[CR]accidents on roads: clarification needed on Dolly Parton implication

(Example: Framebuilders:Mario Confente)

Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 13:17:04 +0100 (CET)
From: "Nick March" <nicbordeaux@yahoo.fr>
Subject: [CR]accidents on roads: clarification needed on Dolly Parton implication
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org


Hang on, who said "riding against traffic" implied entering one way streets the wrong way, or cycling on the wrong side of the road ? That could be construed to mean "hit by oncoming traffic". Some clarification needed here methinks.

Furthermore, the most important point, and the one I'd like details on, is the 59 % which involve only the rider. If I read right, 60 % of bikes crashes are due to mechanical failure (deraileur trouble mainly I'd guess), or loss of control due to other factors which I imagine range through cornering to fast, brakeless bikes, undue use of the front brake, too much wine, overoptimism, staring at cute blondes. What part of this 60% is due to bad road surface ? How many bike crashes has Dolly Parton caused in her carreer ? Hang on, this could mean that plastic surgery breast enlargement causes anything up to 60 % of falls. When do we see road signs warning of dangerous areas in this regard ?

Regarding 3% pedestrians, I find that hard to believe, or the pedestrians where that study was done are very alert (or dispear fast). As to 3% dogs, come live in rural France. If you ride without a big stick or a gun, your probability of being bitten, block-passed or otherwise thrown from your bike by a dog is about 95 %.

Nick March, Mont de Marsan, Aquitaine, France

---------------------------------
Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail