In my week in Manhatten last month I saw several crashes (including a near miss with a sit-down scooter riding in the bike lane who had to bail and slide before nearly crashing into a crowd of pedestrians), pedestrians jumping out of the way of bikes who don't stop at red lights, and bikes swerving around car traffic barely getting by without taking out car mirrors or getting run over.
Biking in Manhatten is not for the faint of heart and not for anyone who isn't decently athletic.
You could have lauded the subway system, but you chose bikes?
Regardless, are you really saying that "bikes are simply better at point-to-point transportation" for most people in Manhatten? Because that's absurd.
And yes, I would say it's best for most people in Manhattan. It would be even better if we build more bike lanes and get more cars off the road.
Compared to the NYC subway it was faster, more consistent, and less prone to delays.
Compared to biking in the suburbs the car traffic typically moved more slowly, I didn't have as many close passes, and drivers seemed more aware of their surroundings. In the suburbs the majority of the people I see biking are middle-aged men in lycra, whereas in the city it seemed more like a demographic cross section.
I also saw other cyclists cross on red lights, knock into pedestrians, and swerve erratically in traffic, though I also saw drivers, moped riders, and pedestrians do the same at roughly the same rate so I always assumed it was a crazy New Yorker thing and not a crazy biker thing.
Bikes are simply better at point-to-point transportation (the same advantage that cars have), except that they don't take up a lot of space so it's actually a scalable solution to have everyone using them to get around even in a dense city; see Amsterdam as an example.