This introduces an element of temporariness into the fight between cars vs bikes parking. I think the issue needs to be dealt with at a fundamental level, do we as a country/city decide to use more bikes or cars? As far as I'm aware there has been a decisive victory by the cars in the US over the past 50 years mainly due to oil companies pushing for it and lobbying against public transportation. Using cars also pushes the boundaries of technological progress, anything that requires more technology (ie. cars more than bikes) will make the society more technological and will create more jobs in the technology sector. Even if the solution to transportation can be solved without as much tech, sometimes it may be desirable to create more tech for the sake of creating more tech and not because of necessity because there will be times when the same tech or expertise in tech can help solve an orthogonal, but existential problem. (eg. we don't need to have a space station but we do, ISS has allowed the creation of technological advances that have provided benefits to society on Earth in areas including health and medicine, transportation, public safety, consumer goods, energy and environment, information technology, and industrial productivity [0])
There is a chicken and egg situation with cycling and cycling infrastructure (as there is with any mode of transport). Any method that allows for incremental advances has got to be an improvement to the chances of increasing cycle usage.
I read a study a while back that suggested that there is a maximum of approximately 6% of any given population will use cycling as a means of transportation without cycling infrastructure isolated from automobile traffic similar to Copenhagen.
I'm hoping that the growth of things like electric scooters will drive more demand for such things.
[0] https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Benefits-Stem...