Dr. Thompson I presume

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

Michael Press wrote:

In article
,
RicodJour wrote:

On Nov 6, 2:21ÂÂ*pm, "William R. Mattil" wrote:
--D-y wrote:

Did Thompson "render aid"? Here in Texas, many medical professionals
are bound by law to this duty. Consequences of failure to render aid
are quite serious;

If I recall correctly he did offer aid - sort of. And it was refused by
the injured party. Perfectly understandable given the circumstances.

I would imagine the exchange went something like this:

"Serves you right. You should stay out of the road. You want a
bandaid, you big baby?"
"Get the **** away from me, you psycho mother****er!"

I was in an incident. Guy did a U-turn on me while he
was rolling. Turns out that he is a professional in
health care. He is attending to me, while the woman
passenger is yammering at me. He asks what I need,
I say get her away from me. We settle the whole matter
amicably. I tell him the money I want and he sends me
the check.

That sounds like it worked out well. You should have been on the brakes
though.

Yeah.

You bette rnot be one of those riders I see all the time on group
rides who smash into the rear of others just because we come to s top sign and
they didn't see it.

Riding my errand bike down a city street, and stop at a red light.
Guy behind me said "Whoa!" sort of loud.
"What do you mean by that?" I ask.
He had nothing to say. Imagine! Stopping at a red light
and holding up this really important guy.

Most cyclists are sloppy-ass spazz mother****ers and they deserve every crash
they get.

Unless it is with me.

--
Michael Press

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

DirtRoadie wrote:

On Nov 6, 8:42Â*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:

Not true. Â*Under the law, Dr. T lacked Mens rea to be found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

Silly monkey -
"The mens rea is established upon proof the defendant willfully
committed an act that by its nature will probably and directly result
in injury to another, i.e., a battery. Although the defendant must
intentionally engage in conduct that will likely produce injurious
consequences, the prosecution _need not prove a specific intent to
inflict a particular harm_"
People v. Colantuono, 7 Cal.4th 206, 865 P.2d 704, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 908
(Cal. 1994)

Dr. Thompson's previous 2 brake-checking incidents resulted in no injury. This is a fact. This was
going to be brake-checking incident #3 or "teach them a lesson #3" according to Dr. T.'s testimony.

You really think he meant to get his $35,000 car wrecked and injure those 2 guys on the way to work? 60
years of never hitting anyone with his car and you think that he left his driveway that day saying "I'm
gonna injure me some scumbag cyclists today with my car."

C'mon. The jury ****ed up because Dr. T's attorney didn't explain it like me an Anders just did. We
established reasonable doubt right here in front of you. Dr. T's lawyer took the asshole-lawyer
approach and opted to deny he was involved in those previous incidents (now the doctor looks like a
liar). Me and Anders embraced those 2 previous incidents to show the outcome was NO INJURY and that's
what the doctor expected this 3rd time. And the lawyer also doesn't know the sport well enough to know
that those 2 guys were probably more pre-disposed to wrecking (we all know those people in the local
group rides...always kissing the pavement no matter what)....

How do you not grab any brake in the 75 feet it took Dr. Thompson's car to go from 35+ to zero? I even
have my doubts that Dr. T braked harder this time than in the 2 previous incidents. I just think he
encountered 2 riders with Rasmussen and Hatch skills (say, weren't those 2 riders off the back because
one of them had already crashed?). Hatch stacked it on a solo descent and almost killed herself. I'm
surprised the district attorney in Dr. T's case didn't indict the asphalt.

The prosecution proved intent. Proving intent is difficult.
Once accomplished, Dr. Thompson is hosed. He meant to generate
a dangerous situation. He created a dangerous situation. He
is guilty of ADW. You may not think it is fair, but it is the
law. There are all kinds of things you cannot get away with
legally. Putting a man trap in your house, and having an
intruder injured in it will get you convicted of a felony and
then the intruder will pick you clean. There is a thread here.
Don't do stupid stuff. Don't generate circumstances where
somebody can get hurt.

--
Michael Press

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

It doesn't matter what the gap was, Dr. T would have taken at least 75 feet
to stop. In that 75 feet (1/3 of a fottball field)

No, 30 feet.

30 mph - 44 feet/sec.
The Infiniti can brake at 1 g.
That is 30 feet to reach a full stop.

T=m.vv/2
E=m.g.s
s=vv/(2.g)
44x44/(2.32) = 11x11/4 = 121/4 ~= 30.

Reaction time is 1/3 second.
Cyclists travel 15 feet during reaction time.
Cyclists braking distance is 30 feet/0.6 = 50 feet.
Total cyclist distance to stop = 65 feet.

--
Michael Press

On Nov 8, 2:10*am, Michael Press wrote:
In article ,

*MagillaGorilla wrote:
It doesn't matter what the gap was, Dr. T would have taken at least 75 feet
to stop. *In that 75 feet (1/3 of a fottball field)

So, space _and_ time are distorted in your little world. Curious.
Don't ever go on that show, Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?

No, 30 feet.

30 mph - 44 feet/sec.
The Infiniti can brake at 1 g.
That is 30 feet to reach a full stop.

