Monday 4 August 2014

A Daily Mail Study in Total Cycling Irrelevance

Brilliant from the Daily Mail. A cyclist has a collision with Billy Piper. He has a serious shoulder injury. And the Mail tells us:

"The Mail on Sunday understands that the cyclist was not wearing a helmet." 

On his shoulder, presumably? What sort of a wally doesn't wear a helmet on his shoulder? What was he thinking about? We're not informed whether Ms Piper was wearing a seat belt, or for that matter a helmet, or whether her car was fitted with air-bags. At least one of which is more relevant, as a seat belt is a legal requirement, unlike a helmet.


"the teenage cyclist who was travelling downhill at a significant speed." 

So pretty obvious who was at fault, you reckon? I wonder why the speed was significant? Perhaps it was very fast, or very slow, or 3.141592654 mph. That would be pretty significant.

Still, I hope the lad heals well, and Billy gets over her shock. And don't forget, you don't have to click on the link. I take these risks so you don't have to.


  1. Yes, it's the Daily Mail. Some poor cyclist on his own side of the road has a woman do a U-turn into his path and somehow it's his fault because he isn't famous?

  2. I thought that it was general knowledge that cyclists are fair game for motorists?

    Obviously in this case, Ms Piper came off best cocooned in the shell of her upmarket limo, while the poor cyclist only had their skin to protect them - poor show all around.

    The Sundsy Smell has got it all wrong. You don't wear helmets or high vis as a cyclist because if you do, you present an even bigger target for the motorist. :( And as for lorries turning left in front of you - why didn't the cyclist foresee that happening? Surely they're psychic if they cycle?


Drop a thoughtful pebble in the comments bowl