I agree with all his points, other than the helmet bit (a concussion thirty years ago has shaped this view). However, I think they are irrelevant, because they ignore the obvious.

I know Litchfield, CT, well. Nobody over 16, other than cycle enthusiasts, is ever going to ride a bike there. That's because there are no traffic jams and there are parking spaces everywhere. Nobody ever circles the block for 20 minutes, looking for a space (in fact, Litchfield doesn't really have blocks.) A car is faster and more convenient in places like that. The enthusiasts (who, alone, have a motivation for riding) are all going to ride road bikes, because they want fun, speed, and exercise (nothing wrong with that.) As for the Spandex, road bikes are designed on the assumption that riders will wear cycling-specific clothing, so why shouldn't they? Nobody else uses, or ever will use, a bike in Litchfield is because cars work so well there. Today, in the DC area, I ride 100 miles per week, year-round. I doubt if I would do any significant riding in Litchfield.

As for advocacy, focus on dense cities, where driving is inefficient, and sell convenience. Ignore everything and everywhere else.