I'm not a big fan of the the commuter bicycles designation. "Commuting" sets the horizon for practical cycling at getting individuals to and from work on the weekdays. If that's the most we can hope for from the bicycle, I'm not interested.
People have a lot more places to get to than work, and they need to get more than just themselves and a couple of small items there. People need to get groceries, they need to pick up things in large boxes, they need to haul around children. They need everyday transportation. And we need a more humane, sensible mode of everyday transportation than doing it in two ton vehicles that kill 1.2 million people a year.
The promise of the "mechanical horse" was that it allowed people to travel great distances who couldn't afford the purchase and upkeep of a horse. There is a popular notion that back "in the old days" everyone rode a horse, but in reality only the well-off could afford them. Most people were limited to the distances they could travel on foot. Walking is undoubtedly the most humane form of transport, but for distances too great to walk the bicycle is best. For any distance on land, the only major disadvantage of the bicycle is that the ubiquity of automobiles make bicycle riding somewhat more dangerous than riding or driving a car. But this isn't an essential feature of the bicycle. The bicycle is very, very safe. Cars are not.
When thinking about bicycles and how they can serve flourishing human life, we should always remember what the bicycle was--and is--made for. As Aristotle says, the virtue (arete, sometimes translated as "excellence") of any object has to do with the proper function of a thing. The proper function of a bicycle is transportation. Bicycles that are intended for sporting or recreational purposes should bear the burden of modifying adjectives, which is another reason we should reject the "commuting" appellation. Bicycles that perform well their proper function of transportation aren't commuting bicycles. They're just bicycles.