Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have rage for anyone who is in front of me and is traveling well under the speed limit and simply refuses to allow be to pass by. I don't condone what this guy did as it was extremely dangerous and over the top but I can understand what drove him to take such action. Nothing like getting behind a group of bikers blocking the whole road and going 20 MPH under the speed limit who refuse to move over to get your blood boiling.
Cyclists (and slowpokes) have just as much right to the road as do I but common courtesy would dictate that they move over and allow faster traffic to pass. It's just like hanging in the left hand lane on the highway. PASSING ONLY!
I think most reasonable people would be annoyed if someone lacked enough courtesy to allow oncoming traffic to pass them if they are driving slow. Sure, what this doctor did was wrong. However, I'm amused by the people who are depicting these cyclists as having done nothing wrong.
I doubt this doctor just turned Terminator and decided to run these cyclists off the road. That makes little sense. According to his own account, there were a group of cyclists that were not riding single file and were occupying the road so that he and other drivers couldn't pass them. What reasonable person wouldn't be upset by that? Again, I'm not justifying this doctor's actions but I'm amused that some think the cyclists' behavior was perfectly acceptable. Courtesy goes both ways. Drivers need to respect cyclists but cyclists also need to recognize when to ride single file and allow passing motorists to go by.
Judging by some of these responses if someone is crossing in a walker and taking too long they should be hit with the car as "they got what they deserved".
Like any other incident, I'm sure there are two sides to every story. From the article it states that the cyclists were riding side by side on a narrow road, when the driver honked they went single file and "gestured" at him. I understand the frustration with cyclists, many routinely ignore stop signs and red lights, ride double or 3 wide occupying an entire lane and refuse to pull over to the shoulder or side of the road, putting themselves and others in danger. Add to that they pay no registration or license fees or carry insurance. Not that any of this justifies putting their lives in danger.
Yeah, there is no excuse for what the guy did, but frankly, people should see that behaving like a-holes only serves to create dangerous situations. I've seen plenty of bikers flaunt and taunt and disrespect road laws all day long.
So, it's ok for him to drive slower than the cyclists, but it's not ok for the cyclists to ride slower than him?
Oh, I'm sure they were on his tail because they suddenly had a desire to ride fast. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that they were angry that this crazy guy just tried to run them off the road. Strong point!
Let me ask you this, if you were on a cycle and some crazy guy just ran through you and forced you off the road, would it make a lot of sense to be in a position in which you were following him closely? Would you ask your friends to wait a minute and get some distance between you and that driver? It takes two to tango. The doctor was wrong but the cyclists are not completely blameless either.
1. First I'm not claiming anything. It's what I read.
2. They are riding cycles so naturally their mode of transportation doesn't lend them to a 230 HP engine that enables them to travel at 50 MPH as easily as most cars. If it suprises you that they are riding much slower than oncoming traffic then I have a train ticket to Hawaii to sell you
3. There are different sections of roads that can enable cyclists to ride faster. You would have a point if all the roads in the entire world were flat. Ever heard of a downhill segment? According to the defendant, the cyclists were tailing him downhill. Furthermore, you are assuming that cyclists ride at the same speed the entire time and are incapable of speeding up. Perhaps they rode faster to annoy this driver after he tried to run them off the road but it's nice to see that you thought outside the box.
4. I like your balanced and objective approach to this particularly how you addressed why the cyclists didn't ride single file when they saw the oncoming traffic behind them...oh wait you didn't
1. Where might we be able to read this? I'm actually curious to read his exact phrasing. ((Seriously))
2. I wasn't surprised in the slightest that they cannot match the speeds of a motor vehicle. See point 3.
3. Logically, going downhill would mean that the bikes would go faster. No duh. But it does raise the possibility that the bikers were merely coasting with the flow of the downward slope. Above that, cars have a much better braking system than a bicycle does. Braking downhill for a car is not that hard. The same cannot be said for a bicycle.
4. I was just addressing an apparent contradiction on one part of your statement. As for the bicyclists not going single-file when they "saw" traffic, they were possibly in the wrong for their actions. The reason I say "possibly" is because every state has different laws in regards to bikes.
Either way, just because somebody else is breaking the law is no reason to take matters into your own hands. There have been plenty of times where I have been utterly annoyed at idiotic drivers - but I've enough decency to just let it go and not try to hurt anybody. This doctor has purposely and repeatedly assaulted bikers on the road.
I think the doctor should have got the maximum sentence, not the reduced amount of time that he actually received. It really doesn't matter what the cyclists did, he tried to kill them. I hope that this doctor becomes the victim of a different kind of rage while inside and learns about a whole new form of tailgating.
I can't believe that some posters actually believe that a doctor should not go to prison just because they are a doctor. Everyone should be treated the same in the eyes of the law, to suggest anything different is absurd. In fact, I can see an argument being made that a person with special talents and skills that squanders them by committing crimes should be treated even more harshly by society.
First you claim that the cyclists were not only going slower than traffic, but naturally much slower. Then you claim that they tailgated him. Logic would assume that if the cyclists were going too slow for his tastes, then the cyclists would be incapable of tailgating him once he reached a "suitable" speed.
Or... If he was planning on driving slow enough to be tailgated.... why did he need to pass them in the first place?
Or are we to assume that the cyclists - who were previously going too slow for the defendant - mustered up the ability to match pace with a motor vehicle?
This is exactly what I was going to point out!
