Chris Froome was back on the bike today to continue the preparations for his Tour de France title defence just 24 hours after a motorist in the south of France chased him onto a pavement and rammed him from behind in what he described as a “scary experience.”
> Chris Froome rammed “on purpose” – bike destroyed – by hit and run driver in France
Back at it pic.twitter.com/ptIRwVrbZC
— Chris Froome (@chrisfroome) May 10, 2017
The 31-year-old was unharmed in the incident yesterday, although his Pinarello Dogma bike was written off, with Team Sky flying a new one to him overnight. He also praised French police for the help they gave him yesterday.
Thank you for all the messages of support. New bike flying in tonight Back to training tomorrow
— Chris Froome (@chrisfroome) May 9, 2017
Most people replying to Froome’s tweet this morning wished him well, although as is always the case on Twitter, there were some jokers, both in a lighthearted way …
@chrisfroome Back on the horse Chris, the only way
— ed kearns (@ejkearns72) May 10, 2017
… and in a “which bit of the driver mounting the pavement did you not understand?” kind of way, while offering some no-doubt well intentioned advice to the three-time Tour de France champion.
@simonline7 @chrisfroome maybe you dont know what happend? like we all don’t
— Koen Van Belle (@boomshine7) May 10, 2017
Several people suggested that in future he mount a camera on his bike … perhaps Velon could pop one in the post to him?
12 thoughts on “Chris Froome back on the bike day after being rammed by driver”
Getting back on as soon as is
Getting back on as soon as is the only way, my mum had a spill this winter coming out of her street when she hit a patch of ice, just a bruised leg and arm (no, she doesn’t wear a H@@@@@T) and after a couple of days was back on the bike cycling to her zumba class. She was also mullered by a bread delivery van pulling out of a junction 25 years ago and she suffered neck and back injuries but still this didn’t put her off, even in her late 60s she cycles at least 3 times a week
never let the bastards grind you down otherwise they’ve ‘won’.
Chris, perhaps the driver
Chris, perhaps the driver forced you off the road because you don’t pay Road Tax!
Perhaps it is time Sky invested in helmet cams?
Presumably Sky found a very
Presumably Sky found a very large jiffy bag to put a new bike in… wonder who they sent with it though? I mean, you can’t just put things in the post you know, they’re important.
BBC still in denial about the
BBC still in denial about the problem.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39856219
Being chased onto the pavement is not a reflection on how safe or otherwise cycling on the road is.
I don’t recall an article about how safe walking on the pavement of Thames bridges is after that incident.
racyrich wrote:
I am still waiting for them to ban the obvious ISIS weapon of choice: automobiles. Paedos and head-hackers couldn’t operate without them (like iphones)…. it’s obvious they shoudl be banned.
I’m not citing the BBC as any
I’m not citing the BBC as any kind of authority on cycling before I get shot down in flames!!!
however I found it interesting the European Commission study they quote which shows the Netherlands (which is cited as a kind of cycling nirvana that campaigners are wanting to replicate here) as having 25% of road deaths as cyclists (or people who ride bikes if you wish) whereas uk is 6%. That is a massive difference
is it really that bad or am I missing something?
fretters wrote:
Run some made up numbers to try and better explain that stat. (vast oversimplification alert!)
Lets assume 1 % of all cycling miles end in a road death in the UK, which has 1 billion miles ridden per year. It will have fewer road deaths than the Netherlands which has 50 billion miles ridden per year even if the deaths per mile is 0.5 %.
In short, if something is safer but done more often it may result in a higher absolute number of accidents.
fretters wrote:
Yes: modal share.
Back of a fag packet alert:
UK 2% vs NL 27%, so proportionally NL has 13-14 times more cycling and 4 times proportion of cycling deaths.
NL not looking too bad now, is it?
fretters wrote:
I linked that document a few weeks ago on here.
Not only have the EU done this to try and point the finger at the Dutch and the Danes in terms of helmets and the EUs push for them to ‘solve’ the road safety problem, the WHO have done the same thing.
utterly disgraceful misrepresentation that borders on just simply lying to suit their agendas, it makes me want to puke frankly.
instead of wanting to actually curtail those that kill and maim they keep jabbing at those actually presenting very very little harm to others and the huge overall benefits high rates of cycling has.
The Dutch as it happens have a very high rate of over 70s and 80s riding bicycles and they have single person incidents which increases the rates quite a bit (but still isn’t that bad compared to other countries of all ages in any case)
That these oldies would likely die years before if not riding bikes regularly and be more of a burden on society is utterly lost to these groups of idiotic decision makers. in any case they could die from simple falls from walking (more likely as we know) but it’s so much easier for these fuckwits to point the finger at the Dutch and say, yeah, your cycling KSIs are shit, put helmets on when as stated above, so much more is missed out of the equation and deliberately so
Pruaga/davel
Pruaga/davel
thanks guys/girls
l Get it now. Oversimplified/back of fag packet numbers was all I needed!!!
just seemed a bit of an eye opener at first glance
If this had happed in the UK,
If this had happened in the UK, the Police would be asking for whether anyone had any dashcam or other footage to verify that he was riding on the pavement so that he could be properly fined.
Pub bike wrote:
Nah, that would involve them having to actually pull their finger out…