|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
On Oct 31, 11:30*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:
DirtRoadie wrote: On Oct 30, 7:18*pm, RicodJour wrote: On Oct 30, 8:28*pm, Anton Berlin wrote: In the better med schools they teach this method of creating patients. http://velonews.com/article/99513 http://velonews.com/article/99685/la...osing-argument.... I hope the good doctor gets his asshole reamed in prison on a daily basis. It's hard to know exactly how accurate, complete and/or biased the reporting is, but from what I've read, I hope the jury gets the same impression that I have and the dear doctor hangs. I've been in a situation where an angry driver pulled in front of a paceline and hit the brakes. We had no serious consequences but it quickly became apparent how that act simple act is anything but innocent and could easily end up being deadly. DR The cyclists deserved what they got. First of all, how come they couldn't stop their bikes in time? *A bike can stop faster than a car. Second, when a car is behind you trying to get around you, you don't ride 2-abreast and hold up the car....and then flip the driver off when he passes you. If you're driving a car and you hit the rear of someone's car, it's your fault. *I don't see why riding a bike makes it any different. Trollboy, I know you're just looking for love and attention, but don't be ridiculous. There's a presumption, when driving or cycling on the road, that other people aren't going to deliberately try to cause an accident or hurt you. This presumption is the only thing that makes roads usable for either cars or bikes. "Defensive driving" means watching out for other people's screw-ups, not defending yourself against someone who tries to cause accidents, because there really is very little you can do about that. In particular, because everyone including drivers follows at closer than the real safe stopping distance, it is possible to cut someone off. The presumption that the driver who rear-ends someone is at fault goes out the window (or through the window, in this case) when the leading driver deliberately tries to cause the accident. In your crusade against idiots, you should be against Dr. Thompson. Why? He confessed to the crime. If he had told the traffic investigator he'd done nothing wrong, rather than bragging about teaching them a lesson, he might have got away with it. Ben |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
DirtRoadie wrote:
On Oct 31, 12:30*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote: If you're driving a car and you hit the rear of someone's car, it's your fault. *I don't see why riding a bike makes it any different. I'll have to remember that. So that I can pull in front of somebody, slam on my brakes and then collect big bucks from their insurance company when they hit me. I'll tell them its the "Magilla Rule." No exceptions, and recognized in most jurisdictions right? C'mon, your trolling skills are weak if not non-existent. Let's see what the jury says. DR The cyclists should have followed at a safe distance and maintained control of their bicycles. They did neither. They also should have expected the driver would stop after flipping him off and calling him names simply because he wanted to pass them. That fella who has the dead nose.....that's his fault. He wanted to start a fight and that's exactly what happened. I bet you he won't be obstructing traffic, flipping off drivers, and saying "**** you" anymore. Magilla |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
On Oct 31, 3:08*pm, "
wrote: *He confessed to the crime. If he had told the traffic investigator he'd done nothing wrong, rather than bragging about teaching them a lesson, he might have got away with it. Well we don't actually know yet whether he will get away with it. Let's hope the jury has at least a bit of common sense. DR |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
MagillaGorilla wrote:
Yes, I agree that a bike is stable. No, they behave unpredictably in velodrome corners. Bob Schwartz |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
" wrote:
On Oct 31, 11:30*am, MagillaGorilla wrote: DirtRoadie wrote: On Oct 30, 7:18*pm, RicodJour wrote: On Oct 30, 8:28*pm, Anton Berlin wrote: In the better med schools they teach this method of creating patients. http://velonews.com/article/99513 http://velonews.com/article/99685/la...osing-argument... I hope the good doctor gets his asshole reamed in prison on a daily basis. It's hard to know exactly how accurate, complete and/or biased the reporting is, but from what I've read, I hope the jury gets the same impression that I have and the dear doctor hangs. I've been in a situation where an angry driver pulled in front of a paceline and hit the brakes. We had no serious consequences but it quickly became apparent how that act simple act is anything but innocent and could easily end up being deadly. DR The cyclists deserved what they got. First of all, how come they couldn't stop their bikes in time? *A bike can stop faster than a car. Second, when a car is behind you trying to get around you, you don't ride 2-abreast and hold up the car....and then flip the driver off when he passes you. If you're driving a car and you hit the rear of someone's car, it's your fault. *I don't see why riding a bike makes it any different. Trollboy, I know you're just looking for love and attention, but don't be ridiculous. There's a presumption, when driving or cycling on the road, that other people aren't going to deliberately try to cause an accident or hurt you. I agree, but not after blocking, and then antagonizing with profanity and gestures. At that point, you're provoking a reaction. You're looking for a fight. And they found one. And they lost. In this case, the one guy lost his nose. This presumption is the only thing that makes roads usable for either cars or bikes. "Defensive driving" means watching out for other people's screw-ups, not defending yourself against someone who tries to cause accidents, because there really is very little you can do about that. The cyclists intentionally blocked this guy by riding 2-abreast, by going slow (30 mph downhill is slow for a car). And then when this guy simply wanted to pass, they flipped him off and used the F-word. The doctor got ****ed and jammed on his brakes. He probably thought he would cause them to brake hard and lose their momentum. It's very unlikely he expected them to go through his rear window given that it never happened before. If you blocked me, flipped