Bicycles more dangerous than terrorism?

I have just read the study that the article was reporting on (it's only 16 pages), it is an entirely reasoned and balanced study, meeting all normal scientific criteria with clear explanation of methodology, figures used and references.
Whilst the methodology may be all well and good, the paper also describes a significant proportion of assumptions and unexplored alternative explanations. See in particular the penultimate and ultimate paragraphs on page 11. (There is also no mention of any peer-review of the paper, which was presented at a conference.)

To frame these findings in sweeping statements such as “But if you asked which killed more people ion [sic] the last 10 years in London, international terrorism, or bicycles, the answer would definitely be bicycles," does not necessarily discredit the research and resultant paper, but it certainly shows the newspaper article to be poorly written and worthy of criticism.
In addition, it is my personal feeling that Professor Ayton would do well to be more circumspect in his pronouncements via the mass media.