Tag Archive for Dr. Christopher Thompson

Evil on Trial: Dr. Christopher Thomson’s fate in the hands of the jury

“Get the fuck off the road!”

— Dr. Christopher Thompson to cyclist Patrick Early, as told by Asst. D.A. Mary Stone

After two weeks of testimony, it all came down to this.

Two talented attorneys facing off before the jury, summing up days of impassioned first-hand testimony, complicated technical evidence and the insights of expert witnesses — in some case, highly paid experts — to direct them to a single inescapable verdict.


Or not.

And now the Good Doctor’s freedom, and his career, hangs in the balance.

“This coat can inspire trust”

According to cyclist/attorney DJwheels, the biking community’s eyes and ears in the courtroom, Assistant District Attorney Mary Stone offered an effective closing argument delivered through a series of well-chosen props.

She began by donning a white medical coat, and asked the jurors if they remembered questioning during jury selection about what it means to be a doctor, and if doctors can commit crimes. She then offered a series photos of showing well known TV physicians wearing a similar coat.

“I don’t want you to get confused,” she said. “Because this coat can inspire trust.”

She showed a photo of the Grand Canyon, explaining that there is a big, wide line that you just don’t cross, because “there’s a canyon in between.”

“You don’t use your car to hurt people.”

That was followed by a recap of the testimony offered by Patrick Early, the first cyclist Dr. Christopher Thompson is accused of threatening with his car, though he was not charged with that encounter.

According to Stone, the doctor offered a long list of dates when the incident could not have happened because of work or travel. Yet he left a number of days unaccounted for — days when he could have yelled at Early to get off the road, then slammed on his brakes directly in front of the rider’s bike, just as he is charged with doing twice more in the following months.

She noted that Early worked in the auto industry and had an in-depth knowledge of cars, and so was able to identify the color, make and model of the vehicle that nearly ran him off the road, as well as recalling Thompson’s personalized license plates months later.

“The cry of an honest man”

She moved on then the next incident, which occurred the following March.

Cyclists Patrick Watson and Josh Crosby were riding down Mandeville Canyon, at or near the posted 30 mph speed limit, when Thompson again slammed on his brakes, forcing Watson off the road.

Stone told the jurors that Christopher Thompson chose to break the law. He was already speeding when he encountered the cyclists, she said, and he chose to engage the cyclists even though he had other options. He could have left; he could have kept going.

She noted the beginnings of a pattern. “We now know what enrages him.”

Stone went on to say that the defense will tell you that Watson had a grudge against Thompson, and that the angry emails Watson sent to friends and other cyclists after the incident show he wanted to get even with the doctor.

She played Watson’s 911 call for the jury, pointing out that Watson stayed at the scene waiting for the police for over an hour and a half after the incident, and gave his name and phone number to the operator. If he was a rogue cyclist, as Thompson claimed, why would he identify himself to the police, she asked?

And she described the emails as “the cry of an honest man.”

“Have a good laugh at that”

As for the incident with Ron Peterson and Christian Stoehr, she reminded the jurors once again that he could have kept going. If you slam on your brakes in front of two cyclists, she explained, you have to expect that they could hit you. “That’s just common sense.”

“He wants you to believe that he just wanted to take a picture,” she said. “That’s ridiculous. When you get back into the jury room, have a good laugh at that.”

At that, defense attorney Peter Swarth objected — one of three times he defied judicial courtesy by objecting during another attorney’s closing arguments; like the other two times, he was overruled by the judge.

She continued by saying that even if he did want to take a picture of the riders, as he claimed, it was his choice to stop in front of them. He was also “disdainful” of the injuries the riders suffered as a result.

“What if you went to the emergency room and your loved one was bleeding from the face, and the doctor told you it wasn’t serious?”

Because of what had happened to his childhood friend, Stone added — reminding the jurors of Thompson’s earlier testimony about a friend who fell from his bike and was run over by a car — he should have had a heightened sense of the fragility of cyclists.

“He knows what can happen.”

She added that the doctor can’t escape the fact that he was driving recklessly. And reminded them about the testimony of LAPD Officer Rodriguez, who said Thompson’s admission that he slammed on his brakes to teach the cyclists a lesson was “burned into his brain.” Who is more believable, she asked, an experienced LAPD officer or the doctor who had just injured two cyclists?

Thompson knew exactly what was going to happen, Stone said. She finished by showing photos of the injuries suffered by Peterson and Stone, ticking off a list of the charges, and asking the jury to find the doctor guilty on all counts.

“No crime occurred”

DJwheels didn’t consider defense attorney Peter Swarth’s closing argument nearly as engaging or effective as Stone’s.

Swarth began by projecting a single word — “Accident” — onto the screen, explaining that this may have been an unfortunate event, but, he insisted, it was not a crime.

“The prosecution says my client is full of rage, but there’s no evidence of that,” he said, adding that only Patrick Early claimed to see an enraged Thompson behind the wheel — and he only saw Thompson through the car’s rear view mirror.

And that event never happened, according to the defense; no charges were ever filed “because no crime occurred.” The other riders never saw the doctor’s face until he exited the car, thanks to the tinted windows on his Lexus.

He also claimed that Early’s identification of Thompson was tainted. According to Swarth, the LAPD detective investigating the case showed Early an old DMV photo of the Good Doctor, part of a photo lineup designed to get the result the police wanted.

Early’s credibility was also strained, Swarth said, since he couldn’t even remember if the incident occurred in December 2007 or January 2008. And while Early testified that he didn’t know any of the other riders who testified in this case, he had worked at the Ground Zero advertising agency in 2001, at the same time Christian Stoehr was there.

“Their actions belie their testimony”

Watson and Crosby weren’t credible, Swarth claimed, noting that they testified they had moved over once they became aware of the car behind them.

