View Full Version : President Bush's bike accident

02-26-2006, 05:50 PM
This is so wacky- it was just an accident and they are making it sound malicious. Maybe it's a joke-otherwise I don't get how it's reckless to take your hand off the bar.
__________________________________________________ _____Scottish Paper Gets Report on Bush Bicycle Crash That Injured Constable

By E&P STaff

Published: February 26, 2006 6:15 PM ET

NEW YORK It may not have been as serious as Vice President Dick Cheney shooting a friend in the face, but new details that have emerged about President George W. Bush's bicycle accident in Scotland last July show that he, too, was guilty of a bit of recklessness that caused serious damage.

The Scotsman, the leading newspaper in Scotland, reported Sunday that it had obtained a police report on the early July accident when the president crashed into a Scottish police constable while cycling in the grounds of Gleneagles Hotel.

At the time, the focus of U.S. press reports was on the president's injuries--a few abrasions--while noting that that the constable had suffered a "very minor" ankle injury. The fact that Bush was wearing a helmet seemed to be the main accident detail, and that he had called the constable to check on his well-being.

According to the newspaper, however, the constable (known in the report only as "Constable X") ended up on crutches and was off work for more than three months.

Bush had jumped on his bike for an early-evening jaunt at last year's G8 summit at the Perthshire resort. He ended up in a police report described as a "moving/falling object."

The report, according to The Scotsman, decribes a detachment of constables covering a road junction where the president would pass through. The report goes on: "[At] about 1800 hours the President approached the junction at speed on the bicycle. The road was damp at the time. As the President passed the junction at speed he raised his left arm from the handlebars to wave to the police officers present while shouting 'thanks, you guys, for comin.'

"As he did this he lost control of the cycle, falling to the ground, causing both himself and his bicycle to strike [the officer] on the lower legs. [The officer] fell to the ground, striking his head. The President continued along the ground for approximately five metres, causing himself a number of abrasions. The officers... then assisted both injured parties....

"At hospital, a doctor examined the constable and diagnosed damage to his ankle ligaments and issued him with crutches. The cause was officially recorded as: 'Hit by moving/falling object'."

At the time, the newspaper noted, Bush laughed off the incident, saying he should start "acting his age".

The Scotsman observed: "Details of precisely how the crash unfolded have until now been kept under wraps for fear of embarrassing both Bush and the injured constable. But the new disclosures are certain to raise eyebrows on Washington's Capitol Hill....

"In Scotland, an accident such as the one at Gleneagles could have led to police action. Earlier this year, Strathclyde Police issued three fixed penalty notices to errant cyclists as part of a crack-down on rogue riders. Legal experts also suggested lesser mortals could have ended up with a fixed penalty fine, prosecution, or at least a good ticking-off from officers."

John Scott, a human rights lawyer, said: "There's certainly enough in this account for a charge of careless driving. Anyone else would have been warned for dangerous driving.

"I have had clients who have been charged with assaulting a police officer for less than this. The issue of how long the police officer was out of action for is also important. He was away from work for 14 weeks, and that would normally be very significant in a case like this."

An opinion piece for The Scotsman, noted, "With Vice-President Dick Cheney peppering other Texan good ole boys with buckshot, Constable X may feel he got off lightly. The message is clear: you don't mess with these neo-cons. "

02-26-2006, 07:01 PM
You're right lynn, this is just a malicious article attacking someone for their politics. I mean, who else would do th-http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/1563/drudge8yh.jpg

02-26-2006, 08:21 PM
LOL! Drudge didn't write the article. He just posted the link. How would it be that President Bush was being reckless by waving with one hand and saying hello etc.?

02-26-2006, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by Lynn7
LOL! Drudge didn't write the article. He just posted the link.

He wasn't implying that Drudge read the article or even had anything to do with the link.

02-26-2006, 09:33 PM
Ok and I'll just add that Drudge posts links for the most part. And his links can go one way or the other like in this case where the article seems to question Presidnent Bush for his recklessness.

02-26-2006, 10:36 PM
First off, whoever wrote the article was just flat out retarded, or was being unnecessarily flippant to the point of satire where it wasn't meant to be serious. (Something in the humor column)

Second, the article makes anti-Bush folks look stupid, or at least just these ones.

And his links can go one way or the other like in this case

In no way is this article looking to score on some fair and balanced points by looking at things from a non-conservative standpoint. It's putting a spotlight on people making a big issue out of nothing against Bush to show that some people will truly find anything to smudge against this President.