Bicycling is usually advocated as a low-carbon and health-supporting means of transport, yet in many low- and middle-income cities it is also a work resource for cyclists suffering from low income, risky traffic environment and poor institutional protection. This paper asks what minimum support conditions need to be in place to retain existing cyclists in Delhi, Dhaka and Accra where comparable evidence is available only in aggregate form on income, cost of a bike, time spent cycling, occupational cycling, public-transport availability, modal share and exposure to PM\(_{2.5}\); Chennai is included in this study as a comparison city due to incomplete comparable intercept and occupational information. The data come from Kannan et al.’s four-city bicycling evidence that includes 171 intercepts from Delhi, 50 intercepts from Dhaka and 238 intercepts from Accra, along with rider monthly household income of US$216.2, US$291.8 and US$82.9, respectively [1]. By not adding any further variables in the form of the established Minimum Support Envelope (MSE), Retention-Fragility Gradient (RFG) and Envelope-Sequencing Test (EST), affordability, exposure, occupational reliance and urban friction are identified as the retention conditions. Cost of a new bicycle makes up 93.2% of monthly household income in Accra, 39.9% in Dhaka and 27.0% in Delhi, whereas second-hand bicycles cost 52.6%, 13.6% and 9.1%, correspondingly. Weekly cycling exposure reaches 9.4 hours during six days in Delhi and 204 minutes of strain relief is required to provide for six-hour protection threshold. Work anchoring in Dhaka is the most developed, with 84% cyclists commuting as part of their job and 57% undertaking multi-stop cycling trips. MSE and RFG values are largest in Accra, yet each city needs different policy sequence: Accra requires budget stabilization, Delhi requires exposure compression and Dhaka requires livelihood-continuity protection. This paper concludes that LMIC cycling policy should prioritize protection of already-cycling riders via affordability, repairability, security of parking, better crossing safety, shady spots, stopping rights and continuity of work routing before considering lane availability as evidence of support.