Bicycles more dangerous than terrorism?

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.

There is also my argument, which I am starting to like more and more, that his assessment of the relative risk of cycling versus taking the tube, based on deaths per billion trips, doesn't take into account deaths on the tube arising as a consequence of the 7/7 attacks, and may also be based on a massive under-estimation of the number of cycle trips actually made.