LA Road Rage Doctor Guilty!
- Thread starter gttim!
- Start date
Good. I hope the story gets international media attention.
I hope the cyclists involved have recovered from their injuries.
I hope the cyclists involved have recovered from their injuries.
David Suro said:
And it would be great if the trash-talking journalists that disparage cyclists for "not paying fair taxes for roads" and play to the prejudices of their angered listeners would learn something. There seems to be some localized media incitement to "act out". After being driven to the road edge by a GMC Tahoe, loaded with family, on a 40 mph descent; I was determined to have a word with the driver. He was backed up at a stop sign and available for discussion. When I explained he good do hard time for injuring me his response was "**** yourself, you don't pay road taxes!" I explained I had ridden on this road for 30 years, owned several vehicles, owned a company that paid sales tax on million$ in revenue. He still thought that wasn't enough until his wife (bless her) told him he was wrong in front of his kids. Hopefully they won't be my next assailant.
Cyclists & Road Taxes
Good point in rebuttal of 'cyclists not paying road taxes' ; it's one I've made dozens of times myself. Of all the hundreds of riders I know and/or have known, only one is not also a driver. Many pay taxes on multiple vehicles. I have also argued a few times that most regular cyclists should in fact be in line for an annual tax rebate, given that we pay the same annually per vehicle as the bigotted petrolhead, and then drive a fraction of their miles because we are always on the bike!
Good point in rebuttal of 'cyclists not paying road taxes' ; it's one I've made dozens of times myself. Of all the hundreds of riders I know and/or have known, only one is not also a driver. Many pay taxes on multiple vehicles. I have also argued a few times that most regular cyclists should in fact be in line for an annual tax rebate, given that we pay the same annually per vehicle as the bigotted petrolhead, and then drive a fraction of their miles because we are always on the bike!
This is a great triumph for the jury system. The prosecutors also deserve high praise for a job obviously very well done.gttim! said:
- Jul 6, 2009
- 795
- 0
- 0
i live in la and heard of this incident a while ago glad someone is paying for there actions regarding this. like taxes or not is a reason for assault with a deadly weapon cowards.
HOPE for legal precedence.
Thank God the judge found him guilty.
Twice I have had bikes destroyed by drivers/dog owners and taken them to to small claims court and lost.
For some reason the judges usually rule in favor of motorists/dog owners in cycling incident.
Hopefully the victims will sue and win in civil court.
Thank God the judge found him guilty.
Twice I have had bikes destroyed by drivers/dog owners and taken them to to small claims court and lost.
For some reason the judges usually rule in favor of motorists/dog owners in cycling incident.
Hopefully the victims will sue and win in civil court.
I have been following this story on Velonews. I am encouraged by the jury’s verdict. It was a bad situation, but hopefully justice has been served. It seems like justice for a hurt cyclist is more the exception then the rule, based on several other incidents that I have read about. There are lots of lessons here, one of which to me, at least is: even if you are “in the right” you are going to need a lot of proof and a lot of luck to come out of the situation whole.
- Jul 1, 2009
- 226
- 0
- 0
I believe that this driver's actions were inexcusable, and the judge should make sure the punishment fits the crime and serves as an example. I also hope everybody learns from it.
However, before everybody cheers hang 'em high, cyclists should consider how they conduct themselves as well. Here's an excerpt from the CA code:
Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway...except when passing, turning left, avoiding obstructions. - Note: exceptions shortened
If you're riding three abreast, maybe abreast but not yielding to passing cars, riding through stops, not making clear hand signals, etc. you're in the wrong.
Further, if you're doing these things and reacting to complaints by flipping off drivers, yelling, squirting water...I've seen it all...you affect the tolerance for all bikes on the road. You endanger other riders indirectly.
I'm not saying you have to be polite while some guy tries to run you over, or that these riders did any of this or anything antagonistic.
I've been hit by cars twice. I was forced off the road recently 2 miles from my house while doing the speed limit. Someone in a passing car threw a bottle of water at me last year. So, I've had my share.
I am saying we all should do what we can to be considerate and think about how your actions may affect everybody (driving or riding). It is a two-way street most of the time.
