"Cyclists Cause Less Than 10% of Bike/Car Accidents".

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 14:48:26 +0100, Judith M Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 06:35:12 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

snip


Fortunately, I usually pass stationary vehicles on the outside.
Unfortunately, this led to my worst ever injury. A van stationary at
the red light decided to turn right to get to a newly vacant loading
bay just as I was passing. I suffered an acromioclavicular shoulder
separation.

Any particular reason why you were overtaking the other traffic
queuing at the lights rather than waiting your turn?

Because I could...

....at a certain amount of risk to yourself.

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 18:15:44 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 14:48:26 +0100, Judith M Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 06:35:12 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

snip


Fortunately, I usually pass stationary vehicles on the outside.
Unfortunately, this led to my worst ever injury. A van stationary at
the red light decided to turn right to get to a newly vacant loading
bay just as I was passing. I suffered an acromioclavicular shoulder
separation.

Any particular reason why you were overtaking the other traffic
queuing at the lights rather than waiting your turn?

Because I could...

...at a certain amount of risk to yourself.

Generally, passing slow moving or stationary traffic, which has
stopped at lights, is a safe act. A passing cyclist should not have
to expect a stationary van to pull out of the traffic queue, drive on
the wrong side of the road for some distance, and ram a cyclist which
has already passed the van which had been stationary.

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:49:01 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 14:48:26 +0100, Judith M Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 06:35:12 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

snip


Fortunately, I usually pass stationary vehicles on the outside.
Unfortunately, this led to my worst ever injury. A van stationary at
the red light decided to turn right to get to a newly vacant loading
bay just as I was passing. I suffered an acromioclavicular shoulder
separation.


Any particular reason why you were overtaking the other traffic
queuing at the lights rather than waiting your turn?

Because I could.


Ah yes - was that the same answer when I asked you why you rode
through red traffic lights?

--
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians 371
All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631
Which is more dangerous?

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 18:15:44 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 14:48:26 +0100, Judith M Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 06:35:12 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

snip


Fortunately, I usually pass stationary vehicles on the outside.
Unfortunately, this led to my worst ever injury. A van stationary at
the red light decided to turn right to get to a newly vacant loading
bay just as I was passing. I suffered an acromioclavicular shoulder
separation.
Any particular reason why you were overtaking the other traffic
queuing at the lights rather than waiting your turn?

Because I could...

...at a certain amount of risk to yourself.

Generally, passing slow moving or stationary traffic, which has
stopped at lights, is a safe act. A passing cyclist should not have
to expect a stationary van to pull out of the traffic queue, drive on
the wrong side of the road for some distance, and ram a cyclist which
has already passed the van which had been stationary.

The van driver was not obliged to stay where he was (in general terms). He
was entitled to do what he did, subject (of course) to not crossing someone
else's right of way whilst they were using the same bit of road.
Nevertheless, it is a fact that vans (particularly older designs from the
days of Purchase Tax and Special Car Tax*) are notorious for having poor
sightlines. You know that (or you should).

I would always be careful of maneouvring near a temporarily-stopped van in
another motor vehicle, because I know how easily he could miss an object even
as big as a car. How much easier it is to miss a bike.

Being in the technical right is poor compensation for injury or worse.

On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 08:58:58 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
I suffered an acromioclavicular shoulder separation.

Which is not the same as a dislocated shoulder.

Correct.

Three bones meet at the shoulder, commonly called the shoulder blade,
the collar bone and the upper arm bone. The shoulder blade and colar
bone make a socket, the upper arm bone goes into that socket. A
dislocated shoulder is where the arm bone pops out of the socket. An
AC shoulder separation is where the collar bone separates from the
shoulder blade.

As far as I know the socket remains intact, but I don't know how.

JNugent wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
Judith M Smith wrote:

Any particular reason why you were overtaking the other traffic
queuing at the lights rather than waiting your turn?

Because I could...

...at a certain amount of risk to yourself.

Generally, passing slow moving or stationary traffic, which has
stopped at lights, is a safe act. A passing cyclist should not have
to expect a stationary van to pull out of the traffic queue, drive on
the wrong side of the road for some distance, and ram a cyclist which
has already passed the van which had been stationary.

The van driver was not obliged to stay where he was (in general terms).
He was entitled to do what he did, subject (of course) to not crossing
someone else's right of way whilst they were using the same bit of road.
Nevertheless, it is a fact that vans (particularly older designs from
the days of Purchase Tax and Special Car Tax*) are notorious for having
poor sightlines. You know that (or you should).

I would always be careful of maneouvring near a temporarily-stopped van
in another motor vehicle, because I know how easily he could miss an
object even as big as a car. How much easier it is to miss a bike.

Being in the technical right is poor compensation for injury or worse.

