Well you and the local bike historian are going to have to have some words is all I can say. And great point that something has to already exist before it can be invented.
So going with your argument then it is recreational/sport use of the bicycle that just can't be because it is beyond the consistency in function of the original intent. As original intent defines the scope and that scope can never change. For example phones were meant for long distance communications so they can never have clocks, calenders, alarms, cameras, games and play music as that is all outside the consistency in function. Public opinion about the nature or function of nursery rhymes can never change from the original intent. Some things stick to the original intent and other things can take on a life of their own that goes far beyond what was originally intended. It all comes down current use defines what a thing does, history really does not need to enter into it, especially if it is used to counter current use/intent.
I'm sorry but my statement (in blue) and your rebuttal (in black) is the same. As to the points you added:
Bike lanes:
1) Contradicts the rules of the road
The contradiction of the bike lane continuing to the right of a right hand turn lane is no longer accepted practice. You keep making this statement yet you claim a VC can ride bike lanes without a contradiction of the rules of the road this seems contradictory to me, when I call you on this somehow "rules of the road" becomes what's in the mind of drivers which is the same as your point 2 so rather then having two objections you only have one.
2) Stigma on cyclists as being only fit for the side of the road
They also create an impression that bikes are vehicles that are fit for the road and not sidewalks and wrong way cycling. You seem to conveniently forget that sidewalk and wrong way cycling are significantly more of a safety issue for cyclists then the dreaded right hook. So without bike lanes we have the stigma on cyclists as being not being fit for the road at all.
WOL:
1) Contradicts the rules of the road
The contradiction that two vehicles can share the same lane side by side is what put right hooks up on the top ten list of cyclists problems in the first place.
2) Stigma on cyclists as being only fit for the side of the road
Few state have mandatory bike lane use laws but all states have mandatory stay to the right laws, so WOLs contribute as much to the stigma as do bike lanes. WOLs may fix some problems but they also create other problems. Proper and safe use of a WOL by a cyclist is at best undefined by the rules of the road, that has its advantages and disadvantages but it does not make it clear winner.
Hmmm, I'm thinking the same thing. You are the one with the argument that rests on static consistency in function as defined by original intent that equates to "If god wanted men to fly, he would have given him wings." if that is not unthinking prejudices I don't know what is.