“Why would my client tell them to ride single file if they were already riding single file?”

“They say ‘This guy tried to kill me.’ But why would they stand in front of the car of someone who had just tried to kill them?” He added that it just didn’t make sense to ask someone to get out of his car if he had just tried to kill you. They were mad, he said. “Their actions belie their testimony.”

And he insisted that the speeds recorded by Watson’s Garmin proved that he never left the roadway and bunny hopped onto the grass as Watson and Crosby had testified.

According to DJwheels, however, that argument didn’t seem to make any sense.

“How can a horn be angry?

Swarth then moved on to the incident with Watson and Stoehr, asking where the evidence was that proved the intent necessary to support the criminal charges.

He reminded the jury they had testified that Thompson honked his horn in an angry and aggressive manner. “How can a horn be angry? It’s just not true.” He also noted the gruesome photos of their injuries, asking the jury not to convict his client based on those photos alone.

He then attempted to discredit various aspects of the rider’s testimony.

Swarth said that Stoehr had testified that when Thompson slammed on his brakes, he clipped the back wheel of Peterson’s bike, hit the back of the car, flipped over it and landed in the street in front of the vehicle. “That just did not happen,” he said.

According to Swarth, what really happed was that Stoehr looked back after passing the car, saw what had happened to Peterson, then lost his balance and simply fell over.

He said that Thompson told the riders to get their bikes out of the street because emergency vehicles were on their way. And he asked what kind of cycling coach — referring to Peterson — teaches his student to respond in an angry manner, reminding them that Peterson had said “I’m going to fuck you up” immediately following the collision.

If Thompson was so enraged, as the riders claimed, why did he call 911 to get them help? Maybe he just used the wrong words in claiming that the injuries weren’t serious, Swarth suggested. “He was just trying to get the right help to arrive.”

“How can 30 years of trying to help people just disappear in a moment?”

He displayed a photo showing Thompson’s Lexus next to the curb. “Doesn’t it look like he was just trying to park his car?”

Then he turned his attention to the third rider on the road that day, asking why Chris Parker wasn’t injured. The answer, he claimed, was that Parker was simply more careful.

He finished by asking about Officer Rodriguez’s testimony, in which he said the Good Doctor admitted he did it intentionally. Rodriguez never asked the follow-up question, Swarth claimed.

“What do you mean you wanted to teach them a lesson?”

He added that maybe someone else in the crowd had said that, and Rodriguez mistakenly attributed it to Thompson.

It was all a tragic accident, Swarth concluded.

“Sometimes the thing that you seek to avoid becomes the thing you can’t avoid.”

“This is exactly what happens”

Stone then followed up with a powerful rebuttal, holding a baseball bat in front of the jury.

Let’s say you go into a grocery store, she suggested, and someone is blocking the aisle you need. So you threaten them with the bat, and say “Get the fuck out of my way.”

Then the next time you go in, it happens again. But this time, the people blocking your way say “Fuck you.” So you swing your bat at them. You miss, but they get out of the way. Then it happens a third time — and this time, you connect with the bat.

“That’s what happened here,” she said.

She paused to put on the white doctor’s coat she’d worn earlier, suggesting that the Good Doctor had wrapped himself in that afterwards to deflect responsibility.

Then she concluded by picking up Peterson’s shattered bike and holding it in front of the jury. “This”, she said, “is exactly what happens when you slam on the brakes in front of someone.”

According to DJwheels, one of the doctor’s supporters could clearly be heard responding in the gallery.


Jury deliberations resume this morning at 9:30 am. DJwheels says he doesn’t expect a verdict until sometime Tuesday, or late today at the earliest. I’ll post it on here as soon as I’m able to get it online. VeloNews has a well-written summary of closing arguments, and the L.A. Times offers an overview of the trial, saying cyclists have a lot riding on the case.

I’ll post my usual links to articles later this afternoon.

Evil on Trial: Dr. Christopher Thomson denies all in the Mandeville Canyon case

“This case is just stupid. When people are blocking you, you get mad. This is because they said ‘Fuck you.’ It’s just male aggression. They’re both at fault.”

— Overheard during a break in the Mandeville Canyon trial

Thursday was an interesting day, to say the least.

In a courtroom packed with both cyclists and supporters of the Good Doctor — and yes, there are people who support Christopher Thompson, despite everything — the defendant took the stand in his own defense.

According to Dr. Thompson, it was all just an unfortunate accident. The cyclists were rude and riding dangerously. He pulled over, slowly and carefully taking his place along the curb. And he has no idea why those careless, reckless bikers smashed into the back of his car.

Well, one anyway.

According to his attorney, the other one just fell over on his own.

No, really.

“I’ve saved a lot of lives.”

Cyclist/attorney DJwheels, who attended the hearing, said testimony began with a recap of the Good Doctor’s career as an ER specialist, including his work as the head of emergency services at Beverly Hospital for the past three years prior to the incident he’s charged with.

According to Thompson, he’s treated over 100,000 patients in his career, including “hundreds” of injured cyclists.

Under questioning by his attorney, Peter Swarth, he explained his understanding of the medical definition of “serious” injuries, in an attempt to address the comment clearly heard on his 911 call, in which he said the cyclists injuries weren’t serious, “but they’ll tell you that.”

He said that by definition, a serious injury requires admission to the hospital in order to stabilize the patient, and can be determined by simple observation. A close examination of the patient isn’t necessary to evaluate them by ABC — Airways, Breathing and Circulation — while a simple neurological exam be performed by observing how the patient responds to questions.

He continued by describing how he moved into his home in Mandeville Canyon on October 1, 1987; memorable as the day of the Whittier Earthquake. And noted that Gov. Schwarzenegger and his family moved to the canyon about 5 years ago.