However, before everybody cheers hang 'em high, cyclists should consider how they conduct themselves as well. Here's an excerpt from the CA code:
Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway...except when passing, turning left, avoiding obstructions. - Note: exceptions shortened
If you're riding three abreast, maybe abreast but not yielding to passing cars, riding through stops, not making clear hand signals, etc. you're in the wrong.
Further, if you're doing these things and reacting to complaints by flipping off drivers, yelling, squirting water...I've seen it all...you affect the tolerance for all bikes on the road. You endanger other riders indirectly.
I'm not saying you have to be polite while some guy tries to run you over, or that these riders did any of this or anything antagonistic.
I've been hit by cars twice. I was forced off the road recently 2 miles from my house while doing the speed limit. Someone in a passing car threw a bottle of water at me last year. So, I've had my share.
I am saying we all should do what we can to be considerate and think about how your actions may affect everybody (driving or riding). It is a two-way street most of the time.
- Mar 18, 2009
- 1,913
- 0
- 10,480
Why? Why are the exceptions shortened? Please answer this question. Why does everyone just skim the exceptions, as if they're not important? Please tell me. I'm really anxious to know. Not to put you on the spot, but if you can explain why you essentially dismissed their importance, maybe I'll understand why so many others seem to do that too. So, please answer this question.Psalmon said:
Anyway, to the contrary, we should take a CLOSE look at ALL the exceptions. Any time just one of them applies, bicyclists are NOT required to "ride as close practicable to the right". If you consider all of the exceptions, you'll be hard pressed to find any place in an urban, suburban or rural setting in which at least one of the exceptions doesn't apply, except along long stretches of roads with no intersections or driveways, and a wide outside lane. That's kind of key... More on this later.
Not necessarily, and I'll go so far as to say probably not. Again, more on this later.Psalmon said:
I agree with you in general here. Practically speaking, road rage normally takes some time to escalate, and either party can usually do something to prevent it from getting to the physical stage well before it's too late.Psalmon said:
Now, let's look at those exceptions, shall we?
The first one is not really an exception, but is part of the main law. So, as long as you're moving at the "normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time", then you have no obligation to ride "as close as practicable to the right".
So if traffic is stopped or slow, or you're on a high speed descent and can keep up, no need to keep right. Furthermore, if there is no other same direction traffic at that time (which occurs often because traffic tends to travel in spurts), you don't have to keep right either.
The other thing is to notice the use of "practicable", which is a loaded legal term allowing for all kinds of wiggle room, within reason. So even without all of the exceptions, you're not ever required to ride as far right as possible; only as far right as is practicable.
Now let's look at the actual exceptions.
Can anyone say "clockwise rotating paceline" in which you're constantly either keeping right, or in a state of "passing another bicycle". Either way, you're in compliance.
No-brainer. 'Nuff said.
Here is the biggy, in particular the bolded part. The law does not specify the actual width the lane has to be to allow for travel safely side by side, presumably because that depends on circumstances. But in general traffic cycling experts agree that a lane has to be at least 14 feet wide to be safe for within-lane passing, othewise it is "too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.". See the article on the topic of the wide outside lane, and read the references too if you're skeptical. One rule of thumb is that a lane wide enough for safe passing is wide enough for a 4-5' wide bike lane to be painted on the edge of it. That is, if it's not wide enough to be divided into a traffic lane and a bike lane, then it's not wide enough for safe side-by-side travel.
Have you measured any lanes lately? The vast majority of lanes in urban, suburban and are about 11 or 12 feet wide. 14-15' wide lanes are relatively rare. It may not have been the intent of the legislators who wrote that law to not require bicyclists to share most lanes, but that is the unintended effect of the reasonable wording. What they don't want is to require bicyclists to keep right in lanes in which motorists still have to encroach into the adjacent lane in order to pass, because... that's not safe.
See why it's critical to NOT shorten the exceptions?
This one is a biggy too. On pretty much any residential street driveways are 25-100 feet apart, right? And rights turns into driveways are authorized, right? That means that when you're riding on such a street, you are constantly "approaching a place where a right turn is authorized". Similar situation on any urban or suburban street with frequent alleys and commercial driveway entrances, etc. So, anytime you're not on such a road, you're not required to keep right.
Again, the lawmakers probably did not intend to stop requiring bicyclists from keeping right on so many roads, but that is the effect of their reasonable words. This exception is in there to prevent right hooks, because the best way to reduce (not eliminate) your chance of being right hooked is to move left out into the lane. And it's perfectly legal according to the exceptions that are SO IMPORTANT!