T=m.vv/2
E=m.g.s
s=vv/(2.g)
44x44/(2.32) = 11x11/4 = 121/4 ~= 30.

Reaction time is 1/3 second.
Cyclists travel 15 feet during reaction time.
Cyclists braking distance is 30 feet/0.6 = 50 feet.
Total cyclist distance to stop = 65 feet.

Extra Credit Questions
1). Assuming the above, how fast were the cyclists going when they
crashed into the back of the car?
2). Were there car skid marks from the MCF's braking?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

R

RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 8, 2:10 am, Michael Press wrote:
In article ,

MagillaGorilla wrote:
It doesn't matter what the gap was, Dr. T would have taken at least 75 feet
to stop. In that 75 feet (1/3 of a fottball field)

So, space _and_ time are distorted in your little world. Curious.
Don't ever go on that show, Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?

No, 30 feet.

30 mph - 44 feet/sec.
The Infiniti can brake at 1 g.
That is 30 feet to reach a full stop.

T=m.vv/2
E=m.g.s
s=vv/(2.g)
44x44/(2.32) = 11x11/4 = 121/4 ~= 30.

Reaction time is 1/3 second.
Cyclists travel 15 feet during reaction time.
Cyclists braking distance is 30 feet/0.6 = 50 feet.
Total cyclist distance to stop = 65 feet.

Extra Credit Questions
1). Assuming the above, how fast were the cyclists going when they
crashed into the back of the car?
2). Were there car skid marks from the MCF's braking?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

R

There would not be skid marks from the car because of the ABS.

On Nov 8, 10:16*am, z wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 8, 2:10 am, Michael Press wrote:
*MagillaGorilla wrote:

It doesn't matter what the gap was, Dr. T would have taken at least 75 feet
to stop. *In that 75 feet (1/3 of a fottball field)

So, space _and_ time are distorted in your little world. *Curious.
Don't ever go on that show, Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?

No, 30 feet.

30 mph - 44 feet/sec.
The Infiniti can brake at 1 g.
That is 30 feet to reach a full stop.

T=m.vv/2
E=m.g.s
s=vv/(2.g)
44x44/(2.32) = 11x11/4 = 121/4 ~= 30.

Reaction time is 1/3 second.
Cyclists travel 15 feet during reaction time.
Cyclists braking distance is 30 feet/0.6 = 50 feet.
Total cyclist distance to stop = 65 feet.

Extra Credit Questions
1). Assuming the above, how fast were the cyclists going when they
crashed into the back of the car?
2). Were there car skid marks from the MCF's braking?

Anyone? *Anyone? *Bueller?


There would not be skid marks from the car because of the ABS.

Very good. The second was a trick question.
Does anyone know if the onboard computer stores limited ABS data? It
seems to me that would be essential information in pretty much every
car accident.

R

On Nov 8, 9:29*am, RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 8, 10:16*am, z wrote:





RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 8, 2:10 am, Michael Press wrote:
*MagillaGorilla wrote:

It doesn't matter what the gap was, Dr. T would have taken at least 75 feet
to stop. *In that 75 feet (1/3 of a fottball field)

So, space _and_ time are distorted in your little world. *Curious.
Don't ever go on that show, Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?

No, 30 feet.

30 mph - 44 feet/sec.
The Infiniti can brake at 1 g.
That is 30 feet to reach a full stop.

T=m.vv/2
E=m.g.s
s=vv/(2.g)
44x44/(2.32) = 11x11/4 = 121/4 ~= 30.

Reaction time is 1/3 second.
Cyclists travel 15 feet during reaction time.
Cyclists braking distance is 30 feet/0.6 = 50 feet.
Total cyclist distance to stop = 65 feet.

Extra Credit Questions
1). Assuming the above, how fast were the cyclists going when they
crashed into the back of the car?
2). Were there car skid marks from the MCF's braking?

Anyone? *Anyone? *Bueller?

There would not be skid marks from the car because of the ABS.

Very good. *The second was a trick question. *
Does anyone know if the onboard computer stores limited ABS data? *It
seems to me that would be essential information in pretty much every
car accident.

R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text

The cyclists weren't able to stop fast enough more than likely because
they had at least one hand off the bars Everything else is secondary
to that.

On Nov 8, 11:34*am, Anton Berlin wrote:

The cyclists weren't able to stop fast enough more than likely because
they had at least one hand off the bars *Everything else is secondary
to that.

Everything else is secondary to your assumption. Got it.

Misanthrope spouted that the guys were "chasing" the car. To what
end? To "scare" the raging dude in the ton and a half metal box with
their ten kilo bikes and tight Lycra? That's just stupid.

I don't understand where such thinking comes from. The riders weren't
noobs and they weren't kids. You think they'd never encountered a
hostile driver before? Do you think they were riding along just
holding up their fingers at the guy like the _duration_ of the finger
would _really_ show the driver? 'course not.