Swarth asked why Thompson doesn’t live there anymore, and why he no longer works at Beverly Hospital; however, both questions were disallowed as a result of previous rulings by the judge.

Thompson described the canyon in detail, including the length of the roadway, elevation gain and the exact number of speed bumps and stop signs. According to him, it wasn’t necessary to step on the gas to reach the bottom; coasting and braking was enough to maintain the 30 mph speed limit downhill.

Since 2001, however, the canyon has been progressively overrun by cyclists, he said.

“I don’t have a problem with cyclists,” Thompson said. “I just don’t like their behavior.” He even claimed to ride a bike himself, though he couldn’t describe it in any way — by brand, type, color or number of gears.

The Good Doctor explained that he doesn’t like to drive behind cyclists in the canyon because they run stop signs, ride side-by-side and in large groups, and won’t allow drivers to pass. But he doesn’t get mad, he claimed; just frustrated and concerned for their safety, due to their own reckless actions.

He nearly came to tears as he related the story of a childhood friend named Bobby who went for a bike ride, fell over and was run over by the car behind him. That’s why he believes bicycles are inherently unstable, he said.

Thompson went on to explain how he had spoken to other canyon residents, as well as the chairman of the local neighborhood association safety committee, about what could be done to rein in cyclists since they can’t be identified to the police. The conclusion was that the best option was to take pictures and videotape the riders.

“I wasn’t there.”

Thompson explained that he couldn’t have been the driver who had the earlier encounter with Patrick Early, for which he wasn’t charged.

He was too busy with work, he claimed, and frequently out of town on business. He never had such an incident at that time, doesn’t know Early and couldn’t identify him — despite the fact that Early had picked Thompson’s photo out of a lineup and recalled the Good Doctor’s personalized license plate months afterwards.

“Ride single file”

The incident with Patrick Watson and Josh Crosby, for which he is charged, wasn’t so easily explained.

According to DJwheels, Swarth lead him through his testimony, explaining that he came up behind two riders going downhill side-by-side, honking once as a polite warning. When the cyclists failed to respond, he attempted to pass, but was blocked by an oncoming car.

On his second attempt, he crossed over the yellow line and accelerated, passing about three feet from the cyclists. And as he did, he extended his arm and index finger out the passenger side window, saying “Ride single file.”

They responded by yelling “Fuck you asshole!” and “shot him the shaft,” as the doctor put it — explaining that was his preferred way of saying they flipped him off.

Thompson claimed he then came to a normal, controlled stop in order to get their names. By his account, the cyclists rode safely past on either side of the car — he denied that Watson ever left the road, despite the earlier testimony by both riders. When they started to approach the car, he became frightened because the cyclists “were acting crazy,” and so he accelerated in order to get away as quickly as possible.

He was surprised to receive a call from a police detective about two weeks later asking about the incident, after Watson had reported it to the police.

“Here we go again”

Last year’s 4th of July started out a good day, as far as Dr. Thompson was concerned. He was expecting a normal, if busy, day because of the holiday, and said he wasn’t angry or in a hurry.

That lasted until he encountered three cyclists riding side-by-side as he made his way down the canyon.

They were about 50 feet ahead when he tapped gently on the horn; the center rider looked back at him and dropped slightly behind the other riders. So he honked again, and the outside rider “shot him the shaft.”

“Here we go again,” he thought, briefly accelerating up to 45 mph and crossing the yellow line in an arc-like pass. He called out “Single file please,” and was met with “a hail of ‘fuck you, asshole!’”

Again, he claimed that he braked to a controlled stop, this time in order to take photos of the cyclists as he had discussed with other residents. By his account, he had time to come to a full stop, set the parking brake, take off his seat belt and open the door before he felt an impact at the rear of the car.

As he stepped out, he saw one of the cyclists removing himself from the glass of the rear windshield.

Thompson said he identified himself as a physician and offered to help. The response he got was “Fuck you, asshole.” So from a distance, he began assessing their condition, concluding that their injuries were not life-threatening, and therefore, not medically serious.

The third rider approached, telling him to turn off the engine.

“I didn’t slam on the brakes”

The Good Doctor continued, explaining that he then called 911 for assistance.

Swarth stopped him at that point to ask about the 911 recording in which he said he “slammed on the brakes.” Thompson answered that he braked, then increased his pressure on the brakes, but never “slammed” on the brakes.

Another person soon stopped and tried to control Peterson’s bleeding using his own shirt; Thompson said he offered medical advice before the other man identified himself as a physician. He tried to flag down a paramedic unit that was coming down the canyon with cyclist injured in a previous accident. After pausing to assess the situation, they decline to stop and help; Thompson explained that they would have stayed if they thought the situation was serious.

Once the police, fire and paramedics arrived, he tried to give his statement to the investigating officer. However, Officer Rodriguez seemed distracted, and simply walked away as he was finishing his statement.

Thompson said he never told the officer that he wanted to teach the cyclists a lesson. Yet shortly later, more police arrived and another officer patted him down and cuffed him.

Again he got emotional, saying he didn’t try to hurt anyone, and didn’t think he’d stopped in an unsafe manner. “I thought I had a reasonable plan, but obviously I didn’t execute it effectively.”

And now he wakes up every night upset about what happened. “I don’t hurt people,” he said, “I help people.”

“I didn’t think it through”

The prosecution then took over for cross examination.

Assistant District Attorney Mary Stone didn’t waste any time with her cross, finishing just 15 minutes after she started.

She began by confirming that the Good Doctor was the only driver of the car in question. And that he doesn’t know Patrick Early, owe him money or is owed money by him — clearly attempting to establish that Early had no reason to lie or get even with Thompson.

