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.
Yes, I think a person's skills and talents should be taken into consideration. If they can be put to better use than they would be while sitting in a jail, they should be.
I think five years is way too long. Maybe a year plus four years of community service would have been better.
I have to be real honest here and tell you that I don't think anyone who has these type of anger problems should be practicing medicine anyhow. I sure wouldn't want him anywhere near me or mine. He needs a good long time to think about whether his annoyance is worth the taking of human life.
I think it's a waste. What he did was terrible, but why not require him to do community service for five years instead? Is it really a good use of our tax dollars to go toward supporting a doctor while he sits in jail?
In addition to community service, they should have required him to give free medical care to anyone injured in a bicycle accident.
Yeah, right. "What he did was terrible."
He basically used a weapon to try and kill people TWICE!!!
He got off easy. Maybe he'll get his tail ridden repeatedly in prison.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,750,914 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
I think it's a waste. What he did was terrible, but why not require him to do community service for five years instead? Is it really a good use of our tax dollars to go toward supporting a doctor while he sits in jail?
In addition to community service, they should have required him to give free medical care to anyone injured in a bicycle accident.
I agree. He should have been given 5 years in an ER- preferably "Rampart General Hospital". After he and Doctor Brackett got done treating the injured, he would know better than to act like a fool. Actually he should do some jail time and lose his medical license too.
I agree. He should have been given 5 years in an ER- preferably "Rampart General Hospital". After he and Doctor Brackett got done treating the injured, he would know better than to act like a fool. Actually he should do some jail time and lose his medical license too.
He did kinda violate the whole "do no harm" part of his oath...
I read about this account in another source and got the doctor's side of this. What happened is these cyclists were riding side by side and causing traffic as drivers couldn't pass them and they were going naturally much slower than traffic. The doctor honked and flashed his brights but the cyclists ignored him and didn't ride single file out of respect to the other drivers on the road. He then accelerated and drove them off the road. Then the cyclists, out of revenge, tailgated behind him to annoy him and that's when he slammed his brakes.
The doctor was clearly wrong but I think most of us can empathize with him. I cycle as well and we all know those types of cyclists that act like they own the road. They don't ride single file. They cut in front of people and act like they are pedestrians because they are not driving a motorized vehicle. They often don't pay attention to oncoming vehicles behind them and look back before crossing the road which forces drivers to slam their brakes. I've see that happen on multiple occasions. Personally, I feel that motorcycle drivers are more polite than cyclists.
Anyone who cycles understands there are the people who cycle for exercise and then there are the "cyclists". It's the latter that tend to be a little overzealous and rude.
If you swerve in front of someone and immediately slams on your brakes, you're at fault. And if you want to get away with it, don't do it twice (as this idiot did) and don't admit to a police officer that you wanted to "teach them a lesson".
He didn't swerve in front of them and slam his brakes. They tailgated behind him out of retaliation and then he slammed his brakes. If the doctor didn't say his intent was to harm them, nothing would have happened to him because the drivers behind him would have been in the wrong for following too closely or not braking. Sudden braking is not a crime. It happens all the time on the freeway. Some old guy will get into the left lane and then slow down, if I hit him, it's my fault not his.
The doctor was wrong but I have to laugh at those people who are depicting these cyclists as innocent angels that did nothing wrong. If anything, we know this doctor isn't lying because he was stupid enough to tell the police the truth when he said he tried to teach them a lesson. So we know the cyclists were also being rude and trying to monopolize the street with no respect to the drivers following behind them. This should also be a lesson for cyclists that they are not pedestrian walkers in which they have the right of way. They are drivers just like anyone else and they need to show courtesy to the other drivers and ride single file and allow oncoming traffic to pass.
I read about this account in another source and got the doctor's side of this. What happened is these cyclists were riding side by side and causing traffic as drivers couldn't pass them and they were going naturally much slower than traffic. The doctor honked and flashed his brights but the cyclists ignored him and didn't ride single file out of respect to the other drivers on the road. He then accelerated and drove them off the road. Then the cyclists, out of revenge, tailgated behind him to annoy him and that's when he slammed his brakes.
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?
Last edited by gallowsCalibrator; 01-11-2010 at 02:21 PM..
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?
I was going to say that the one who hits the breaks and is in the front isn't usually the one at fault.
Not all vehicles have the same stopping distance and also sometimes people can pull in front of another in a space that doesn't allow adequate stopping distance.
My sportscar basically has race-car brakes and a stopping distance about 2/3 of a typical sedan and maybe 1/2 of an SUV. I could force someone to rear-end me quite easily and there is almost nothing they can do about it. (Assuming I went insane )
Road bikes have horrible stopping distances because of their narrow little tires.
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?
I'll make this easy for you
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
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.
)
