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

Marc wrote:
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.

Do you really have as much difficulty with English as you like to make out?

Additionally and/or alternatively, are you really so dishonest that you think
that such snipping "proves" anything other than your own inability?

A van driver (or a car driver, or a cyclist) is NOT obliged to sit passively
and supinely in a queue if they can extricate themselves from it safely and
lawfully. What they ARE obliged to do (among other things) is to keep a look
out for other traffic and give way as appropriate.

But then, I said that in the post to which you tried to respond.

And you dishonestly chose to snip it - didn't you?

Tom Crispin wrote:
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.

Luck?

JNugent wrote:
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)?


I was wrong, I admitted I wrong, the opinion of the Judge won't shut you
up , there is no reason to keep proving that I was wrong, that you won't
shut up.

JNugent wrote:
Marc wrote:
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.

Do you really have as much difficulty with English as you like to make out?

Additionally and/or alternatively, are you really so dishonest that you
think that such snipping "proves" anything other than your own inability?

A van driver (or a car driver, or a cyclist) is NOT obliged to sit
passively and supinely in a queue if they can extricate themselves from
it safely and lawfully. What they ARE obliged to do (among other things)
is to keep a look out for other traffic and give way as appropriate.

But then, I said that in the post to which you tried to respond.

And you dishonestly chose to snip it - didn't you?

No, I snipped at the point where my comment was relevant and there was
no further need of text. You might well call that "dishonestly chose to
snip" but your Humptydumpty attitude to words has been noted previously
by more than one person.

Marc wrote:
JNugent wrote:
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)?


I was wrong, I admitted I wrong,

Where?

Marc wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Marc wrote:
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.

Do you really have as much difficulty with English as you like to make
out?

Additionally and/or alternatively, are you really so dishonest that
you think that such snipping "proves" anything other than your own
inability?

A van driver (or a car driver, or a cyclist) is NOT obliged to sit
passively and supinely in a queue if they can extricate themselves
from it safely and lawfully. What they ARE obliged to do (among other
things) is to keep a look out for other traffic and give way as
appropriate.

But then, I said that in the post to which you tried to respond.

And you dishonestly chose to snip it - didn't you?

No, I snipped at the point where my comment was relevant and there was
no further need of text. You might well call that "dishonestly chose to
snip" but your Humptydumpty attitude to words has been noted previously
by more than one person.

Translation into English:

"Yes, I did".

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 19:15:07 +0100, Marc
wrote:

I wonder if that will shut up the judith thing, HumptyNugent et al?

Be honest, you don't think it will at all, do you?

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it.
- attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society

JNugent wrote:
Marc wrote:
JNugent wrote:
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)?


I was wrong, I admitted I wrong,

Where?

I was wrong when I thought the opinion of a Judge would shut you up.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 19:15:07 +0100, Marc
wrote:

I wonder if that will shut up the judith thing, HumptyNugent et al?

Be honest, you don't think it will at all, do you?



I'll be interested to see how Nugent tries to apply his " a word is
anything I mean it to be, no more no less" to the opinion of of a judge,
but I won't be bothering to feed him. I'm not bothered about the judith
thing, I never get to read it's rantings anymore.

On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 19:27:46 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
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.

Luck?

I was talking generally.