He then agreed that because of what had happened to his friend as a child, he is even more aware of cyclists on the road, and that he had treated many cyclists as an ER doctor. He also agreed with her that cyclists are fragile and, unlike drivers, have nothing around them to protect them.

“You know the speed limit,” she continued, “and know it’s not just a suggestion?”

“Yes,” Thompson responded.

“You could have kept going if you wanted to?”


Thompson admitted that he was annoyed by the confrontation with the riders, but denied being angry. He also said he knew more or less where the cyclists were, even though he lost sight of them for a few moments when passing.

Stone then played the portion of the 911 tape where the doctor told the operator he’d “slammed on the brakes,” asking if he now denied that. “That’s correct,” he said, “I did not slam on the brakes.”

Her next question hit hard, even though the judge sustained the defense’s objection to it. “You got teary eyed when you talked about how you felt about this. Is that something you worked on with your attorney before you testified?”

She continued, “Do you have experience taking pictures of cyclists riding at 30 miles per hour using a cell phone?”

“I guess I didn’t think it through,” he answered.

She also asked if he seriously expected Watson and Crosby to give him their names after they “shot him the shaft.”

She then went through the testimony provided by LAPD Officer Rodriguez line by line; Thompson agreed he had said everything that Rodriguez reported about the incident with Peterson and Stoehr, with the single exception that he never said he wanted to teach them a lesson.

And she concluded by saying once again, “You could have kept going, but you didn’t.”

Read more about Thompson’s testimony in the L.A. Times and VeloNews.

Click here for a full report on Thursday’s closing arguments; click hereherehere, and here for previous reports on the trial.

The jury began deliberations late Thursday, and will resume on Monday morning; the courthouse was closed on Friday.

Evil on Trial: UPDATE — Mandeville Canyon case goes to jury, adjourns until Monday

Testimony in the Mandeville Canyon case concluded on Wednesday, with the Good Doctor, Christopher Thompson taking the stand for the full day. Closing arguments were held on Thursday, including a powerful presentation from Asst. D.A. Mary Stone in which she employed a baseball bat, doctor’s lab coat and Ron Peterson’s shattered bike — can’t wait to get details on that one.

The case went to the jury about an hour before court adjourned on Thursday; the courthouse is closed today, so deliberations will resume on Monday.

DJwheels was in the courtroom for both days and has promised to provide a full update today; check back later today for more details.

He also reports that there’s a phone chain in place, so I’ll post the verdict as soon as it comes in. Then again, the weather is supposed to be great on Monday and Tuesday, so if the verdict comes in when I’m out riding, it will go up as soon as I get back.

I know, I know. Damn cyclists.

One other note: There’s a lot of anger over this case in the cycling community, and the verdict could go either way. So please, no matter how this case comes out, keep cool — and try to channel that anger productively, where it will do some good.

We have a bad enough reputation as it is.

You can read about Thompson’s testimony in the L.A. Times and VeloNews.

Evil on trial: UPDATE — Christopher Thompson takes the stand

According to cyclist/attorney DJwheels, Dr. Christopher Thompson took the stand for the final 10 minutes of testimony this afternoon.

The defendant in the Mandeville Canyon case is accused of intentionally slamming on the his brakes in front of two cyclists on July 4, 2008, resulting in significant injuries to both riders, as well as another incident in which the riders escaped injury. So far, the only questions have been about his medical background; the judge has urged the defense attorney to keep questions relevant to the case.

Thompson will resume testimony at 10:30 am tomorrow; it’s expected to take approximately 2 hours, with cross examination projected to last an additional 2 hours. Court will recess at noon, and resume from 2 pm to 4:30 pm. Closing arguments will most likely begin Thursday morning; the case should go to the jury by Thursday afternoon.

The trial is open to the public, at Department C of the Airport Courthouse, 11701 South La Cienega Blvd just below Imperial Highway; click here for map.

Scroll down or click here for an earlier an earlier update, with more details from yesterday’s testimony.

Final arguments have concluded and the trial has gone to the jury; court is closed today, with deliberations scheduled to resume on Monday. You can read about Thompson’s testimony in the L.A. Times and VeloNews. I should have a detailed warp-up by Friday evening.

More coverage of the previous two days’ testimony on VeloNews.

Evil on trial: Mandeville driver may testify Wednesday

Attorneys will tell you than no defense lawyer wants to put his client on the stand in a criminal trial.

It’s usually considered the last resort, in hopes that the defendant and his story will appear sympathetic to the jury, despite the inherent risks in exposing the defendant to cross-examination.

And it looks like that’s exactly what will happen Wednesday in the Mandeville Canyon case. On both counts.

Dr. Christopher Thompson and his attorney may take the stand to try and spin the events of July 4, 2008 in his favor. If they do, the prosecutor has shown every indication of being willing to go after him as aggressively as necessary.

According to cyclist/attorney DJwheels, who was in the courtroom again yesterday afternoon, it looks like the trial will go to the jury late Wednesday or Thursday morning. Meanwhile, the testimony presented on Monday appears to be setting up an appearance by the defendant himself.

Since any good lawyer will want to end with a bang, that means Thompson is likely to be the defense’s final witness, unless scheduling issues force Peter Swarth, the Good Doctor’s lawyer, to follow with someone else.

It’s just a guess. But it’s an informed guess, from a lawyer who’s been closely following the Mandeville Canyon case.

So mark your calendar.

It could be the perfect opportunity to kick off your Halloween weekend with something truly horrifying.

“The laws of physics just don’t allow it.”

Unfortunately, DJwheels had to tend to his own legal practice on Monday.

As a result, he missed the first hour of defense testimony, and wasn’t sure about the exact name of the first witness called by Swarth — a highly paid expert witness specializing in accident reconstruction.

