Bicycles more dangerous than terrorism?

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

It is a demonstrable fact.

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.

Point them out, make your case.

Oh God, the multi-quote.

RE subjectivity: yes, well, quite. Just what I said. You could argue it. And I wouldn't agree with you.

I pointed out one. That's enough :-) Good writing should be clear, concise, and accurate. It is indeed a mistake because it is inaccurate – he doesn't mean 'bicycles'. The sentence therefore requires the reader to have some mental agility to sort out what he means as opposed to what he says. You can have recourse to the 'most sane people would understand' defense if you please, although it seems like a bit of a guess – how do you know? What is 'sanity', for the purpose of this discussion? What locks did you use and how did you lock it? Should writing not cater from a range of comprehension levels? & tedious cetera – but it hardly makes the case for the writing doing what it is supposed to do: communicate simple information.

Do you honestly think the writing's good? If you don't, why is it not valid for people to point out that it might be a wee bit lacking?