The comment in the article, and my replies, are explicitly about the time taken to travel 72 km. Again, that's well within the capability of an average, mildly fit human, who otherwise doesn't cycle particularly far otherwise.
Such people probably wouldn't feel comfortable doing the round trip, and would likely be more comfortable staying the night. Someone with a bit more experience of cycling, but still otherwise ordinary and average, could complete the round-trip within a day. I imagine that, during the cycling boom in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, prior to the prevalence of the car, that that would not have been an insignificant proportion of the population.
The round-trip probably not being comfortable for those not adapted to cycling in *no way* changes the fact that the original comment in the article, that just the 72 km journey alone would take all day, is not quite right. Indeed, establishing exactly how far you can go in a day without a car wasn't even the main point of my comment. Rather it was meant to be a comment on the practicality and sustainability of the car as mass personal transport in a world where we increasingly live in more densely populated urban areas. Beyond some density of ownership and use, the car ends up being *slower* than many other forms of transport.
You've managed to derail that, already some-what off-topic, point into a fairly pointless nitpickery through shifting the goal-posts of context. Well done.