He presented two animations offering a 2-dimensional bird’s eye view showing how the accident could have happened. The first was based on statements provided by Chris Roberts, the cyclist Peterson and Stoehr had just passed prior to their encounter with Thompson; Swarth claimed he had the best perspective of the events. The second was based on Dr. Thompson’s version of events, setting up his potential testimony.

However, the witness conceded under cross-examination that the Thompson animation was based on information provided by Swarth, rather than actual police statements or interviews with the doctor.

He testified that Roberts had said Thompson was traveling at about 40 mph — 10 miles over the posted speed limit — when the Good Doctor passed him before encountering the other two riders. (So much for Thompson’s claim that the cyclists were riding “three abreast.”)

By his estimation, that allowed about 2.3 seconds between the time the brakes were applied and the moment of impact with the rear of Thompson’s car. The second animation allowed even more time, 3.4 seconds, due to Thompson’s estimate that he’d been traveling at 45 mph.

In his opinion, either estimate provided enough time for both riders to see the brake lights and respond in time to avoid collision — making the collision their fault, rather than that of the doctor who told police he did it to “teach them a lesson.”

Evidently, he’s never tried to stop a bike going downhill at 30 mph.

Asked why he didn’t prepare a 3rd animation based on Peterson and Stoehr’s statements, he said the way they described the events couldn’t have happened. “The laws of physics just don’t allow it,” he said, adding “it would have been a cartoon.”

Under cross-examination by assistant D.A. Mary Stone, he was asked if he discounted the fact that Thompson had made an “abrupt and aggressive” move in front of the cyclists before slamming on his brakes. According to DJwheels, he tried to evade the question before conceding, “I can’t show aggression in an animation.”

Stone pressed him further, showing him the infamous photo of the back of the Good Doctor’s Lexus, and asking if he agreed that Thompson had “slammed” on the brakes, causing the damage seen in the photo. Again, he tried to evade the question, but eventually conceded the point. “I’m denying that it was the sole cause, not that it was any cause.”

He also admitted that he would receive about $40,000 for his testimony and preparation for trial — with the clear implication that he would not have been paid to testify if his conclusions didn’t support the defense.

“They both slapped the car as they passed”

The next witness was Jody Fitz, who was a passenger in the car when the Good Doctor had the earlier encounter with Patrick Watson and Josh Crosby.

According to Fitz, they were headed down the canyon when they came up behind two cyclists riding side-by-side on Mandeville Canyon. Thompson tried to pass them, but couldn’t due to oncoming traffic.

However, a second attempt was more successful; Fitz said Thompson rolled down the passenger window as they passed, extended his arm and index finger, and yell out “Ride single file!”

The cyclists responded by flipping the bird and yelling something he couldn’t make out. According to Fitz, when Thompson made a “normal, controlled stop,” the cyclists passed on either side, both slapping the car as they passed. He contradicted Watson’s earlier testimony that he bunny hopped the curb, saying neither rider ever left the roadway.

He said both riders dismounted and began to approach the car; he thought there would be a fight until Thompson stepped on the gas and took off.

Under cross, Stone was able to point out a number of contradictions between his testimony and the statement he had give to the police. For instance, he told a police detective that the car hadn’t passed close to the cyclists, claiming the distance was great enough that the riders wouldn’t have been able to touch the car — despite his claim that both slapped the vehicle after it braked to a stop.

He also testified that, following the confrontation, neither he nor Thompson said anything about it until later that evening; however, he told police that Thompson had been muttering angrily afterwards, saying something like “those son of a bitches flipped me off.” And he denied saying that Thompson had stopped at the next stop sign to “see what he could do about them.”

Two witnesses with nothing much to say

The day ended with brief testimony from two other witnesses.

Dr. John Uphold, the Good Doctor’s former partner/employer, was asked about the period between December 2007 and January 2008 when Thompson is suspected to braking in front of Patrick Early, who had been riding up Mandeville Canyon when a car matching Thompson’s slammed on the brakes in front of him.

He testified that the Good Doctor had often been out of town on business or visiting family during that period, implying that it couldn’t have been his car. However, he was forced to admit that he wasn’t in the car on those days when Thompson was in town, so he had no way of knowing what might have happened then.

He was followed by LAPD Detective Phillip Enbody, the senior lead officer in the Brentwood area. He was asked if he was aware of any tension between cyclists and residents in Mandeville Canyon, and if he had advised residents to use cameras to document any problems with cyclists.

“Not exactly,” he said, adding that he made that suggestion in response to complaints about people walking their dogs off leash.

Testimony continues today with the woman to whom Det. Enbody supposedly made that suggestion, along with another expert witness and a second police officer.


Dr. Alex urges cyclists to attend this weekend’s DIY bike plan session with the Bike Working Group, while Enci explains why she hates L.A. bike lanes. The Times reports on an off-road fat tire fest in the hills above L.A. In a refreshing change, a Folsom driver apologizes to the cyclist he didn’t see on his way to work. As usual, WA police hope to keep cyclists safe by targeting riders, rather than the people who hit them. Eugene celebrates its new Gold Bike-Friendly award. The widow of the New Zealand rider killed by a hat-trick drunk driver demands changes in the law to keep drunks off the road. Town Mouse says this is what Scottish cyclists need instead of bike lanes. Finally, Newt Gingrich, the student cyclist’s friend? Really?

Evil on trial: will CVC 21202 be the key to the trial?

It’s probably the most misunderstood traffic law on the books.

Ask just about any driver, and they’ll tell you that bicyclists are required to ride as closely as possible to the right side of the road. Even motorists who ride bikes are often convinced that we have to hew to the curb — if not the sidewalk.

They’ll also tell you that cyclists are required to ride single file.

It’s not true.

Section 21202 of the California Vehicle Code only requires cyclists to ride as closely to the curb as practicable — and then only when riding at less than the normal speed of traffic.

