Really? You actually can read their personal thoughts and proclaim you know exactly what they felt, whenever they felt it?
Do you comprehend my point?
Yes, very clearly.
You stated they didn't have an issue with commuting.
You stated they didn't have any alternative except to commute.
You stated they changed and now had a problem with commuting.
No, they didn't change. They now have an alternative. They always had an issue.
You posit that "If they had an issue, they'd complain. They didn't complain so therefore they didn't have an issue."
This fallacy of Denying the Antecedent (If P, then Q. Not P. Therefore, not Q) falsely states that having an issue requires complaining. At the same time you cite a lack of alternatives. Such a lack of alternatives would certainly preclude complaining.
The marketplace is littered with companies that went out of business and products that were discarded once people found an alternative. Very often, some bewildered corporate executive stands there saying, "Marketing insisted customers loved the product. We never heard any negative comments about them."
People never complained about traveling by foot until they traveled by horses.
People never complained about traveling by horse until they traveled by car.
...printed text...
...washing clothes by hand...
...using an icebox...
...wearing glasses...
...reading by gas lamp
...using a computer...
etc. etc. etc