Wiggos' wife knocked off her bike.

On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 23:35:50 +0100,
(D.M. Procida) wrote:

Simon Mason wrote:

And all the fault of car drivers too. We are just the victims who suffer for
their carelessness and then get called accident prone!

No they weren't. Only two of the four cases listed were someone else's
fault.

You appear of late to be determined to equal Doug's love for wallowing
in a self-declared victim-hood, and his taste for salacious moralism
over the tragedies of other victims. It's revolting.

Daniele


It's called a wankcry - it is a well known psycholist habit.

--

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

JNugent writes:

Daniel Barlow wrote:
JNugent writes:

You lot are certainly accident-prone, aren't you?

That, ladies and gentlemen, is what is technically known as a "cheap
shot"

So is it correct, or not?

As you well know, it is impossible to answer that without reference to
per-journey statistics or per-million km statistics, which have not been
provided


-dan

"JNugent" wrote in message
...

You lot are certainly accident-prone, aren't you?

In 25 years of driving I have never injured myself or anyone else. I did
fall off my bike once however causing a grazed arm.

"Simon Mason" wrote in message
news

"JNugent" wrote in message

You lot are certainly accident-prone, aren't you?

And all the fault of car drivers too. We are just the victims who suffer
for their carelessness and then get called accident prone!

It sounds like you lot are throwing yourselves into the path of cars. How
can you be so careless?

"Daniel Barlow" wrote in message
...
JNugent writes:

You lot are certainly accident-prone, aren't you?

That, ladies and gentlemen, is what is technically known as a "cheap
shot"

It was a simple observation. A heck of a lot of cyclists in this group
claim to have been involved in cycling accidents. Strangely enough, it has
been claimed that it was nearly always someone elses' fault! I put some of
it down to careless cycling and not taking steps to minimise risk of
accident.

Daniel Barlow wrote:
JNugent writes:

Daniel Barlow wrote:
JNugent writes:

You lot are certainly accident-prone, aren't you?
That, ladies and gentlemen, is what is technically known as a "cheap
shot"
So is it correct, or not?

As you well know, it is impossible to answer that without reference to
per-journey statistics or per-million km statistics, which have not been
provided


-dan
He's certainly not responded to those who may have had personal
experience of not being knocked off their bikes once a week.

As usual, with Nugentland(tm), the real world is irrelevant, only what's
white and proper in Middle England whilst wearing English Rose coloured
spectacles.

It must be all them asylum seekers getting knocked off bikes then.

--

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

"D.M. Procida" wrote in
message
...
Simon Mason wrote:

And all the fault of car drivers too. We are just the victims who suffer
for
their carelessness and then get called accident prone!

No they weren't. Only two of the four cases listed were someone else's
fault.

You appear of late to be determined to equal Doug's love for wallowing
in a self-declared victim-hood, and his taste for salacious moralism
over the tragedies of other victims. It's revolting.

Not at all, my friend. You could not be further from the truth :-)

On my 9 mile walk along the Humber yesterday I passed an old folks' home
whose occupants will never ride a bike again. In a couple of weeks I'll be
riding up the local killer climbs with the wind in my hair once more, so I
am far from sorry for myself. My thoughts are with the 3 young
motorcyclists who were killed around here in the last week alone. I'll be
back, they are all dead.


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

"Andy Leighton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:06:12 +0100,
JNugent wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:

Hell fire - you were lucky. As for the adrenalin, I had my blood
pressure checked in the ambulance and I proudly told them that it was
usually 110/68. They said not today it isn't, it's 165/95.

"White coat syndrome"?

Obviously not - well not that much anyway. Adrenalin pushes up heart-rate
and blood pressure (systolic in particular). 165/95 is very high and I
would guess it would have been remeasured later in hospital to check to
see if it had returned to more normal values.

It was 120/78 yesterday, near normal.


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

In ,
Keitht KeithT tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

I'm so pleased my half of the drainpipe is pink.

Keeps you safe from HIM, does it ;-)

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
Me, I wanna be an anglepoise lamp, yeah!

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
Daniel Barlow wrote:
JNugent writes:

You lot are certainly accident-prone, aren't you?

That, ladies and gentlemen, is what is technically known as a "cheap
shot"

So is it correct, or not?

In my case, incorrect. One hit from a car driver in 60,000 miles cannot be
described as accident-prone.


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/