yet another cyclist crashes into a stationary object, are they all blind? or just stupid

http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/cyclis...=news/1.145737

he puts his survival down to his helmet too!! I reckon he is just too thick
to die.

On Aug 19, 9:38*pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/cyclis...rash-i-m-lucky...

he puts his survival down to his helmet too!! *I reckon he is just too thick
to die.

The psycholists will claim that the helmet impaired his forward vision
and caused him to ride straight into the back of a stationary
tractor! Alternatively that it overheated his brain and caused a
stroke, despite all those ventilation channels!

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:38:55 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/cyclis...=news/1.145737

he puts his survival down to his helmet too!! I reckon he is just too thick
to die.



Excellent :comments - and sound advice.

The doctors have told me, there is no doubt about it, the helmet saved
my life.

All the cuts I suffered on my face and head are around the edges where
my helmet and cycling glasses sit.

The police thought they were dealing with a fatality, it was that bad.
If it wasn’t for my helmet, I wouldn’t be here.

I want to urge all cyclists, no matter if you are out on a long bike
ride or just riding to work, to wear a helmet.


--
Latest accident figures from DfT Q1 2010
Killed or Seriously Injured:

Pedestrians DOWN 8%
Car Users DOWN 8%
Motorcycle users DOWN 8%
Cyclists UP : 4%

Spot a theme?

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 14:41:45 +0100, JMS garbled:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:38:55 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/cyclis...ash-i-m-lucky-
to-be-alive-1.747987?referrerPath=news/1.145737

What a silly ****. How about looking where the hell he's going?!

--

Mike P

Mrcheerful wrote:
http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/cyclis...=news/1.145737

he puts his survival down to his helmet too!! I reckon he is just too thick
to die.


It is, of course completely unknown for a motorised vehicle to hit a
stationary object.

--
Roger Thorpe

Standing on a golf course, dressed in PVC.....

"Roger Thorpe" wrote in message
news:vyNbo.109279$y_2.46067@hurricane...
Mrcheerful wrote:
http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/cyclis...=news/1.145737

he puts his survival down to his helmet too!! I reckon he is just too
thick to die.
It is, of course completely unknown for a motorised vehicle to hit a
stationary object.

That is usually because the motorised vehicle has lost control, skidding,
locked wheels or similar, not because the driver just is not looking where
he is going, which seems to be a common problem with cyclists.

Mrcheerful wrote:
"Roger Thorpe" wrote in message
news:vyNbo.109279$y_2.46067@hurricane...
Mrcheerful wrote:
http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/cyclis...=news/1.145737

he puts his survival down to his helmet too!! I reckon he is just too
thick to die.
It is, of course completely unknown for a motorised vehicle to hit a
stationary object.

That is usually because the motorised vehicle has lost control, skidding,
locked wheels or similar, not because the driver just is not looking where
he is going, which seems to be a common problem with cyclists.


I think you mean ".......or similar, *and only sometimes* because....."

The way you write there might lead people to think that you were
claiming inattention causes this type of accident never or only rarely.
I'd hate you to look stupid.


--
Roger Thorpe

Standing on a golf course, dressed in PVC.....

"Roger Thorpe" wrote in message
news:N%Pbo.104806$ux5.69566@hurricane...
Mrcheerful wrote:
"Roger Thorpe" wrote in message
news:vyNbo.109279$y_2.46067@hurricane...
Mrcheerful wrote:
http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/cyclis...=news/1.145737

he puts his survival down to his helmet too!! I reckon he is just too
thick to die.
It is, of course completely unknown for a motorised vehicle to hit a
stationary object.

That is usually because the motorised vehicle has lost control, skidding,
locked wheels or similar, not because the driver just is not looking
where he is going, which seems to be a common problem with cyclists.
I think you mean ".......or similar, *and only sometimes* because....."

The way you write there might lead people to think that you were claiming
inattention causes this type of accident never or only rarely. I'd hate
you to look stupid.


--
Roger Thorpe

Standing on a golf course, dressed in PVC.....

If I wrote about cars crashing into stationary objects then it would be an
off topic post, which would be stupid. It was someone else (you?) that
brought an off topic subject into an on topic post. Now why would you? do
that?

Mrcheerful wrote:
"Roger Thorpe" wrote in message
news:N%Pbo.104806$ux5.69566@hurricane...
Mrcheerful wrote:
"Roger Thorpe" wrote in message
news:vyNbo.109279$y_2.46067@hurricane...
Mrcheerful wrote:
http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/cyclis...=news/1.145737

he puts his survival down to his helmet too!! I reckon he is just too
thick to die.
It is, of course completely unknown for a motorised vehicle to hit a
stationary object.
That is usually because the motorised vehicle has lost control, skidding,
locked wheels or similar, not because the driver just is not looking
where he is going, which seems to be a common problem with cyclists.
I think you mean ".......or similar, *and only sometimes* because....."

The way you write there might lead people to think that you were claiming
inattention causes this type of accident never or only rarely. I'd hate
you to look stupid.


--
Roger Thorpe

Standing on a golf course, dressed in PVC.....

If I wrote about cars crashing into stationary objects then it would be an
off topic post, which would be stupid. It was someone else (you?) that
brought an off topic subject into an on topic post. Now why would you? do
that?


To reply your question "are they all blind,or just stupid". The answer
to which, of course is that all groups of road users are open to this
kind of accident.

--
Roger Thorpe

Standing on a golf course, dressed in PVC.....