Dr. Thompson I presume

MagillaGorilla wrote:
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


One factor that I have yet to see addressed is why the riders did not go
around the car. I presume that since the Dr passed them, there was no
immediate oncoming traffic (AFAIK avoiding oncoming traffic has not been
mentioned as a reason he pulled back in front of them closely enough for
them to hit the car).

On Nov 9, 3:24*pm, "Tom Kunich" wrote:
Err - for the uninformed - a GPS accuracy is dependent upon the clock
stability and that is (relatively) crappy for a cheap GPS handheld.

Since the accuracy of the unit is dependent upon the stability of the clock
and the clock is stable but nowhere near stable enough for perfect
positional fixing, the speed, stopping distance and things like that simply
aren't accurate to anything near enough to use that sort of information to
determine "slowing" and that sort of thing over a period of seconds.

Err, for the uninformed, the issue is not stability, it's resolution.
The data file that results from recording a track with a GPS receiver
is a series of points that reflect position at intervals of NO LESS
THAN one second, usually several seconds and commonly 10-15. Even
assuming those points to be pinpoint accurate, the resolution is not
sufficient to analyze the nature of any movement that is taking place
over a span of a second or two.
I wasn't there, but the experts testifying about GPS undoubtedly said
some thing like "the cyclists were going about 30 mph at the time of
the accident" - meaning prior to the time they had had to take evasive
action - not meaning at the time they hit the vehicle.

DR

On Nov 9, 4:56*pm, z wrote:
MagillaGorilla wrote:
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

One factor that I have yet to see addressed is why the riders did not go
around the car. I presume that since the Dr passed them, there was no
immediate oncoming traffic (AFAIK avoiding oncoming traffic has not been
mentioned as a reason he pulled back in front of them closely enough for
them to hit the car).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

For the same reason that they couldn't brake aggressively. It's hard
to make a radical turn while you're flipping someone off.

"DirtRoadie" wrote in message
...
On Nov 9, 3:24 pm, "Tom Kunich" wrote:
Err - for the uninformed - a GPS accuracy is dependent upon the clock
stability and that is (relatively) crappy for a cheap GPS handheld.

Since the accuracy of the unit is dependent upon the stability of the
clock
and the clock is stable but nowhere near stable enough for perfect
positional fixing, the speed, stopping distance and things like that
simply
aren't accurate to anything near enough to use that sort of information
to
determine "slowing" and that sort of thing over a period of seconds.

Err, for the uninformed, the issue is not stability, it's resolution.

You are correct for what you're talking about. But I'm talking about the
accuracy of the fix. And that relies on a lot of variables which all add
together to put in fairly significant errors. So expecting to get an
accurate reading of decelerations at speeds under 40 mph is preposterous.
Anyone that thinks that you can get anything accurate to within a hundred
percent error is a dope.

So even if you have a continuous fix you STILL have a large error that
cannot be corrected for.

"z" wrote in message ...

One factor that I have yet to see addressed is why the riders did not go
around the car. I presume that since the Dr passed them, there was no
immediate oncoming traffic (AFAIK avoiding oncoming traffic has not been
mentioned as a reason he pulled back in front of them closely enough for
them to hit the car).

Huh? The good "doctor" passed them while they were descending at high speed
(meaning they were probably tucked in with their chins on the stem) pulled
in front of them and slammed on his brakes. While he might have thought that
he was going to give them a scare he pulled in too close and slammed on the
brakes too hard.

This is precisely why intent is assumed when such "accidents" occur.

Tom Kunich wrote:
"z" wrote in message ...

One factor that I have yet to see addressed is why the riders did not
go around the car. I presume that since the Dr passed them, there was
no immediate oncoming traffic (AFAIK avoiding oncoming traffic has not
been mentioned as a reason he pulled back in front of them closely
enough for them to hit the car).

Huh? The good "doctor" passed them while they were descending at high
speed (meaning they were probably tucked in with their chins on the
stem) pulled in front of them and slammed on his brakes. While he might
have thought that he was going to give them a scare he pulled in too
close and slammed on the brakes too hard.

This is precisely why intent is assumed when such "accidents" occur.


They were going 30, not 60.

Tom Kunich wrote:


This thread was the last straw and I simply put the fool on "ignore".

Probably the smart thing to do. He's lost a lot of credibility with his
position on this.



Bill


--

William R. Mattil

http://www.celestial-images.com

"William R. Mattil" wrote in message
...
Tom Kunich wrote:

This thread was the last straw and I simply put the fool on "ignore".

Probably the smart thing to do. He's lost a lot of credibility with his
position on this.

It isn't clear to me what he thought he was doing. At first I assumed he was
just pulling chains but now I'm not so sure.

On Nov 9, 7:02*pm, "Tom Kunich" wrote:
"z" wrote in ....

One factor that I have yet to see addressed is why the riders did not go
around the car. I presume that since the Dr passed them, there was no
immediate oncoming traffic (AFAIK avoiding oncoming traffic has not been
mentioned as a reason he pulled back in front of them closely enough for
them to hit the car).

Huh? The good "doctor" passed them while they were descending at high speed
(meaning they were probably tucked in with their chins on the stem) pulled
in front of them and slammed on his brakes. While he might have thought that
he was going to give them a scare he pulled in too close and slammed on the
brakes too hard.

This is precisely why intent is assumed when such "accidents" occur.

No, intent is not "assumed." But the intent that must be proven in a
case such as this is not the intent to injure, it is the intent to
perform an act which has injury as a likely consequence.
DR

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

DirtRoadie wrote:

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

Not true. ÂÂ*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.

The hammer clicked on an empty chamber the first two times.
That means it will continue to do so.

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.

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.

Do not like my verbalization?
Then reread People v. Colantuono above.

"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,"

--
Michael Press