Bicycles more dangerous than terrorism?

I didn't say I thought it was subjective.

Ok, I'm heaving the kitten off. Just one example. Landslide, above, quotes the author's opposition of the relative threats of 'terrorism' and 'bicycles'. You respond by glossing the point as 'cycling accidents claiming more lives than terrorism'. Good for you: when you read it, you understood that the author meant, there, for bicycles to be a metonym for cycling accidents. But that isn't what he or she actually said. Bicycles don't cause death. They are not a metonym for cycling accidents – they are a metonym for cycling. It's a category mistake.

The article is littered with similar elisions and sloppinesses. Why? Either it is just bad writing, or there is some disingenuous sleight of hand going on to sensationalise or over-simplify the source material. I plumped for the former, given that I haven't read the original article.

[quote]Originally Posted by Landslide
To frame these findings in sweeping statements such as [I]“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.[/I]

 While I would agree the article is not an in depth digestion of the original paper, I would say it conveys the general theme fairly well.

The point about cycling accidents claiming more lives than terrorism is simple a fact and entirely relevant to the study.[/quote]