Bicycles more dangerous than terrorism?

"cycling has been a greater hazard than terrorism and is responsible for far more deaths."

From the author of the study.

Yes, and this is demonstrably true, no controversy there.

Charlie Lloyd's point:

"What he doesn’t say is that almost all these people were killed by motor vehicles, and that motor vehicles killed about 12 times as many ‘non cyclists’. There is no arithmetical or moral compass to his remarks."

I agree with Charlie.

This really is such a poor argument,the best anyone seems to have come up with to refute the article is the idea that the readership simply lack to intelligence to work out that 'cycling' - in the context of casualties - is widely accepted common parlance for cyclists killed (or injured) on the roads - rather than bicycles attacking people then perhaps gouging them with their handlebars before wheeling off to the secret feral bicycle hideout in some woodlands somewhere.

The study is clear - he is not talking about bicycles high on crack stabbing people but (verbatim - rather than selective paraphrasing) " . . . bicyclist road casualties . . . "

The silly hyperbolic "no arithmetical or moral compass" comment seems to be based on the "Hey, xxxx is worse than yyyy" school of reasoning. . . .

Do 'motor vehicles [kill] about 12 times as many ‘non cyclists’ [as they do cyclists] ?

Yes (I have not checked the figures but take the general point being made).

Was the study about how many non cyclists are killed by motor vehicles ?

No. It was about people's perception of risk and how this likely lead to the measured increase in bicyclist road casualties in the wake of the 7/7 terrorist attacks on London.