I love how people on this thread wonder if he walked away from the accident unharmed when the linked story says in the first paragraph:

"Top Gear presenter Richard Hammond crashed his treasured £110,000 supercar yesterday - but this time walked away unscathed."

Too much work following a link I guess, better leave a comment about the author of the post. Great work Brits...

I know it will be mentioned... by acquiring them of course I mean your companies, specifically some of your key marquees:

Jaguar - Ford (now Tata)
Aston Martin - Ford (now Tata)
Land Rover - Ford (etc.)
Vauxhall - GM (now Magna)
GMM Louton - GM
Bentley - Not us but the Germans - VW
Lotus - hmm GM owned them for a while too... Japanese engines... good choice.
Mini - Geez BMW...

There is Morgan, a fine car... with a BMW engine... you aren't really known for your engines or making complete cars really come to think of it...

Typical Brits. They enjoy taking pot shots at Americans on the Daily Telegraph talking about our "shite cars" forgetting that it took an American company to acquire them and teach them how to produce quality.

Pop on over to our sites for a read and can't take a joke. Then they go on about our economy but fail to note that we are bailing out their banks.

There is love here in the States for Hamster but not much for the rest of you lot.

pennyfarthings?? Atleast we are a free country. Well done Hammond ridding the world of the plight of nissan cars!

Re: the comments saying that people who dislike the tone of the topic should get a sense of humour.

If these type of comments were been made on a scripted TV show (just like they are on Top Gear), then that might very well be true.
But in the context they are written here, they aren't important or vital to the story.

This is been presented as an account of a real event, and therefore such (frankly rather easy) jokes are not required.

What's also required in an account of a real event are real facts, however less interesting they may be than a different take on events that someone else has come up with.
He was not just dangerously shooting round a roundabout when it happened, he was in fact driving along behind another car that stopped very suddenly, and him quickly putting on his brakes in turn caused the one car that was behind him to hit him (this in itself is pretty comon). So all the article would appear to be is a story trimmed of it's facts in favour of exagerations, to make it more interesting than it would be otherwise and to play on previous events to make the guy in question seem reckless.

I'm not saying that as a result I think you couldn't care less about his welfare or that you're laughing at the chance of him been hurt-I don't think that at all.

Just that the post doesn't reflect what really happened. (Also, people will be glad to know that he was indeed not hurt, because-just as we over here all know-the accident was not a serious one). :)

Grow a sense of humour, people. Eeef.

How the hell did all 3 of you miss the jokes?
He's teasing, the way the top gear presenters do.
None of it was hurtful.

I hope hamster isn't hurt...and that it was caught on film.

"...whatever backward play money they use over there..."

This is a new low, even for TVSquad. John Lewinski, go back to your cave.

I'm going to ignore the snotty crap tone of this post. Less said about it the better.

I sincerely hope Hammond wasn't injured. He's certainly had more than his share.

Was he injured?
Or were you too busy Brit bashing to find out or care?
What a juvenile, xenophobic, mis-informed P.O.S. post.
Considering Top Gear has upwards of 150 million viewers, I would thing you would show a little respect, especially since this post will be seen by, what, 50 people?
Respectfully sir, you suck.