Dr. Thompson I presume

On Nov 2, 11:43*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:

In 99.99% of the cases, it is your fault if you hit the back of some else's car.
That's what I meant. *These 2 statutes do not disprove that in any way.

Often that is true, that isn't what you said. And that other .01%
would certainly include deliberate illegal actions by the leading
driver.

Infractions are misdemeanors, ****. *

Wrong, by definition.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd17c1a1.htm

By the way, a cop does not enforce the statute in
court ...

Wrong again. For an offense charged as an "infraction" the DA does not
get involved unless it is tied to another offense charged as a
misdemeanor.
(If you challenge a simple speeding ticket in court there will NOT be
a DA present)

*A person is not entitled to a jury trial for
misdeamnors, only felonies, which is why defendants usually get a bench ruling on the
underlying lesser included offenses of the traffic tickets.

Strike 3. There IS a right to a jury for any offense, including
misdemeanors, if it involves potential jail time.

**** the DA. *She's a ****. *
*All Dr. Thompson did is react to
harassment from some potty mouthed cyclists who flipped him off.

You mean being "potty mouthed" is a basis for physical aggression
against the offender?
Hmmm ... I think I hardly need to describe what first comes to
mind ...

I do as I please, and I do it with ease.

Ah, yes. Ignorance is bliss

*Dr. Thompson put the hurt down on him that day
and taught him a lesson he will never forget.

And that is exactly why the doctor is on trial.
DR

On Nov 2, 12:07*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
I think it's important to remember that whatever happens in the criminal case,
that to never forget a nice Infiniti was damaged in this tragedy. *

"nice Infiniti"? Just a re-branded Datsun. If the guy had been driving
something decent, I might have some sympathy.

Brad Anders

On Nov 2, 6:51*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:

How is that an assault?

I suppose you would also argue that if you strung piano wire about
neck high across a bike path and decapitated a cyclist that it would
be THEIR fault because their eyesight was not good enough to see the
obvious obstacle and their brakes are inacapable of stopping
sufficiently quickly to avoid the danger.

DR

RicodJour wrote:


If the dicktor hadn't made a habit of harassing cyclists on "his"
road, he very well might have gotten off. Forrest Gump could see the
pattern and the likely consequences of such behavior. The jury surely
will.



I wonder that even if he gets off scot free on these charges, undeserved
though that may be, what the actual impact to this Bozo was and will be ?

I'm sure that there have already been financial repercussions and likely
there will be more. Anyone know if the Defense Atty is the Public
Defender ? or hopefully some very high priced mouthpiece that bills
$450.00 an hour ?

Then there will be the civil trial that is almost a certainty.


Bill


--

William R. Mattil

http://www.celestial-images.com

In article ,
says...


In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

Fred Fredburger wrote:

Tom Kunich wrote:
"Paul B. Anders" wrote in message
news:016bdef6-43d1-4055-8c76-
...
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.

These guys rear-ended the car because instead of keeping their fingers
on the
brake levers and expecting this guy they just harassed to stop, they
were off
the bars flipping off the driver and verbally harassing someone who just
wanted to go to work. Personally, I thought that was a nice move by
the
doctor. He's entitled to stop his car on the road.

California Vehicle Code

21750. The driver of a vehicle overtaking another
vehicle or a bicycle proceeding in the same direction
shall pass to the left at a safe distance without
interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken
vehicle or bicycle, subject to the limitations and
exceptions hereinafter stated.

22109. No person shall stop or suddenly decrease the
speed of a vehicle on a highway without first giving an
appropriate signal in the manner provided in this
chapter to the driver of any vehicle immediately to the
rear when there is opportunity to give the signal.

--
Michael Press
Though possibley not as applicable as Michael's posting of VC 22109, 21750
in the Mandeville Canyon situaiton, both drivers and cyclists should be
aware of VC 21202 in California:

Operation on Roadway
21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less
than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time
shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the
roadway except under any of the following situations:

(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in
the same direction.

(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road
or driveway.

(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not
limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals,
surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to
continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of
Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a
lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by
side within the lane.

(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which
highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked
traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as
practicable.

Amended Sec. 4, Ch. 674, Stats. 1996. Effective January 1, 1997.

On Nov 2, 1:22*pm, "William R. Mattil" wrote:
I wonder that even if he gets off scot free on these charges, undeserved
though that may be, what the actual impact to this Bozo was and will be ?

I'm sure that there have already been financial repercussions and likely
there will be more. Anyone know if the Defense Atty is the Public
Defender ? or hopefully some very high priced mouthpiece that bills
$450.00 an hour ?