These days, many cyclists understand the first part, even if motorists don’t. They know the law doesn’t require them to ride through potholes and broken glass on the far right. Or confine themselves to the door zone, where they’re at risk from every inattentive driver who flings open a door or pulls out of a parking space without looking.

They know they’re allowed to ride far enough from the curb as necessary in order to ride in a safe and prudent manner — with the knowledge that the exact distance can vary from one road to another, at various times and under different road and traffic conditions.

But even cyclists are often unaware of the second part of that sentence.

The simple fact is, if you can keep up with traffic, you are legally allowed to ride anywhere you want on the road, as long as you follow the lane markings and ride with the flow of traffic.

If congestion causes traffic to slow down to 15 mph, you have every right to move over and take the full lane, until speeds increase to where you can no longer keep up.

Or when the speed limit holds traffic down to 20 or 25 mph, you’re free to take the full right lane — or the left, for that matter — if you have the skill to keep up. And nothing requires that you ride on the shoulder if you’re bombing down a mountain pass at highway speeds.

As long as you can keep up, you have the legal right to ride wherever you feel most comfortable.

It’s not just the law in California, either; section 11-1205 of the Uniform Vehicle Code says almost exactly the same thing. And to the best of my knowledge, it’s the law in every state of the U.S.

There is also no restriction about riding side-by-side in this state.

Section 11-1206 of the UVC says that cyclists may not ride more than two abreast, as long as they stay within a single lane and don’t impede the “normal and reasonable movement of traffic.” And I challenge you to find a single line in the California Vehicle Code which prohibits it.

And that brings us to this recent exchange of comments in last week’s discussion of the Mandeville Canyon case.

Dave Lewis noted that when riding down Mandeville, he often found himself riding at or above the posted 30 mph speed limit, without pedaling — which meant that he could take the full lane without violating CVC21202. And asked if anyone had raised that issue in court.

According to DJwheels, the cycling community’s eyes and ears in the courtroom, the speed of various cyclists on the road has been brought up several times during the trial.

The latest article from VeloNews says that data from their GPS units shows Watson was riding at 29.2 mph just prior to the incident, and Stoehr was traveling at 28.1 mph. Which means they were entitled to full use of the lane, and the Good Doctor would have had to have been traveling at significantly over the speed limit for the incident to have occurred the way both sides have described it.

The same article also notes that testimony from Patrick Early, who had an earlier, similar encounter with Dr. Thompson, estimated that the car approached him from behind at 40 – 50 mph.

Nothing in California law gives speeding vehicles priority over cyclists, or anyone else, using the road in a safe and legal manner. And as previously noted, riding two abreast is not prohibited by any statute in this state.

Which means that the cyclists were well within their rights, and this incident could not have occurred if Thompson hadn’t already — and evidently, repeatedly — broken the law.

As an attorney as well as a cyclist, DJwheels said he hopes the prosecution will ask for a simplified version of CVC 21202 to be included in the jury instructions so they can consider it during deliberations.

Meanwhile, a comment from another attorney, Jim Gallo, says it looks like the D.A. is doing all the right things in this case.

We’ll soon find out.

The prosecution rested its case on Friday; the defense begins today.

Read VeloNews coverage of the trial here, here and here. L.A. Times coverage here and here. DJwheels comments on the trial in L.A. Streetsblog coverage here.


Debate over the proposed new L.A. bike plan goes on; Enci Box explains why non-cyclists should care, and Joe Linton covers the first meeting on the bike plan. Twenty-eight percent of L.A. commuters rely on something other than driving alone. Slower traffic should stay to the right, even on a bike path. The Interior Department says no to a Yosemite start in next year’s Tour of California. A D.C. writer takes U.S.A. Today to task for a badly misguided rant about two-wheeled trouble makers — including a misapplication of the Mandeville case. More riders are commuting to work; even New York magazine editors and people in Colorado ski areas. A Baltimore councilwoman suggests moving the bike lane out of the door zone. A Massachusetts writer observes that 79% of local cyclists obey the law. Finally, evidently California as a problem with elderly scofflaw cyclists, as an 82-year old Lompoc man was seriously injured, and an 80-year old Placentia man was killed — both after supposedly running red lights. I’d certainly like to know if there were any witnesses other than the drivers who hit them.

Evil on trial: testimony begins in the Mandeville Canyon case

The defense strategy is starting to come in focus.

Based on his cross examination, Peter Swarth, attorney for Dr. Christopher Thompson, intends to paint a picture of a canyon plagued by angry, out of control cyclists. And portray the Good Doctor as their unfortunate, and innocent, victim — three times, no less.

That message is reinforced by the noticeable presence of two large bodyguards in the courtroom, suggesting that Thompson is the one who is in danger from cyclists, rather than the other way around.

As both the Times and VeloNews reported, testimony began with Christian Stoehr, one of the two cyclists seriously injured on the 4th of July last year when the Good Doctor pulled in front of them and slammed on his brakes.

Stoehr described how he hit the back of Thompson’s car when the doctor cut in front of them and slammed on his brakes, rolling over the top of the car and falling into the street. But when he had trouble explaining exactly how that occurred, Swarth suggested that maybe he simply fell over.

You know, ‘cause experienced cyclists do that a lot.

According to cyclist/attorney DJwheels, the other rider, Ron Peterson, went into more detail, describing how they had passed a slower rider shortly before they heard a car approach from behind. When Stoehr called out “Car back!,” Peterson responded by taking single file position in front.

The driver, later identified as a Thompson, yelled out “Ride single file;” Peterson responded with “Fuck you!” He said Thompson then cut over and braked to a stop about five feet in front of them. Because of their downhill speed, a collision was unavoidable; after striking the car, Peterson flew forward into the car’s rear windshield.

