The Guardian's bike blog

...My personal view is that if a bargain price and some shiny colours tempts a non-cyclist into buying a bike, even if it turns out to be a big of a dog, more often than not this simply makes them want to go on to something better. ...

So, according to you, your personal view, it is OK to advise (or in this case, to write about) people into buying poorly manufactured bikes,
because based on your experience, eventually, if they don't get seriously hurt, people might get on to buy something better? Is this it?
This sounds tremendously irresponsible Peter, I mean, you as a journalist have a role a responsability, social, moral, ethic, whatever.
But you are also responsible for this sort of "analysis", of something you've tried for 3 min at the buildings garage, and "felt solidly put together".

If I'm allowed, and obviously comparisons aside, but it's a bit like saying: "There's not much wrong with buying these "legal highs", even if
they might kill you or leave you fried for life, cause more than likely you'll be buying coke and ketamine by the end of the month..."

Basically you're advising people to educate themselves when it comes to where to spend they're money, because they don't want to be told
where to spend it. However, you've already advise them somehow... too weird.