A case of misleading marketing
Shurely this is an arguement about how the G-Wizz is marketed, not about the size of Clarkson's balls or the responsibility of Top Gear?
I cycle to work occasionally and my route takes me along a very busy main road where speed are at least 50MPH. It's terrifying - so I make myself as visible as possible and (generally) I have no problems.
However having seen the crash photos from the G-Wizz test I'm pretty convinced that I'm actually safer on my bike.
The thing looks like a (small) car, has door and lights and indicators, but clearly offers the crash protection of an mobility scooter. It is even advertised as an electric car - it only mentions 'quadricycle' once on the product page here: http://www.goingreen.co.uk/store/content/gwiz/ and even then there is no actual mention of what Quadricycle licencing actually means (essentially, if I put four wheels on my bike it would also be a quadricycle, but I wouldn't want to take it on the M4).
If I buy a car I know that it has been crash tested, has seat belts, hazard lights, meets EU and UK safety criteria and will collapse in such a way that should I crash it will minimise the forces exerted on my body in an attempt to keep me as undamaged as possible. The Prius does this, the Smart does this, the G-Wiz does not. It should not be allowed to be marketed as a car - this is the point Top Gear was making and, I feel, that it is a very valid one.
It certainly is not a petrol-head Vs Eco-Greenie arguement, it's a valid complaint that people are not being given the full facts about a product. Personally I'm a committed recycler and cyclist who happens to own a classic rally car with the carbon footprint of a small powerstation, so I'm not picking a side. I just feel the G-Wiz is pulling a bit of a fast one and the ASA/OFT should be involved.