“My face did that,” he said, pointing to a large hole in the glass in a photo of the scene. “And that’s my blood.”

Under cross examination, Peterson admitted that after extricating himself from the glass, he told Thompson to “Get the fuck away from me,” adding “I’m going to fuck you up!”

“I said it,” Peterson admitted. “I’m not proud.”

That exchange is important, both because it points to the anger Swarth suggests, as well as supporting the defense claim that Thompson never refused to help the cyclists, as has been reported, but rather, it was the cyclists who refused his aid.

Swarth continued to pressure Peterson, accusing him of anger before the collision, and still being furious and desperate for revenge. Peterson calmly insisted that he was angry at first, “but it’s been awhile.” He continued by saying “I just want justice. That’s why I’m here.”

Deputy District Attorney Mary Stone then called LAPD Traffic Accident Investigator Robert Rodriguez.

Rodriguez testified that shortly after arriving, he took a statement from the Good Doctor, who said the cyclists were riding “three abreast,” blocking the roadway. VeloNews quotes him as saying “They flipped me off. I stopped in front of them. I wanted to teach them a lesson. I’m tired of them.”

Rodriguez, a veteran officer and former Marine, said that meant this needed to be investigated as an assault with a deadly weapon, rather than a traffic accident. He immediately stopped his investigation and called for backup.

While he waited for help to arrive, Rodriguez took measurements of the crime scene — including one showing the roadway was 20 feet wide at that point.

Again, this could prove important, since standard lane width in California is 12 feet; section 21202 of the California Vehicle Code allows cyclists to take the lane if it’s “too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.” A substandard lane width would justify taking a position within the lane, rather than hugging the curb to the right.

Stone played a recording of Thompson speaking with the 911 operator. The court could clearly hear him tell the injured cyclists to get their bikes out of the road; he told the operator they weren’t seriously injured, “But they’ll tell you that.”

Swarth suggested that to an ER doctor such as Thompson, “serious” means something different than it does to a layman — setting up an argument to combat the doctor’s lack of remorse. However, considering that he hadn’t examined either victim, it may be hard to support a medical determination.

The next witness was another Mandeville resident, Dr. Bruce Rogen, who was returning home with his family when they came upon the crime scene. He was the first person to offer medical care to the cyclists, saying it was “primitive” due to the lack of medical equipment. Peterson was still bleeding profusely, so he took off his own shirt to use as a bandage to staunch the bleeding.

It was at about that point when the trial paused because one of the jurors felt faint — attributing it to her squeamishness around blood. Somehow, the descriptions of blood got to her, even though the previous day’s bloody photos hadn’t.

When testimony continued, Swarth pressed Rogen on whether Thompson had offered assistance. After repeated questioning, Rogen recalled Thompson saying the cyclists had refused his help; however, he did not remember Thompson attempting to assist him or offer advice.

Geoffrey Keyes, M.D. took the stand next. President of both the L.A. and California Society of Plastic Surgeons, he described the surgery he performed on Peterson, citing significant internal and external injuries to the nose, which required both nasal and septal reconstruction.

The day’s final witness was Patrick Watson of Team Helens, who recalled a similar experience in March, 2008, with a car and license plate number matching that of the Good Doctor’s.

According to Watson, Thompson ran him off the road, forcing him to bunny hop over a curb onto the lawn of a house. His riding partner, Josh Crosby, was forced onto the opposite side of the road; Crosby responded by yelling at Thompson and striking the side of his car.

Meanwhile, Watson hopped back onto the roadway, finding himself one again in front of Thompson’s car; the car charged towards him — forcing him to bunny hop onto the yard once again — before swerving off and driving away.

Watson said Crosby’s punch may have left a dent in Thompson’s Lexus, which they thought could be used as evidence in a hit-and-run charge. Swarth jumped on that, accusing Watson of threatening to file a false police report, since it was Crosby who struck Thompson’s car, rather than the other way around. However, he was forced to back down when Watson said that the police had told him that.

Then again, Swarth was also forced to back down when Judge Scott Millington sternly reprimanded him for repeatedly interrupting witnesses, as well as the judge himself.

According to VeloNews, there was a third, eerily similar incident in Mandeville Canyon that preceded the other two. In the winter of 2008, Patrick Early narrowly escaped injury when a car resembling Thompson’s buzzed his bike and the driver yelled “Get off the road!” Like the riders in this case, he responded by yelling back “Fuck you!,” only to have the driver cut in front of him and slam on the brakes; fortunately, he was riding uphill, so he was able to stop in time to avoid a collision.

Watson’s testimony continues today, followed by Josh Crosby and additional police witnesses; Friday’s witness list includes medical experts, as well as possible testimony from an expert witness about information downloaded from Watson’s Garmin.

“I hope Crosby is composed,” DJwheels said, “because it’s clear that Swarth is going to go after him.”

Defense testimony may begin on Friday or Monday, though Swarth has expressed concern about the availability of witnesses on the first part of the week. Closing arguments are expected on or about October 28.

I’ve done my best to confirm all the names in this story; however, if I have misspelled or gotten anyone’s name or title wrong, let me know and I will be happy to correct it. For more information, see the Times coverage of opening testimony, and the excellent coverage from VeloNews, here and here, as well as today’s story on Streetsblog L.A.

They drive among us: What are these people thinking?

Last week, I was riding along Ocean Blvd through Santa Monica, on my way home from a long ride to the South Bay, through that section just above the pier lined with upscale restaurants and boutique hotels.

Shortly ahead, an SUV signaled for a right and turned across the bike lane into a parking lot entrance. Granted, state law says drivers should enter the bike lane before making their turn, rather than cut across the lane, in order to prevent right-hook collisions. Then again, it’s only been on the books for 32 years, so I could understand his confusion.