Quote:
Originally Posted by azriverfan.
I'll make this easy for you
1. First I'm not claiming anything. It's what I read.
Funny, the jury heard the doctor's version of events that you read, and the 12 of them didn't believe him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by azriverfan
2. They are riding cycles so naturally their mode of transportation doesn't lend them to a 230 HP engine that enables them to travel at 50 MPH as easily as most cars. If it suprises you that they are riding much slower than oncoming traffic then I have a train ticket to Hawaii to sell you
3. There are different sections of roads that can enable cyclists to ride faster. You would have a point if all the roads in the entire world were flat. Ever heard of a downhill segment? According to the defendant, the cyclists were tailing him downhill. Furthermore, you are assuming that cyclists ride at the same speed the entire time and are incapable of speeding up. Perhaps they rode faster to annoy this driver after he tried to run them off the road but it's nice to see that you thought outside the box.
Who said they were surprised the cyclists were traveling slower than the car(s)? No one, that's who. Not only do you have no evidence besides the doctor's word, which we already know was dismissed by a jury, but as I said previously, even IF they were riding too close to the back of him, that does not give him the right to USE HIS CAR AS A WEAPON IN AN ATTEMPT TO DO THEM BODILY HARM. What the hell is so hard to grasp about that concept???
Quote:
Originally Posted by azriverfan
4. I like your balanced and objective approach to this particularly how you addressed why the cyclists didn't ride single file when they saw the oncoming traffic behind them...oh wait you didn't
Who cares? I've addressed it. They were riding 2 abreast. The doctor honked and they fell into single file. As he drove past, he yelled at them and they yelled back. So when he pulled in front of them he was so pissed off that he decided "to teach them a lesson".
With his car!
By intentionally acting maliciously in such a way as to cause them serious bodily harm!
That. Is. Not. Okay. EVER. No matter HOW pissed off you are. EVER.
Quote:
Originally Posted by azriverfan.
I think most reasonable people would be annoyed if someone lacked enough courtesy to allow oncoming traffic to pass them if they are driving slow. Sure, what this doctor did was wrong. However, I'm amused by the people who are depicting these cyclists as having done nothing wrong.
I doubt this doctor just turned Terminator and decided to run these cyclists off the road. That makes little sense. According to his own account, there were a group of cyclists that were not riding single file and were occupying the road so that he and other drivers couldn't pass them. What reasonable person wouldn't be upset by that? Again, I'm not justifying this doctor's actions but I'm amused that some think the cyclists' behavior was perfectly acceptable. Courtesy goes both ways. Drivers need to respect cyclists but cyclists also need to recognize when to ride single file and allow passing motorists to go by.
NOBODY has said that the cyclists riding abreast was "courteous" or that it wasn't wrong. NOBODY. You're just making stuff up to justify your "understanding" of why this jerk resorted to physical violence to "teach [rude cyclists] a lesson".
A "reasonable person" would know they are obliged by law to share the road with cyclists and other slow-moving vehicles and not do things ON PURPOSE that they can be reasonably CERTAIN will cause serious injury and possibly even DEATH.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer
Judging by some of these responses if someone is crossing in a walker and taking too long they should be hit with the car as "they got what they deserved".
You know, one day, all us people who have been sitting there, tight-lipped, ignoring all your transgressions, rudeness, and inconsiderate behavior may very well rise up and start smacking the ****e out people with our cars...because it just gets to be too much.
And we'll be in the wrong, because violence is not an acceptable way to deal with anger, but you won't be as innocent as you claim to be or think you are, either.
1. Where might we be able to read this? I'm actually curious to read his exact phrasing. ((Seriously))
2. I wasn't surprised in the slightest that they cannot match the speeds of a motor vehicle. See point 3.
3. Logically, going downhill would mean that the bikes would go faster. No duh. But it does raise the possibility that the bikers were merely coasting with the flow of the downward slope. Above that, cars have a much better braking system than a bicycle does. Braking downhill for a car is not that hard. The same cannot be said for a bicycle.
4. I was just addressing an apparent contradiction on one part of your statement. As for the bicyclists not going single-file when they "saw" traffic, they were possibly in the wrong for their actions. The reason I say "possibly" is because every state has different laws in regards to bikes.
Either way, just because somebody else is breaking the law is no reason to take matters into your own hands. There have been plenty of times where I have been utterly annoyed at idiotic drivers - but I've enough decency to just let it go and not try to hurt anybody. This doctor has purposely and repeatedly assaulted bikers on the road.
1. This is a pretty famous event. This isn't the first time I've seen heard of this event. I don't recall exactly what newspaper I read it in
2. I'm aware that cars have a better ability to brake. I'm not arguing the doctor was in his right to brake. He was obviously trying to hurt the bikers and he was wrong. My question is why were the bikers following so closely behind him in the first place? He just tried to run you off the road. Shouldn't they have waited until they had some space between themselves and the doctor? If they were simply going about their way and had no intent to avenge themselves, I find it hard to believe that they couldn't have stopped and waited.
3. The cyclists made a "gesture" so there is already evidence that these were not exactly pacifists who were trying their best to avoid trouble.
4. There was no contradiction in my statement. You just made the assumption the cyclists were already traveling at top speed and if that was too slow for traffic then they were incapable of traveling faster to ride on his tail. The cyclists could have been cruising at a speed that was comfortable to them but slower than the traffic behind them. That doesn't mean they were incapable of traveling at faster speeds.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