Too many people in general believe bicyclists belong at the curb, but at least bicyclists need to stop thinking (and riding!) this way.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/Vehicular_cycling
- Mar 18, 2009
- 1,913
- 0
- 10,480
Good news. I am glad the injured can feel some justice has been served. The arrogance of his testimony bothered me
ladyvader said:
I'd be surprised if he did any actual jail time, probably just a suspended sentence and probation. But, with multiple felony convictions, he should lose his medical license, and there will be a pricey civil suit to follow, that should have a hefty punitive damage component. His auto liability insurer won't pay for his defense because of the finding that this was an intentional act. He will be bankrupt soon.
- Apr 11, 2009
- 315
- 0
- 0
Psalmon said:
Well put. I am a firece advocate of allowing bicycles to use any roadway in a safe manner, and I have been riding seriously for over 40 years, and i still ride 100 miles a month, and I am angered at arrogant cyclists who do not observe even the basic rules of the road. Road rage is not the answer, but let's hear that question again; why do so many F******G cyclists thyink they are immune from the rules of the road?
shawnrohrbach said:
This guy was found guilty of a crime and made a bunch of ****ty decisions that injured people and their family's. He should have to pay both physically with his loss of freedom and financially when he goes to civil court. He should not loose his ability to work because he can't think straight behind the wheel. Those cyclists deserve to be made whole after being damaged. Making it so this guy has to work at McDonalds or pulling weeds is counter productive. They see what he earns per year,let him get a base salary @35k per year and the excess income should go to the injured until his debt is paid. The fact that the cyclists told the guy to F himself will be taken up by every redneck thinking that the good doctor was wronged in court. Black and white is cool but it's the grey area, like the back roads of LA,SD or anytown where some rage filled jackoff will try and make a right out of what they see as wrong. He should never be given a drivers license anywhere. He can't hunt ,fish or vote anymore why would you let him drive.
Ninety5rpm said:
I'm a big proponent of vehicular cycling but what's interesting is that if you look at the Wiki link you provided there is also quite a big exception as to when you should take the entire lane:
Isn't the first exception most of the time when you're in an urban situation and isn't that the biggie in terms of angry motorists?
- Mar 18, 2009
- 1,913
- 0
- 10,480
Great question!md2020 said:
I would refer to that statement as two conditions (not exceptions) that together comprise an exception. That is, both conditions -- overtaking traffic is likely to be delayed AND the lane is sharable -- have to be true for there to be an exception to controlling the full lane.
Second, on roads with multiple lanes available in the cyclist's direction, the actual delay caused by the cyclist is often likely to be insignificant. In all of those cases "likely to be delayed" is not true, regardless of lane width.
On roads where the first but not the second condition is true (busy traffic but lane is not wide enough for sharing), what seems to irritate motorists much more is thinking they'll be able to squeeze by in not-quite-wide-enough lanes, and then realizing too late that they can't, and having to slam on their brakes.
The only prevention I know for this, perhaps counter-intuitively, is to clearly control the full lane, thus telegraphing early that they will have to change lanes to pass, giving them the time and distance to do it safely, comfortably and without delay. It's cyclists riding too far right in unsharable lanes, practically inviting overtaking motorists to share that unsharable lane, that seems to be the cause of much consternation. I mean, it's not a problem when the motorist approaching quickly from behind is able to safely encroach into the adjacent lane near the last second (including possibly across the center line on two-lane roads) to pass, but it is a problem when the moment the driver realizes that's what must be done, that it's not possible because of other traffic, and that moment occurs so late that all he can do to avoid passing you too closely and possibly hitting you is slam on the brakes. That's when they get irritated, mad, honk, yell, etc. So making it clear to them what they have to do (change lanes, or slow if they can't), while they are still far enough back to do adjust for you safely and comfortably, by clearly controlling the full lane, is the only preventive measure I know for overtaking motorist angst.
If you use a mirror to monitor motorist behavior behind you for a while, how seemingly subtle and insignificant changes in lane position can affect them becomes obvious, and amazing. For example, you might find that in a position near the right tire track most motorists seem to drive at full speed almost to the point of reaching you before they slow or change lanes, while if you move left just a foot or two all of a sudden they start showing signs of slowing and/or changing lanes while they are much further back.
