rider that outweigh the disadvantages for them.
And some bikes are impractical in one way but extremely practical in another, like folding bikes. I have no experience with them myself, but I expect the riding experience to be mediocre. But the ability to fold them up and take them with you is fantastically useful.
I pretty much only use fixed-gear bikes for city riding, even in cities like San Francisco and Seattle with tons of hills (albeit one with handbrakes — I'm not suicidal). I like the way they look and feel, and there are other benefits (generally cheaper, easier to maintain, etc) but the main thing I like is the "impracticality". Cycling is my main form of exercise, and on any given day the bulk of my moving-around time might be biking to/from the coffee shop or my coworking space. The inefficient energy consumption and increased cardio is a feature.