Very clearly a high priced mouth piece and orchestrator.
http://www.superlawyers.com/californ...712586cd0.html

See him he
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPNjJ4crrNM

And high dollar defense experts - an "accident reconstruction
specialist" and a forensic psychologist.

Then there will be the civil trial that is almost a certainty.

Trial? Maybe not, depending upon the outcome of the criminal case.
A guilty verdict probably means a quick negotiated settlement.
But a lawsuit has been filed.
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_13675904

DR

On Nov 2, 1:46*pm, Ronko wrote:

Though possibley not as applicable as Michael's posting of VC 22109, 21750
in the Mandeville Canyon situaiton, both drivers and cyclists should be
aware of VC 21202 in California:

Operation on Roadway
21202. *(a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less
than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time
shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the
roadway except under any of the following situations:

(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in
the same direction.

(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road
or driveway.

(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not
limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals,
surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to
continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of
Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a "substandard width lane" is a
lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by
side within the lane.

(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which
highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked
traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as
practicable.

Noted, but not at all applicable in this case.
Operative words: "at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic
moving in the same direction at that time."

The speed limit was 30 and that, by all accounts, is roughly the speed
Peterson was traveling.

DR

On Nov 2, 8:08*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:

You see, counselor, Dr. Thompson was not charged with violating either of those 2
misdemeanor statutes you cite above, so there is no compelling reason I can think
of to defend against them. *It's called Law School 101. *Perhaps that's a question
you might want to ask the district attorney who evidently didn't think those 2
statutes applied. * But let me give you some insight into why she might have done
what she did, since this heat is ****ing killing me.

In 22109, the code does not mention anything about a driver of a vehicle not being
allowed to abruptly stop in front of a cyclist. *It only says "driver of any
vehicle immediately to the rear." *Since the wording in the first statute under
the same chapter in law clearly makes a legal class distinction between a vehicle
and a bicycle (called class identity nomenclature), the lack of express mention of
a bicyclist as an identified protected class under 22109 - the second statute in
the same chapter of law - therefore means that 22109 was not intended to apply to
stopping in front a cyclist as a matter of law. *Not sure if they taught you this
in law school, but statutory interpretation must be done literally. *Otherwise,
laws can mean whatever anyone wants them to mean. *Perhaps the legislature who
wrote the law didn't want it to apply to skateboarders, runners, or cyclists. *I'm
afraid I can't speak for the motivations of California politicians anymore than
the district attorney who apparently read that statue the same way as I did in
deciding it did not apply to this case.

Banana brain,

CVC section 21200:

21200. (a) Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all
the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the
driver
of a vehicle by this division, including, but not limited to,
provisions
concerning driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or
drugs, and by Division 10 (commencing with Section 20000), Section
27400, Division 16.7 (commencing with Section 39000), Division 17
(commencing with Section 40000.1), and Division 18 (commencing
with Section 42000), except those provisions which by their very
nature
can have no application.

Your bull**** about "class identity nomenclature" is just
showing off monkey vocabulary.

Further, generally when someone is charged with a felony
for a driving incident, it implies a claim that they violated
the vehicle code in some way. If you didn't violate the
vehicle code, you're unlikely to get brought up on serious
charges. But once you're up on a felony, they're not going
to be putting the misdemeanor charges in front of the
jury as well.

You need to go back to Monkey Law School and ask for a
refund, because at this rate, Lawgirl is going to clean your
clock _and_ empty your wallet if you ever meet. And that
would be embarrassing not just for you, but all of us who
hang out at the rbr Starbucks in Sausalito, and I don't want
to see it.

Ben

On Nov 2, 2:15*pm, "
wrote:

CVC section 21200:
(Relevant Statute, probably controlling AND Effective January 1,
1995.)

Your bull**** about "class identity nomenclature" is just
showing off monkey vocabulary.

As much as it displeases me to say so, MG's interpretation finds some
support in the code under the following:

100. Unless the provision or context otherwise requires, these
definitions shall govern the construction of this code
"Bicycle"
231. A bicycle is a device upon which any person may ride, propelled
exclusively by human power through a belt, chain, or gears, and having
one or more wheels. Persons riding bicycles are subject to the
provisions of this code specified in Sections 21200 and 21200.5.
"Vehicle"
670. A "vehicle" is a device by which any person or property may be
propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved
exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails
or tracks. (Effective January 1, 1976)

So note that a bicycle as we know it (human propelled) is not, by
strict definition a "vehicle." But sec. 100 allows "context" to be
taken into account and the definition of vehicle has not been updated
since 1976 so it would seem to have been inherently modified by 21200
in 1995.

