My issue is the fuzzy math, the fuzzy logic, and the bold but unsupported conclusion.

I see this a Lot in my job. "Scientists" often funded by trade groups) do studies, and then extrapolate wholly ridiculous claims .... they write good headlines to sell the research (or to make the research popular, not to actually sell it for money.) Then a lot of media hacks who need to post a certain number of words daily suck up the press package, change six or eight words, and regurgitate the press release without even looking at the actual research. This creates the media buzz the people who funded the study were looking for. This gets the scientists better access to future funding and creates false "scientific facts" which people with zero understanding of science then quote all day long as if they were true.

What harms the conclusion is the number of rides, the population, the lights, the bike infrastructure, and every other thing which would have a bearing on the conclusion. A good scientist doesn't ignore inconvenient facts, he goes out of his way to include them, mention them, even if ----Especially if---those facts might affect the accuracy of the conclusion.

What we have nowadays is mostly popularized pseudo-science journalism ---in effect science fiction---as a new job category. This is an excellent example.