Fellow Cyclists,

(Re: Driver sentenced for attacking cyclists, see below forwarded post from Ken Sallot)

With much respect to one of my favorite riders (Ken S.) for posting this news, and to my friends who have been wrongly injured and even killed . . .

While Dr. Thompson may be a complete jerk and deserving of his prison time, I would like to remind everyone that if you are behind someone when they do something stupid, you are generally responsible for being able to stop or slow down so as to prevent an accident.  This is a well-established precedent from the late nineteenth century, when the appearance of horse carriages, bicycles, street cars, and pedestrians inaugurated our contemporary traffic laws.  Case law dictates that when you run into someone from behind, you are likely at fault, even if you were taunted or enticed to follow too closely.  This may not have been the case with Dr. Thompson, who seems to have deliberately shotgunned cyclists into his back windshiled with malicious intent, but it is often the case with us at our least fine moments.  

A fundamental principle of vehicular cycling, the philosophy that bicycles are vehicles with rights and privileges, is that you don't follow too close to someone, especially if they smell of evil and pass you beligerently.  If someone in front of you is doing something stupid, and you can't stop fast enough, then you are following too close.  Go off the road, slow down, and be the better person, even if it means taking the ditch, blowing a tire on the gravel, or plowing new rows on the six foot grass in the median.  Anything else is tailgaiting, riding too close, or a display of speed.  While Dr. Thompson deliberately injured cyclists, it is also common for us, in our more stupid moments, to chase down or ride too close to dangerous drivers.  I'm not proud to say I do it every once in a while, even while I preach against it, and I know that testosterone and ego inspires me and many of you to do the same.  Except in the most extreme cases (such as Dr. Thompson's) these "rear-end" casualties can be avoided by getting off your high horse, being an adult, and admitting that you have lost the battle between bike and car.

Obviously, Dr. Thompson was an exception, and he deliberately drove in front of cyclists, then braked, to disrupt the flow of traffic in a belligerent manner.  A court of law determined this.  However, cyclists often abet and assist these morons by tailgaiting and drafting to make a point.  Thompson's lawyer may be a jerk, but if my own regretful behavior is an example, he's probably right.  Based on my own bad habits and what I've seen from our community (be it the college kids of Team Florida, the grownups of CycleLogic, or the mature veterans of the GCC), I don't find it hard to believe that cyclists were "belligerent" in tailgaiting this jerk, as his lawyer stated.  Even the best among us often do wrong when confronted by a nasty driver.  How many times have we chased the car, flipped the bird, and given the driver a chance to retaliate with a hard brake and a visit to the hospital?  Even on rides I have led over the past months, I have to say I haven't been an exemplar of defensive cycling. 

Cars will always win, as their mass and braking power supercede ours by factors of booyah!.  It is important to recognize this fact, and to be humble, even if it means eating some crow.  And this is not to denigrate all the innocent victims of car-to-bike accidents, but only to assist the less than innocent in avoiding an unnecessary fate.  I hope Dr. Thompson learns the error of his ways, and that cyclists learn how not to provoke people like him.  Even as I consider myself a mature rider, it is one of the most difficult things to do--just smile and wave, and hope the driver isn't an asshole next time.  Let's not give the Dr. Thompsons of the world a chance to hurt us, or to make us scared of owning the roads that belong to us and all responsible citizens.   

Regards, and Safe Cycling,

James T. 

P. S. I would expect a driver with such an ego and overinflated testosterone level to be driving something more masculine than the car he was in.  I mean, if you're gonna jake some roadies, at least do it in a respectably large vehicle, like a Lincoln Town Car, a Hummer, or a Jag sedan.  Why couldn't an emergency room doctor afford a more threatening vehicle with which to terrorize cyclists?  Is our economy really that effed?  It gives one pause to think . . .

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Ken Sallot <ken@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Some of you may have been following this case in LA. 

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cyclists-trial1-2009nov01,0,159992.story

The verdict is in, guilty.

http://www.velonews.com/article/99800/dr-thompson-is-found-guilty-of-all-counts-in-la-road-rage

Dr. Thompson is found guilty of all counts in LA road rage trial.

By Patrick Brady
Published: Nov. 2, 2009
The verdict was released Monday afternoon.
The verdict was released Monday afternoon.
Photo: Chris Roberts

A Los Angeles Superior Court jury on Monday found Dr. Christopher Thomas Thompson guilty of assaulting cyclists by abruptly stopping his car in front of them on a hilly Los Angeles County road last year.

Thompson, a former emergency room doctor, was found guilty of six felonies and one misdemeanor and could face as much as five years in prison.

He was remanded and ordered held without bail until sentencing. He was handcuffed in the courtroom after the verdict was read.

Thompson was accused of assault with a deadly weapon, reckless driving causing specified bodily injury, battery with serious bodily injury and mayhem. The most serious charges stem from a July 4, 2008, incident on Mandeville Canyon Road, the road where Thompson lives, where he was accused of abruptly stopping his car in front of two cyclists. Other charges relate to a similar incident on the same road that did not result in injuries.

In the July 4 incident, the two cyclists hit the rear of Thompson's car; one slammed through the rear window, the other catapulted over the car into the road. In the earlier incident, the cyclists said they narrowly avoided hitting the rear of Thompson's car.

Related articles:

Nov. 2, 2009: Verdict
Oct. 30, 2009: Closing arguments
Oct. 29, 2009: Thompson cross-examined
Oct. 28, 2009: Dr. Thompson takes the stand
Oct. 26, 2009: Prosecution rests
Oct. 22, 2009: 'I wanted to teach them a lesson'
Oct. 20, 2009: Defense suggests cyclists were looking for a fight
Oct. 19, 2009: Road-rage trial begins
Oct. 12, 2009: California road-rage case heads for court
Dec. 24, 2008: Mionske: Mandeville incident inspires Cyclists Bill of Rights
Aug. 15, 2008: Mionske: Bikes v. cars
Aug. 8, 2008: Mionske: Where's the justice?
July 14, 2008: Mailbag: Readers sound off
July 13, 2008: Doctor charged
July 10, 2008: LA incident rallies cyclists

Thompson's lawyer had argued that the cyclists were belligerent and may have fallen because of the inherent instability of bicycles. He suggested that in any case the incident was accidental, not criminal.

Please check back soon for a complete report


 

To unsubscribe from GCCMail, please go to http://gccfla.org/. Sign in to the Members Area, scroll down to the "About Me" box, and click the Unsubscribe button in the Email section. There are also links in the headers of this message that you can use if you know how to access them.


 

To unsubscribe from GCCMail, please go to http://gccfla.org/. Sign in to the Members Area, scroll down to the "About Me" box, and click the Unsubscribe button in the Email section. There are also links in the headers of this message that you can use if you know how to access them.