Bicycles more dangerous than terrorism?

I didn't say I thought it was subjective.

Plurabelle: "Well, I suppose you could argue that criticising it for being badly-written is subjective rather than rational."

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'.

It is a demonstrable fact.

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.

It is not a category mistake, I think the overwhelming majority of people reading the article will not think someone is trying to suggest bicycles 'themselves' are somehow causing deaths - most sane people will understand the language.

The article is littered with similar elisions and sloppinesses.

Point them out, make your case.