Why is this relevant?
Back to 22109. No person shall stop or suddenly decrease the speed of
a vehicle on a highway without first giving an appropriate signal in
the manner provided in this chapter to the driver of any VEHICLE
immediately to the rear ... (MG says that a driver has no obligation
to warn cyclists)

But I agree with you that in the context of 21200, 22109 can only be
construed to apply to cyclists as well.

Further, generally when someone is charged with a felony
for a driving incident, it implies a claim that they violated
the vehicle code in some way. *If you didn't violate the
vehicle code, you're unlikely to get brought up on serious
charges. *But once you're up on a felony, they're not going
to be putting the misdemeanor charges in front of the
jury as well.

Not true. In fact in the case being discussed the doctor is charged
with 3 felonies and one misdemeanor.
But violating 22109 is not even a misdemeanor, it's an "infraction"
with a maximum penalty of a $100 fine - like speeding or running a
stop sign. Hardly any point in even bothering with that.

DR

You must think that I don't really have a ****ing clue.

But since we're all here making fun of the monkey, I'd be more than happy to
address those 2 statutes you cite, counselor, in the context of this case.. *I'm an
educated man, but I'm afraid I can't speak for why the district attorney in this
case did what she did.

You see, counselor, Dr. Thompson was not charged with violating either of those 2
misdemeanor statutes you cite above, so there is no compelling reason I can think
of to defend against them. *It's called Law School 101. *Perhaps that's a question
you might want to ask the district attorney who evidently didn't think those 2
statutes applied. * But let me give you some insight into why she might have done
what she did, since this heat is ****ing killing me.

In 22109, the code does not mention anything about a driver of a vehicle not being
allowed to abruptly stop in front of a cyclist. *It only says "driver of any
vehicle immediately to the rear." *Since the wording in the first statute under
the same chapter in law clearly makes a legal class distinction between a vehicle
and a bicycle (called class identity nomenclature), the lack of express mention of
a bicyclist as an identified protected class under 22109 - the second statute in
the same chapter of law - therefore means that 22109 was not intended to apply to
stopping in front a cyclist as a matter of law. *Not sure if they taught you this
in law school, but statutory interpretation must be done literally. *Otherwise,
laws can mean whatever anyone wants them to mean. *Perhaps the legislature who
wrote the law didn't want it to apply to skateboarders, runners, or cyclists. *I'm
afraid I can't speak for the motivations of California politicians anymore than
the district attorney who apparently read that statue the same way as I did in
deciding it did not apply to this case.

As for the first statute (21750.), I'd love to help you out once again, but I
couldn't help notice you failed to list the "limitations" and "exceptions" as
called for by the statute, so I am not inclined to comment until I know what those
limitations and exceptions are, as they are germane to its enforcement. * You
believe I'm here to help you, Lt. Press, don't you? *Because I'm here to help you,
Michael boy.

But even without knowing what those critical legal exceptions and limitations are
that you omitted, I don't see this statute applying either because Dr. Thompson
indeed successfully executed a safe pass of those 2 cyclists. *Proof of this is
contained in the photographic evidence submitted at trial which clearly shows that
the collision occurred when the cyclists drove their bicycles into the rear of Dr.
Thompson's car, indicating that his vehicle was in front of thge cyclists at the
time of the collision. *It would therefore appear to me that based on the
incontroverable photographic evidence submitted at trial that Dr. Thompson had
indeed *successfully completed a safe pass as required by this statute.

In fact, the evidence appears to show it was the cyclists who failed to execute a
safe pass since they were clearly traveling behind Dr. Thompson's vehicle and
going much faster than his vehicle located in front of them when they collided
with the rear of Dr. Thompson's car, thus failing to pass the good doctor's
vehicle in a safe manner as would seem to be called for in this statute.

Now are these really the questions I was called here to answer - questions about
bicycles failing to make safe passes or stop in time because their riders admitted
under oath in their testimony that they failed to use their brakes since they were
too busy giving profane hand signals to Dr. Thompson using those same hands that
should have been on their brakes? *Please tell me you've got something more,
Lieutenant Press. *Please tell me there's an ace up your sleeve. *These two
cyclists - one with a Michael Jackson nose he cannot even feel or smell out of -
are on trial for their lives. *Please tell me their lawyer hasn't pinned the hopes
of the entire SoCal cycling community to alleged violations of law that Dr.