me off, and then gave em the finger, I'd do the same thing. You SoCal guys got a beat down that day. It was long overdue. In particular, because everyone including drivers follows at closer than the real safe stopping distance, it is possible to cut someone off. The presumption that the driver who rear-ends someone is at fault goes out the window (or through the window, in this case) when the leading driver deliberately tries to cause the accident. In your crusade against idiots, you should be against Dr. Thompson. Why? He confessed to the crime. If he had told the traffic investigator he'd done nothing wrong, rather than bragging about teaching them a lesson, he might have got away with it. Ben I am entitled to not believe the testimony of the investigator. I have a right to believe that Dr. Thompson didn't say that. You have no right to tell me that I must believe the investigator. Most cops are corrupt and have no credibility anyway, especially Calif. cops. Also, most cyclists are known liars such as Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton. I would ask these SoCal cyclists if they donated to the Fraud Fairness Fund to see if they had any credibility. I bet you they did. I would also like to start a defense fund for Dr. Thompson called the Doctor Fairness Fund. Thanks, Magilla |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
Bob Schwartz wrote:
MagillaGorilla wrote: Yes, I agree that a bike is stable. No, they behave unpredictably in velodrome corners. Bob Schwartz I'm gonna clean everyone's clock in here in this thread, just like I did in the van Impe thread and others. I'm the only chimp in here capable of taking on you riff-raff cyclists. I got the guts to do it. I don't even want any supporters or help. I'm like Prefontaine...a front runner. I don't take my cue from any of you slackers. I run my own race. Everyone else in here is a pussy...a bunch of lemmings who seek safety in numbers. Not this grape ape, Premagilla |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
"DirtRoadie" wrote in message
... On Oct 31, 12:30 pm, MagillaGorilla wrote: If you're driving a car and you hit the rear of someone's car, it's your fault. I don't see why riding a bike makes it any different. I'll have to remember that. So that I can pull in front of somebody, slam on my brakes and then collect big bucks from their insurance company when they hit me. I'll tell them its the "Magilla Rule." No exceptions, and recognized in most jurisdictions right? C'mon, your trolling skills are weak if not non-existent. Let's see what the jury says. What's strange is that originally I'd understood the Chimp to be educated. But the guy writing this stuff doesn't appear to have even high school driving class nor high school physics. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
" wrote in message
... In particular, because everyone including drivers follows at closer than the real safe stopping distance, it is possible to cut someone off. The presumption that the driver who rear-ends someone is at fault goes out the window (or through the window, in this case) when the leading driver deliberately tries to cause the accident. Hmm, consider this - when a vehicle PASSES he is required to pull back in at a safe distance. It would also be assumed that a car would be significantly faster than a line of bicyclists. So Mongozilla or whatever his name is doesn't seem to have noticed that the good doctor in his car assaulted the line of cyclists with a deadly weapon. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
On Oct 31, 1:30*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
DirtRoadie wrote: On Oct 30, 7:18*pm, RicodJour wrote: On Oct 30, 8:28*pm, Anton Berlin wrote: In the better med schools they teach this method of creating patients. http://velonews.com/article/99513 http://velonews.com/article/99685/la...osing-argument.... I hope the good doctor gets his asshole reamed in prison on a daily basis. It's hard to know exactly how accurate, complete and/or biased the reporting is, but from what I've read, I hope the jury gets the same impression that I have and the dear doctor hangs. I've been in a situation where an angry driver pulled in front of a paceline and hit the brakes. We had no serious consequences but it quickly became apparent how that act simple act is anything but innocent and could easily end up being deadly. DR The cyclists deserved what they got. First of all, how come they couldn't stop their bikes in time? *A bike can stop faster than a car. Second, when a car is behind you trying to get around you, you don't ride 2-abreast and hold up the car....and then flip the driver off when he passes you. If you're driving a car and you hit the rear of someone's car, it's your fault. *I don't see why riding a bike makes it any different. Thanks, Magilla- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Maggie is trying to incite the natives. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Thompson I presume
Tom Kunich wrote:
"Paul B. Anders" wrote in message ... On Oct 31, 11:30 am, MagillaGorilla wrote: First of all, how come they couldn't stop their bikes in time? A bike can stop faster than a car. Wrong. He demonstrates an almost complete lack of knowledge of the stopping power of a bike. And for those others who aren't aware and don't want to look like the fool that MG is - a bicycle can stop roughly half as fast as an automobile because if you stop faster than about a half gee you roll over the front wheel. A bicycle's center of gravity is too high for rapid stops. I might also add that the amount of rubber making contact with the road on a bicycle is miniscule compared to a car, that's where all the stopping power is. Friction is dependent on the size of the contact patch. On the other hand, I've never rear ended a car. That's an interesting enough trick that I wouldn't draw any conclusions based upon the limited information I've seen so far. Emotionally, I'd like to see them lock the driver up and throw away the key. That's not necessarily justice, however. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WTB: Thompson 25.0 seatpost | antony galvan | Marketplace | 1 | September 20th 06 02:17 PM |
Kudos to Tommy Thompson! | Jombo | Unicycling | 1 | July 6th 06 10:29 PM |
R.I P. Hunter S. Thompson | Dave W | Mountain Biking | 4 | February 21st 05 11:08 PM |
FS: Thompson Seatpost | Frankie | Marketplace | 0 | December 21st 04 05:52 PM |
FS: New Thompson X4 Stem, NIP $55 | Jordan Hukee | Marketplace | 0 | December 17th 04 12:59 AM |