You can tie bike infrastructure to both of those issues. Cars have less visibility than bikes. More cyclists on the street mean more eyes on the street, which tends to mean less crime. People in cars can't just stop and ask someone who's doing something shady, "hey, what's up?" This means they're either going to call the police (which could result in a lot of wasted officer time) or they're going to ignore it. Cycling infrastructure is a far better investment than police since it's preventative rather than reactive. (I have my critiques of this argument, but it's supposed to be convincing for people who care about crime so..)

Bike infrastructure also helps treat poverty. Cars are expensive. Bikes are a cheaper and more reliable than the cars you can afford when you're poor. They also tend to be more reliable than mass transit. Reliable bike infrastructure can make it possible for people in poverty to get to work without being dragged down by the burden of car ownership and maintenance. Bike infrastructure can help people get out of poverty.

People who are trapped in poverty are more likely to commit crime, and those who have the hope of upward mobility are less likely to do so. So bike infrastructure serves double duty in reducing crime.

By abolishing free parking, we can turn an expense in to income. We can use that income to build a well connected bike network, and that bike network can help lift people out of poverty.

Neighborhoods with bike infrastructure have higher property values. As we build bike infrastructure, we lift people out of poverty and increase the properly values. This increases tax revenue, allowing us to build more bike infrastructure. Conversely, car infrastructure decreases density, driving down property values and starving the city of money.

Etc... if you keep saying it for long enough, and keep getting more people involved to say it again, eventually they'll get it.