Did you look at the CyclistLorax youtube channel where this technique is demonstrated in a number of videos?
www.youtube.com/user/CyclistLorax#p/u
Ninety5rpm said:
That hasn't been my experience. The anger and road rage I usually hear about always seems to be related more to the misconception that cyclists think they "own the road" because they are taking up too much of a lane and disregard stop signs and stop lights. It's definitely counter intuitive that taking up an entire lane incites drivers less than staying to the right of a lane. The end result may be safer for the cyclist but I think that has nothing to do with driver consternation.
I definitely don't have a problem taking up a lane when there are multiple lanes available and right curb is lined with parked cars. The problem I have is when there is only a single lane available and a road shoulder with no parked cars and the speed limit is high. In that instance I would rather ride to the right of the white line in the crap than to try and stake a claim to the lane.
As for your explanation of the exceptions, I understand what you're saying. I read them as independent conditions but it makes sense that they are to be taken together.
BTW, those CyclistLorax videos are great. Thanks for pointing them out.
- Mar 18, 2009
- 1,913
- 0
- 10,480
Most urban roads have curbs and not striped shoulders, and I'm not suggesting we should be taking the lane when doing so holds up motor traffic for more than a few seconds, and it's safe and reasonable to move aside into a shoulder or bike lane or whatever. However, as soon as there is any kind of gap in traffic of greater length than 10-15 seconds or so, I'm back in my default primary lane-controlling position, especially if there is any upcoming intersection or midblock driveway or something. Some people understandably get the impression that this means a lot of back and forth, but it really doesn't work out that way once you get the right balance worked out. The balance to work out is between using an accommodating sharing position that is less conspicuous, has poorer sight lines and usually worse surface conditions with using the clear and conspicuous lane-controlling position but which might impede others. It's quite manageable, especially if you use a rear view mirror, and helps your mind stay focussed on traffic rather than drift, which is good.md2020 said:
Yeah, read them over, sleep on it, then read them again. Ride around thinking about them, then review them again. It can be an illuminating process. If any one of those conditions is true, then there is no legal obligation to keep right, and there should never be a safety reason to keep right. The only reason to ever keep right is for the convenience of overtaking traffic, which should never take a higher priority than your safety.md2020 said:
Great. They're designed to address the questions of the skeptics.md2020 said:
Kennf1 said:
Pretty much agreed. He is worth more to the actual injured parties if he is NOT in jail as far as damages go. But to the cycling community and treatment of roadies by motorists, he is worth more as an example in jail for at least a year.
What a bizarre way for someone to ruin their very comfortable and successful life. He is a sick man, but I have no sympathy for him whatsoever.
Road Rage Doctor was Sacrificial Lamb
I was in the courtroom yesterday and witnessed the destruction of a doctor, who has served the public for over 30 years. The court, and "holier than though" Prosecutor, choose to use Dr. Thompson as an example. They offered him up to the biking community as a form of revenge to an ongoing problem. The sacrificial lamb...
I can easily state this, judging by other sentences issued to REALLY EVIL individuals, who have done much worse than Dr. Thompson. His words were construed to mean something that they might not have meant at all - and that's what this case hung its hat on. The biking community feels that it owns the road and that Joe Public should stay out of their way and yield to their pleasure.
They have taken this poor man, who was returning home from an all night shift in the ER - only destroyed his life, but the life of his family. I guess it wasn't enough for Peterson (cyclist) and his crew to destroy this man. Yes, HE HAS LOST HIS HOME TO FORECLOSURE, HIS RIGHT TO PRACTICE MEDICINE AND, THE JUDGE DETERMINED THAT HE WOULD ADD MORE ICING TO THE CAKE - HE LOST THE RIGHT TO DRIVE A VEHICLE FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE. Yet, murderers and rapists just get their life's back - no problem...
Because of a medical condition regarding his heart, it came under testimony by his father, a well-respected 85 year old surgeon, that his son might not even make it through the cruel, and over-harsh, 5 YEAR SENTENCE THAT SOME MURDERERS AND RAPISTS DON'T GET.