Sorry - I meant, but forgot, to add:

[* Vans fitted with side windows rearward of the B post were subject to
Purchase Tax (later: Special Car Tax); this was a large part of the reason
for the poor sightlines of such vehicles (ie, hardly any were ever fitted
with side windows rear of the doors). The phasing-out and eventual abolition
by John Major's government of Special Car Tax allowed van design to be
improved and made safer without taxation penalties.]

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 18:53:37 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 18:15:44 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 14:48:26 +0100, Judith M Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 06:35:12 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

snip


Fortunately, I usually pass stationary vehicles on the outside.
Unfortunately, this led to my worst ever injury. A van stationary at
the red light decided to turn right to get to a newly vacant loading
bay just as I was passing. I suffered an acromioclavicular shoulder
separation.
Any particular reason why you were overtaking the other traffic
queuing at the lights rather than waiting your turn?

Because I could...

...at a certain amount of risk to yourself.

Generally, passing slow moving or stationary traffic, which has
stopped at lights, is a safe act. A passing cyclist should not have
to expect a stationary van to pull out of the traffic queue, drive on
the wrong side of the road for some distance, and ram a cyclist which
has already passed the van which had been stationary.

The van driver was not obliged to stay where he was (in general terms). He
was entitled to do what he did, subject (of course) to not crossing someone
else's right of way whilst they were using the same bit of road.
Nevertheless, it is a fact that vans (particularly older designs from the
days of Purchase Tax and Special Car Tax*) are notorious for having poor
sightlines. You know that (or you should).

I would always be careful of maneouvring near a temporarily-stopped van in
another motor vehicle, because I know how easily he could miss an object even
as big as a car. How much easier it is to miss a bike.

Being in the technical right is poor compensation for injury or worse.

You are correct. Passing vehicles with limited visibility is
inherently hazardous. I thought what I did was safe to do as I left
such a wide margin; clearly I was wrong.

I will not make the same mistake again.

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 18:15:44 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 14:48:26 +0100, Judith M Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 06:35:12 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

snip


Fortunately, I usually pass stationary vehicles on the outside.
Unfortunately, this led to my worst ever injury. A van stationary at
the red light decided to turn right to get to a newly vacant loading
bay just as I was passing. I suffered an acromioclavicular shoulder
separation.
Any particular reason why you were overtaking the other traffic
queuing at the lights rather than waiting your turn?
Because I could...
...at a certain amount of risk to yourself.

Generally, passing slow moving or stationary traffic, which has
stopped at lights, is a safe act. A passing cyclist should not have
to expect a stationary van to pull out of the traffic queue, drive on
the wrong side of the road for some distance, and ram a cyclist which
has already passed the van which had been stationary.
Which If I remember was the opinion of the Judge, wasn't it?
I wonder if that will shut up the judith thing, HumptyNugent et al?

JNugent wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 18:15:44 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 14:48:26 +0100, Judith M Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 06:35:12 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

snip


Fortunately, I usually pass stationary vehicles on the outside.
Unfortunately, this led to my worst ever injury. A van stationary at
the red light decided to turn right to get to a newly vacant loading
bay just as I was passing. I suffered an acromioclavicular shoulder
separation.
Any particular reason why you were overtaking the other traffic
queuing at the lights rather than waiting your turn?

Because I could...

...at a certain amount of risk to yourself.

Generally, passing slow moving or stationary traffic, which has
stopped at lights, is a safe act. A passing cyclist should not have
to expect a stationary van to pull out of the traffic queue, drive on
the wrong side of the road for some distance, and ram a cyclist which
has already passed the van which had been stationary.

The van driver was not obliged to stay where he was (in general terms).
It seems I was wrong, the opinion of the Judge was obviously incorrect.

Marc wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 18:15:44 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 14:48:26 +0100, Judith M Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 06:35:12 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

snip


Fortunately, I usually pass stationary vehicles on the outside.
Unfortunately, this led to my worst ever injury. A van stationary at
the red light decided to turn right to get to a newly vacant loading
bay just as I was passing. I suffered an acromioclavicular shoulder
separation.
Any particular reason why you were overtaking the other traffic
queuing at the lights rather than waiting your turn?
Because I could...
...at a certain amount of risk to yourself.

Generally, passing slow moving or stationary traffic, which has
stopped at lights, is a safe act. A passing cyclist should not have
to expect a stationary van to pull out of the traffic queue, drive on
the wrong side of the road for some distance, and ram a cyclist which
has already passed the van which had been stationary.

Which If I remember was the opinion of the Judge, wasn't it?
I wonder if that will shut up the judith thing, HumptyNugent et al?

Did you miss the bit about being in the right being scant compensation if
injured (or worse)?