Dr. Thompson I presume

On Oct 30, 5:28*pm, Anton Berlin wrote:
In the better med schools they teach this method of creating patients.

http://velonews.com/article/99513

Velonews Tweets:
Verdict expected within the hour in LA Road Rage case. Stay tuned.

In article
,
" wrote:

I think people take cars way too lightly because we all use
them often. How many of us have sat behind the wheel
of a car and lost our cool, yelling "**** you, asshole!" in the
direction of some other driver? Probably all of us. Now how
many of us have yelled "**** you, asshole!" while brandishing
a handgun? The latter is considered dangerous low-class
behavior that will get you a starring role on "COPS" if you're
lucky.

You said the secret word.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Kndm...layer_embedded

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

On Nov 2, 9:01*pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
I think people take cars way too lightly because we all use
them often. *How many of us have sat behind the wheel
of a car and lost our cool, yelling "**** you, asshole!" in the
direction of some other driver? *Probably all of us. *Now how
many of us have yelled "**** you, asshole!" while brandishing
a handgun? *The latter is considered dangerous low-class
behavior that will get you a starring role on "COPS" if you're
lucky.

You said the secret word.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Kndm...layer_embedded

Ugh. I didn't really need to see that. It's like being
Rickrolled by a posse from Deliverance.

Hey, I know one of those people!
Okay, so it's Neil Tyson ...

Ben

On Nov 2, 9:16*pm, "
wrote:
On Nov 2, 9:01*pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:



In article
,

" wrote:
I think people take cars way too lightly because we all use
them often. *How many of us have sat behind the wheel
of a car and lost our cool, yelling "**** you, asshole!" in the
direction of some other driver? *Probably all of us. *Now how
many of us have yelled "**** you, asshole!" while brandishing
a handgun? *The latter is considered dangerous low-class
behavior that will get you a starring role on "COPS" if you're
lucky.

You said the secret word.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Kndm...layer_embedded

Ugh. *I didn't really need to see that. *It's like being
Rickrolled by a posse from Deliverance.

Hey, I know one of those people!
Okay, so it's Neil Tyson ...

Ben

The guy on the sofa reminds me of Jeff Gordon.

Brad Anders

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

Fred Fredburger wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Did you look up the definition of `vehicle' in the
California Vehicle Code? Motion denied with extreme prejudice.

You said "He's entitled to stop his car on the road".
Dr. Thompson does not have a blanket right to stop in
any manner he sees fit. I proved this conclusively.

[...]

I did not read the rest of your message as you have
been proved wrong on the point I raised. If you have
something cogent and constructive to say please do so concisely.

--
Michael Press

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

[...]

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.

A person is entitled to a jury trial for misdemeanors.
You are wrong again.

--
Michael Press

In article
,
DirtRoadie wrote:

On Nov 2, 2:15Â*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. Â*If you didn't violate the
vehicle code, you're unlikely to get brought up on serious
charges. Â*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.

The only point is that Gila Monster says Dr. Thomson is
"entitled to stop his car on the road".

--
Michael Press

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

" wrote:

On Oct 31, 11:30Â*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:
DirtRoadie wrote:
On Oct 30, 7:18Â*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 30, 8:28Â*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? Â*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. Â*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.

Do you meet verbal abuse with physical assault?
Do you throw the first punch?

--
Michael Press

On Nov 2, 10:11*pm, Michael Press wrote:
Did you look up the definition of `vehicle' in the
California Vehicle Code? Motion denied with extreme prejudice.

Now that the good doctor has been convicted on all counts this may be
moot, but my first thought upon reading the ape's tirade was also to
check the definition of "vehicle."
Alas, that ancient remnant of the vehicle code supports the ape if no
other provisions (like the more recent 21200) are taken into account.
See my response to BJW about two posts prior to this on the threaded
list.

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)

But, otherwise, thanks for pointing out the CA vehicle code in the
first place and helping to make a monkey out of Magilla, not that he
needs much help.

DR

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
MagillaGorilla wrote:

" wrote:

On Oct 31, 11:30ÂÂ*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:
DirtRoadie wrote:
On Oct 30, 7:18ÂÂ*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 30, 8:28ÂÂ*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? ÂÂ*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. ÂÂ*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.

Do you meet verbal abuse with physical assault?
Do you throw the first punch?

He didn't physically assault the cyclists.

He is charged with felony battery.
Are you speaking in every day parlance,
or legally?

Do you throw the first punch?
Do you consider abusive language grounds for physically attacking someone?

--
Michael Press