Concerned people have collectively been banging the ride-more-bicycles drum for decades. It hasn't worked. It doesn't even matter why, it's obvious at this point that commuters at large won't use them given a powered alternative. Why keep butting our head against that wall instead of supporting something people will actually use?
(I commuted via bike for years and as fun as it is it's beyond impractical. Parking, heat, rain, hills etc etc.)
The data I see says bike commuting nationwide grew 43% from 2000 to 2017, despite a dip leading into 2017. It's not just about powered alternatives, but spaces to do it. If you build a road for a powered vehicle and make the barest accommodations for everything else, of course powered vehicles will dominate. People take public transit more when you build more. They bike more when you build protected lanes. It's not about saying people should do these things, but rather saying that cities should better build for them.
The majority of people will indeed prefer powered bicycle and scooters if available. There are some countries and cities where there many people using bikes for their daily commute. The scooters are too small and underpowered for riding on the streets, and at the same time using them on the sidewalk can be dangerous for pedestrians, so I am not sure where they fit in the transportation picture.
The hundreds of thousands of people using them (who would never regularly use a bike) seem to disagree that they don't fit in the picture. Why go against a solution that takes cars off the road? Sure let's get scooters off the sidewalks, that's insane. Over here in Lisbon there are plenty of people riding them on streets and (previously deserted) bike lanes.
(I commuted via bike for years and as fun as it is it's beyond impractical. Parking, heat, rain, hills etc etc.)