Yes, cycling is easier on the bod than is running. Which doesn't mean that running is inherently damaging or dangerous. Cycling is classified as a "non-technical sport." That sounds a bit weird because of all the tech involved in cycling. But "technical" doesn't refer to technology, it refers to technique. It really takes no technique at all to push the pedals in a circle. Running is highly technical. If you don't do it right, you can get injured.
I've had to quit riding for a month to heal a saddle sore, so I've gone back to running at 76. I used to run a lot as a young man, nothing more than 10k, and mostly to support my XC ski habit, but I loved doing it. I was a forefoot striker, partly by inclination, but mostly because of what was available then in a light running shoe. I used to trail run in indoor track shoes. Eventually, meaning at about 22, I injured my feet doing that and gave it up for a few decades. I'm a heel-midfoot striker now, running 2.6 miles almost every day. My legs hurt like the devil for the few few days but are fine now. Cycling is so easy by comparison.
Very large long-term studies of runners vs. non-runners have found that runners have no more knee issues than non-runners, sort of the use it or lose it thing, which of course doesn't mean that runners have no knee issues!
Yesterday, I was talking with a female cyclist of about 65 who's having real knee troubles simply because she doesn't get enough range of motion or strength work on the bike. As we get older, we have to stretch and do range of motion and strength work regularly. Starting to do that work after never having done it until one is old is a long, tortuous process. It helps that I've been a gym member since '79 and got back in the gym as soon as the Covid restrictions permitted.
__________________
Results matter