We’re talking about personal subjective measures, so there isn’t an objective “right” or “wrong” answer, but there’s a bit of a double standard to your logic. Here’s what I’m seeing from your stance:

• ICE vs EV = even though EVs better, its still a car so still not good enough so use third choice "bicycling"
• EV tire pollution vs bicycle tire pollution = bicycles produce the same type of pollution but less of it, so its good enough

It seems like your logic should follow:

• EV tire pollution vs bicycle tire pollution = bicycles produce the same type of pollution but less of it, but still not good enough so use third choice “walking”

You could argue “walking is too slow, while biking is faster and at least less destructive than worse alternatives for fast travel”. However, that would also seem to introduce “bicycling is too slow, while EV is faster and at least less destructive than worse ICE alternatives for fast travel”.

So you like bicycling, and there’s nothing wrong with that as it is purely subjective and there isn’t a wrong answer, but if you’re adhering to your logic, you should eschew bicycling for walking as its less destructive using an objective argument.