Video of stupidest cyclist.

Tries to ride across tram tracks, in the wet, at a slight angle while on
a bend! Anyone that stupid should not be on the streets without a carer.

The Highway Code (optional for cyclists, apparently) even has a rule on
the exact subject (306)

Of course the whole thing may have been staged for the stationary compo
cam that just 'happened' to be there.

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.co...line-1-3145606

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:06:41 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

Tries to ride across tram tracks, in the wet, at a slight angle while on
a bend! Anyone that stupid should not be on the streets without a carer.

The Highway Code (optional for cyclists, apparently) even has a rule on
the exact subject (306)

Of course the whole thing may have been staged for the stationary compo
cam that just 'happened' to be there.

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.co...line-1-3145606

Most odd.

He wasn't wearing a helmet, yet was unhurt.

On 18/10/2013 08:06, Mrcheerful wrote:

Tries to ride across tram tracks, in the wet, at a slight angle while on
a bend! Anyone that stupid should not be on the streets without a carer.

Not "across", but "along" - That was the mistake.

The Highway Code (optional for cyclists, apparently) even has a rule on
the exact subject (306)
Of course the whole thing may have been staged for the stationary compo
cam that just 'happened' to be there.
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.co...line-1-3145606

The council could cover themselves by banning cycling along traffic
lanes containing tram tracks.

I'm sure that Edinburgh's cyclists would respect and fully observe such
an obvious safety measure, meaning that the problem could be solved
overnight without undue expense.

On 18/10/2013 08:33, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2013 08:06, Mrcheerful wrote:

Tries to ride across tram tracks, in the wet, at a slight angle while on
a bend! Anyone that stupid should not be on the streets without a carer.

Not "across", but "along" - That was the mistake.

The Highway Code (optional for cyclists, apparently) even has a rule on
the exact subject (306)
Of course the whole thing may have been staged for the stationary compo
cam that just 'happened' to be there.
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.co...line-1-3145606


The council could cover themselves by banning cycling along traffic
lanes containing tram tracks.

I'm sure that Edinburgh's cyclists would respect and fully observe such
an obvious safety measure, meaning that the problem could be solved
overnight without undue expense.

It was self inflicted. He wasn't using any common sense. If he was
paying attention properly, he would've avoided the tumble.

On Friday, 18 October 2013 08:41:51 UTC+1, Bod wrote:

It was self inflicted. He wasn't using any common sense. If he was
paying attention properly, he would've avoided the tumble.

....is the correct answer.

"Bertie Wooster" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:06:41 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

Tries to ride across tram tracks, in the wet, at a slight angle while on
a bend! Anyone that stupid should not be on the streets without a carer.

The Highway Code (optional for cyclists, apparently) even has a rule on
the exact subject (306)

Of course the whole thing may have been staged for the stationary compo
cam that just 'happened' to be there.

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.co...line-1-3145606

Most odd.

He wasn't wearing a helmet, yet was unhurt.

Lucky he didn't hit his head then.

On 18/10/2013 10:12, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Bertie Wooster" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:06:41 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

Tries to ride across tram tracks, in the wet, at a slight angle while on
a bend! Anyone that stupid should not be on the streets without a
carer.

The Highway Code (optional for cyclists, apparently) even has a rule on
the exact subject (306)

Of course the whole thing may have been staged for the stationary compo
cam that just 'happened' to be there.

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.co...line-1-3145606


Most odd.

He wasn't wearing a helmet, yet was unhurt.

Lucky he didn't hit his head then.

I'd say that 9 times out of 10, when cyclists fall off, they usually
land on their arms or shoulders, hence the (sometimes) dislocated
shoulders, but more often than not, a fall causes minor bruises and
grazes and embarassment. Head injuries are more common when using racing
bikes because they are already in a horizontal position and those silly
almost wafer thin tyres.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 18/10/2013 10:12, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Bertie Wooster" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:06:41 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

Tries to ride across tram tracks, in the wet, at a slight angle while
on
a bend! Anyone that stupid should not be on the streets without a
carer.

The Highway Code (optional for cyclists, apparently) even has a rule on
the exact subject (306)

Of course the whole thing may have been staged for the stationary compo
cam that just 'happened' to be there.

