All the blah blah blah about how cycling is so hard, not for the weak, etc. is comical. I think we protest too much on that. The macho he-man stuff is both a turn-off to newcomers and mostly inaccurate. After all, once you develop some pack skills, you can just sit in a group in a crit even if your fitness is total crap. It doesn't need to be hard. Sure, actually winning is hard, but hanging out in a race? Not really. Running, you get to turn yourself inside out whether you're at the front of the race or the back. Besides, getting swag is nice. Geez, who gives a frak.
The pointy-nippled crewcut crowd gets all lathered up about how this mollycoddling is ruining America, but you know what? People actually show up to running races. By the thousands. Likewise, gravel races, gran fondos and centuries (albeit in somewhat smaller numbers, but huge compared to road racing). Having a bunch of uncompetitive participants there to effectively subsidize the people who are actually racing is frickin' genius. I'm not saying USAC should go that route with road racing, but they're not idiots. The benefits of that set up are obvious. There's a reason they're eyeing fondos and gravel events.
The other reason running events are so popular with the un or non-competitive, by the way, is pretty much built in: the equipment requirements are basically zero. With road racing, you don't need a great bike, but even if you have one hanging in a garage, there are pretty good odds it's not a road bike. There's a reason lots of people dipping their toes into personal fitness for the first time since childhood often go to running first, and once you're running, a 5k isn't much of a leap. These advantages are basically fixed. Not much we can do about it. This idea that it's because cyclists are these magnificent specimens of human toughness and perseverance is deeply silly, self-serving and is exactly what people mean when they say we take ourselves too seriously.