You're ignoring a salient fact - the guy who changes lane has the
responsibility to make sure their lane change is safe. The guys on
the bike could be napping, or playing patty-cakes with each other, and
it's still the passing guy's responsibility. Cutting in front of
someone and jamming on the brakes is not responsible, and the jury
confirmed that in six or seven ways.

R

Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

DirtRoadie wrote:

On Nov 6, 8:42Â*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:

Not true. Â*Under the law, Dr. T lacked Mens rea to be found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

Silly monkey -
"The mens rea is established upon proof the defendant willfully
committed an act that by its nature will probably and directly result
in injury to another, i.e., a battery. Although the defendant must
intentionally engage in conduct that will likely produce injurious
consequences, the prosecution _need not prove a specific intent to
inflict a particular harm_"
People v. Colantuono, 7 Cal.4th 206, 865 P.2d 704, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 908
(Cal. 1994)

Dr. Thompson's previous 2 brake-checking incidents resulted in no injury. This is a fact. This was
going to be brake-checking incident #3 or "teach them a lesson #3" according to Dr. T.'s testimony.

You really think he meant to get his $35,000 car wrecked and injure those 2 guys on the way to work? 60
years of never hitting anyone with his car and you think that he left his driveway that day saying "I'm
gonna injure me some scumbag cyclists today with my car."

C'mon. The jury ****ed up because Dr. T's attorney didn't explain it like me an Anders just did. We
established reasonable doubt right here in front of you. Dr. T's lawyer took the asshole-lawyer
approach and opted to deny he was involved in those previous incidents (now the doctor looks like a
liar). Me and Anders embraced those 2 previous incidents to show the outcome was NO INJURY and that's
what the doctor expected this 3rd time. And the lawyer also doesn't know the sport well enough to know
that those 2 guys were probably more pre-disposed to wrecking (we all know those people in the local
group rides...always kissing the pavement no matter what)....

How do you not grab any brake in the 75 feet it took Dr. Thompson's car to go from 35+ to zero? I even
have my doubts that Dr. T braked harder this time than in the 2 previous incidents. I just think he
encountered 2 riders with Rasmussen and Hatch skills (say, weren't those 2 riders off the back because
one of them had already crashed?). Hatch stacked it on a solo descent and almost killed herself. I'm
surprised the district attorney in Dr. T's case didn't indict the asphalt.

The prosecution proved intent. Proving intent is difficult.
Once accomplished, Dr. Thompson is hosed. He meant to generate
a dangerous situation.

I agree they proved intent. but only that his intent was to do the same thing he did in the 2 previous
occasions, which was to harass the cyclists, not to seriously injure of kill them. The state did not prove
that given Dr. T's experience in what happened when he braked in the 2 prior incidents.





He created a dangerous situation.

That's too vague to mean anything. When you drive down the road and a tractor trailer is coming the opposite
way at 55 mph and separated by a yellow line..that's also "dangerous." But it's done every second of every
day. I don't think what Dr. T did was especially dangerous...I thought it was foolish and reckless and that
he intended to annoy, and harass the cyclists, but to not to seriously injure them. His 2 prior experiences
and results (which resulted in no injury to the cyclists) is reasonable doubt that he wanted them dead or
seriously injured.

You guys are not holding the state to their burden of proof. You guys are so prejudiced against Dr. T and
you can't get around the fact that the guy actually didn't want to hurt them with his car. You guys do the
same thing with the lab techs at the LNDD when an American tests positive...you automatically start with this
intent bull**** and "they should go to jail."




He
is guilty of ADW. You may not think it is fair, but it is the
law.

The jury got it wrong. I don't have to believe OJ was innocent just because the jury did. Dr. T still has
appeals, but I doubt he will prevail down that road.




There are all kinds of things you cannot get away with
legally. Putting a man trap in your house, and having an
intruder injured in it will get you convicted of a felony and
then the intruder will pick you clean. There is a thread here.
Don't do stupid stuff. Don't generate circumstances where
somebody can get hurt.

--
Michael Press

That statement is too vague...riding a bike in a pack "generates circumstances where somebody can get hurt."
But we don't charge the peloton with assault with a deadly weapon when somebody ****s up on their bike and
cases a crash.

Magilla

Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

It doesn't matter what the gap was, Dr. T would have taken at least 75 feet
to stop. In that 75 feet (1/3 of a fottball field)

No, 30 feet.

30 mph - 44 feet/sec.
The Infiniti can brake at 1 g.
That is 30 feet to reach a full stop.

T=m.vv/2
E=m.g.s
s=vv/(2.g)
44x44/(2.32) = 11x11/4 = 121/4 ~= 30.

Reaction time is 1/3 second.
Cyclists travel 15 feet during reaction time.
Cyclists braking distance is 30 feet/0.6 = 50 feet.
Total cyclist distance to stop = 65 feet.

--
Michael Press

The doctor was likely going in excess of 35-40 mph when he braked because he
passed the cyclists and cut in front of them and slowed down. Also, I notice
you used maximum braking calculations. On what basis do you conclude he did a
maximum braking event? You can't make those assumptions and then from those
assumptions claim he stopped in 30 feet.

How come the cyclists didn't slow down at all, according to their GPS?

Magilla