The question is not "doesn't the alternative have the same problem in kind"? It's "does the alternative have the same problem to the same degree?" Certainly, bikes have tires too, but bikes weigh a tiny fraction of an automobile, have half the number of tires, and generate a tiny fraction of the dust, per unit distance. We can't let perfect be the enemy of significantly better.

> I don't think this can be a mainstream public transport solution if we want to move forward.

The cities of Copenhagen and Amsterdam beg to differ. Bicycles are first-class citizens there in terms of transport.

> Ebikes are unsafe, for starters.

Do you have any stats on that?