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.co...line-1-3145606


Most odd.

He wasn't wearing a helmet, yet was unhurt.

Lucky he didn't hit his head then.

I'd say that 9 times out of 10, when cyclists fall off, they usually land
on their arms or shoulders, hence the (sometimes) dislocated shoulders,
but more often than not, a fall causes minor bruises and grazes and
embarassment. Head injuries are more common when using racing bikes
because they are already in a horizontal position and those silly almost
wafer thin tyres.

When I did my motorbike training, I was "advised" not to wear a rucksack, or
at least not to carry anything harder or bulkier than clothes in one. I was
told that many crashing bikers have landed on their (solid) rucksack and
snapped their backs/necks. Don't know how true that is.

I know collar-bones are a common cycling injury. I suppose in most low-speed
cycle spills, the rider is going to just slowly fall sideways like the guy
in the video, and can roll out of it. Which is fine in a wide open space
like he was in, but once you have walls, railings, cars, lamp-posts etc.
around, you're likely to bang your head.

On 18/10/2013 11:37, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 18/10/2013 10:12, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Bertie Wooster" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:06:41 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

Tries to ride across tram tracks, in the wet, at a slight angle
while on
a bend! Anyone that stupid should not be on the streets without a
carer.

The Highway Code (optional for cyclists, apparently) even has a
rule on
the exact subject (306)

Of course the whole thing may have been staged for the stationary
compo
cam that just 'happened' to be there.

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.co...line-1-3145606



Most odd.

He wasn't wearing a helmet, yet was unhurt.

Lucky he didn't hit his head then.

I'd say that 9 times out of 10, when cyclists fall off, they usually
land on their arms or shoulders, hence the (sometimes) dislocated
shoulders, but more often than not, a fall causes minor bruises and
grazes and embarassment. Head injuries are more common when using
racing bikes because they are already in a horizontal position and
those silly almost wafer thin tyres.

When I did my motorbike training, I was "advised" not to wear a
rucksack, or at least not to carry anything harder or bulkier than
clothes in one. I was told that many crashing bikers have landed on
their (solid) rucksack and snapped their backs/necks. Don't know how
true that is.

I know collar-bones are a common cycling injury. I suppose in most
low-speed cycle spills, the rider is going to just slowly fall sideways
like the guy in the video, and can roll out of it. Which is fine in a
wide open space like he was in, but once you have walls, railings, cars,
lamp-posts etc. around, you're likely to bang your head.

Of course, but like I said, *most* falls of bikes result in very minor
injuries.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 18/10/2013 11:37, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 18/10/2013 10:12, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Bertie Wooster" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 08:06:41 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

Tries to ride across tram tracks, in the wet, at a slight angle
while on
a bend! Anyone that stupid should not be on the streets without a
carer.

The Highway Code (optional for cyclists, apparently) even has a
rule on
the exact subject (306)

Of course the whole thing may have been staged for the stationary
compo
cam that just 'happened' to be there.

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.co...line-1-3145606



Most odd.

He wasn't wearing a helmet, yet was unhurt.

Lucky he didn't hit his head then.

I'd say that 9 times out of 10, when cyclists fall off, they usually
land on their arms or shoulders, hence the (sometimes) dislocated
shoulders, but more often than not, a fall causes minor bruises and
grazes and embarassment. Head injuries are more common when using
racing bikes because they are already in a horizontal position and
those silly almost wafer thin tyres.

When I did my motorbike training, I was "advised" not to wear a
rucksack, or at least not to carry anything harder or bulkier than
clothes in one. I was told that many crashing bikers have landed on
their (solid) rucksack and snapped their backs/necks. Don't know how
true that is.

I know collar-bones are a common cycling injury. I suppose in most
low-speed cycle spills, the rider is going to just slowly fall sideways
like the guy in the video, and can roll out of it. Which is fine in a
wide open space like he was in, but once you have walls, railings, cars,
lamp-posts etc. around, you're likely to bang your head.

Of course, but like I said, *most* falls of bikes result in very minor
injuries.

So do most road traffic collisions, but we still have airbags and seatbelts.