Obviously, the proper sentence should have involved community service and anger management - allowing him to continue to help those who are sick. A nurse came forward to say how Dr. Thompson had taught her daughter how to play piano at no charge. The girl was tragically killed at 18 - Dr. Thompson has continued to selflessly send flowers to her grave over the years. Yet, the Prosecutor painted him as an evil, selfish man - maybe someone should have looked back at the good things this man has done... Maybe the intensity of the ER caused his stress level to explode that particular morning.
It was clear that Peterson and company still didn't spill enough of Dr. Thompson' blood to feed their frenzy. Although their medical bills were paid, and it came under testimony that Peterson received $100k for his "trouble," he and the Queen Prosecutor are now demanding additional restitution from a man that has been stripped of his life and bank roll. YES, THIS IS CLEARLY ABOUT MONEY, FOLKS!!!
As I said to the Plaintiffs as I left the court room - "Your Karma is coming...it always does..." I hope they can live with their guilt - but I imagine not, as they are a pack of self-serving, self-righteous Sociopaths looking for a free hand out.
SO GENTLEMEN - REMEMBER MY WORDS WELL EVERY TIME LIFE BEGINS TO FAIL YOU... Oh yeah - enjoy your bike ride...
I was in the courtroom yesterday and witnessed the destruction of a doctor, who has served the public for over 30 years. The court, and "holier than though" Prosecutor, choose to use Dr. Thompson as an example. They offered him up to the biking community as a form of revenge to an ongoing problem. The sacrificial lamb...
I can easily state this, judging by other sentences issued to REALLY EVIL individuals, who have done much worse than Dr. Thompson. His words were construed to mean something that they might not have meant at all - and that's what this case hung its hat on. The biking community feels that it owns the road and that Joe Public should stay out of their way and yield to their pleasure.
They have taken this poor man, who was returning home from an all night shift in the ER - only destroyed his life, but the life of his family. I guess it wasn't enough for Peterson (cyclist) and his crew to destroy this man. Yes, HE HAS LOST HIS HOME TO FORECLOSURE, HIS RIGHT TO PRACTICE MEDICINE AND, THE JUDGE DETERMINED THAT HE WOULD ADD MORE ICING TO THE CAKE - HE LOST THE RIGHT TO DRIVE A VEHICLE FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE. Yet, murderers and rapists just get their life's back - no problem...
Because of a medical condition regarding his heart, it came under testimony by his father, a well-respected 85 year old surgeon, that his son might not even make it through the cruel, and over-harsh, 5 YEAR SENTENCE THAT SOME MURDERERS AND RAPISTS DON'T GET.
Obviously, the proper sentence should have involved community service and anger management - allowing him to continue to help those who are sick. A nurse came forward to say how Dr. Thompson had taught her daughter how to play piano at no charge. The girl was tragically killed at 18 - Dr. Thompson has continued to selflessly send flowers to her grave over the years. Yet, the Prosecutor painted him as an evil, selfish man - maybe someone should have looked back at the good things this man has done... Maybe the intensity of the ER caused his stress level to explode that particular morning.
It was clear that Peterson and company still didn't spill enough of Dr. Thompson' blood to feed their frenzy. Although their medical bills were paid, and it came under testimony that Peterson received $100k for his "trouble," he and the Queen Prosecutor are now demanding additional restitution from a man that has been stripped of his life and bank roll. YES, THIS IS CLEARLY ABOUT MONEY, FOLKS!!!
As I said to the Plaintiffs as I left the court room - "Your Karma is coming...it always does..." I hope they can live with their guilt - but I imagine not, as they are a pack of self-serving, self-righteous Sociopaths looking for a free hand out.
SO GENTLEMEN - REMEMBER MY WORDS WELL EVERY TIME LIFE BEGINS TO FAIL YOU... Oh yeah - enjoy your bike ride...
csalapatas said:
Karma? What are you babbling about? You think the cyclists should have declined to press charges? Are you a relative of the doctor or something?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 22K
-
Teams & Riders Alberto Contador Discussion Thread- Started by LaFlorecita
- Replies: 51K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 8K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 9K
-
Teams & Riders Chris Froome Discussion Thread.- Started by Miburo
- Replies: 20K
-
Who is the better Classics cyclist between Tadej Pogačar and Mathieu van der Poel?
- Started by AmRacer
- Replies: 67
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 14K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram