First point is both true and false, some roads are wide enough to cater for a cyclist and for motor vehicles to overtake whilst some are not, those that are not I concede that they could increase congestion and therefore emissions.
Second point is both true and false due to the first point.
Your last point in brackets is a diversion tactic as motorway congestion with large tailbacks is start stop traffic, even if there are no problems the contstant compression and decompression of traffic which is a common occurrence on motorways causes motor traffic to constantly accelerate and decelerate which increase emissions and no cyclists are the cause of that. It is very rare congested traffic drives at constant speed.
Looking at my previous post above where 66% of car journeys are less than 5 miles and 19% of car journeys is less than 1 mile and in fact 40% of car journeys are less than 2 miles where the catalytic converters aren’t warmed up enough so causes further emissions, it’s pretty plain to see where most of the the unnecessary emissions and congestion is caused. It is a genuine public health issue both in air quality and obesity.
The difference between the emissions caused by cyclists due to congestion and the congestion caused by other motor vehicles is not even comparable considering bicycle journeys make up 2% of all journeys. So while I concede that cycling does cause an increase in emissions, I still say you are clutching at straws making the point as the main cause of emissions is other motor vehicles usually caused by vehicles that don’t even need to be used in the first place and could have easily been walked. You can see clearly the difference when the schools are on holiday as the roads are far more free moving.