The truck was far enough ahead that it didn’t pose an issue for me, though.

Until he changed his mind, that is.

First he backed up a little, then pulled to the curb as if he was going to park there. Then without warning, he changed his mind again, and started moving back across the bike lane to re-enter traffic.

Problem was, by then I was right next to him.

So I yelled out a loud warning, and reached out to slap the side of his car. He braked to a stop about three-quarters of the way into the bike lane — a few more inches and he would have pushed me out directly into the path of an oncoming car. I managed to slip past and rode on, taking a few blocks to calm myself down and let my heart rate return to a more sustainable level.

I didn’t bother to look back.

Experience tells me there’s a slight chance I would have gotten a gesture of apology. More likely, I would have gotten the same sort of response I’ve gotten countless times before. The same response Josef got last week when a careless — or maybe uncaring — driver nearly ran him over.

I’ve found that it doesn’t matter if I’m in a designated bike lane, riding exactly where and how I’m supposed to. Or how dangerous or careless a driver — or sometimes, a pedestrian or another cyclist — happens to be.

Eight times out of 10, I’ll get the finger, the horn, the hurled insult. The ninth, I’ll get an invitation to fight, or at least, an aggressive vehicular acceleration punctuated by a sharp turn across my path — especially if I commit the unforgivable crime of touching their precious vehicle in a self-serving attempt to get their attention and avoid getting killed.

So frankly, looking back just wasn’t worth the added aggravation.

Take Josef’s experience for example.

First the driver zoomed around him after he’d taken the lane — even though he was riding at the posted speed of traffic — then cut back in front of him and slammed on her brakes when the light changed. A bit later, he was riding right next to her when she changed lanes despite his shouted warning, hitting the box he was carrying in his bakfiets.

And while his response wasn’t exactly designed to win friends and influence people, as someone who’d just been hit by a car and knocked off his bike, he deserved better than the finger and “F*** you!” he got in response.

Then there was this exchange, in which the generally genial and self-composed Bike Girl was brought to tears by a driver who informed her that the life of another human being wasn’t worth an extra one-second delay — all that it would have taken to wait until Bike Girl had passed to change lanes safely. And this for the crime of riding in the lane, on one of the frequent occasions when that clearly fits the definition of “as far right as practicable.”

Another vigilante driver who was willing to try, and convict, a cyclist for an imagined violation of the law — then carry out the sentence herself, even if that results in the death penalty.

Remind you of anyone?

Before he changed his story and claimed it was all just an accident, the Good Doctor allegedly told police he slammed on his brakes in front of two cyclists “to teach them a lesson.”

Today, in the trial of Dr. Christopher Thompson, Ron Peterson was shown a photo of hole in the broken rear windshield of the Good Doctor’s Lexus.

And said “My face did that.”

Nice lesson, doc.


Thanks to the times for covering the opening arguments in the Mandeville Brake Check trial. Will Campbell visits the Berlin Wall on today’s ride to work. Travelin’ Local takes a look at Bike Stations. Someone is deliberately trying to injure New Mexico cyclists booby trapped bike trails in Albuquerque. Remembering possibly the greatest cyclist of all time, who ruled the two-wheeled world a century before Lance. New turn signal and automatic brake light for bikes. More cyclists on the roads mean more injuries. A bike-friendly New Amsterdam may someday rival the old one as a tourist destination. Slate takes a look at vehicular and facilitator cycling. Honda thinks the best way to teach cycling is on a simulator. Drugs and doping take the life of a former cycling hero. In more news from New Zealand, police seek the hit-and-run killer of a popular doctor, while friends ride in his honor and an elderly repeat offending drunk driver gets her license back just a month after she murdered a cyclist. Finally, next time Beyonce is in town, I’m going out riding; you never know who you’ll meet out there.

Evil on trial: testimony in the Mandeville Canyon begins Friday

The judge is assigned, the jury empanelled.

If you’re looking at this one Friday morning, opening arguments may be taking place as you read this, Judge Scott Millington presiding — previously notable for handling the drug case of Redmond O’Neil, son of Farrah and Ryan, as well as serving as a prosecutor for over a decade.

According to L.A. cyclist/attorney DJwheels, it’s shaping up as a very interesting trial.

As you may be aware, Dr. Christopher Thompson is on trial for last year’s infamous 4th of July incident in Mandeville Canyon, accused of intentionally cutting in front of two cyclists, then slamming on his brakes directly in front of them, resulting in serious injuries to both.

He faces a long list of charges, including one felony count of reckless driving causing injury, two felony counts of battery with serious injury, two counts of causing great bodily injury while attempting to commit a felony, and one count of mayhem; he’s also charged with one count of misdemeanor reckless driving causing an injury for a separate incident in which he is accused of forcing another cyclist off the road the previous March.

The seriousness of the charges is reflected in the size of the good doctor’s entourage. According to DJwheels, the defense rat pack includes, in addition to his attorney, the attorney’s legal partner, two associates, a jury consultant and two very large body guards, as well as other assorted assistants and helpers.

Appropriate, because the Good Doctor reportedly admitted his guilt when initially questioned by the police. And a conviction on felony charges would undoubtedly mean the loss of his medical license, as well as significant jail time.

Which made jury selection unusually important.

DJwheels reports that, not surprisingly, cyclists were automatically excluded by the defense, with the exception of a former BMX racer. Evidently, he was acceptable because he said that bikes belong in designated places like bike paths and sidewalks — not, apparently, on narrow canyon roads through residential neighborhoods.

On the other hand, the prosecution asked most of the potential panelists about their attitudes about physicians. Like whether the stress of their job excused their actions, and whether they had a right to get away with things as a result.

And the judge dismissed one woman himself, after she said she wouldn’t be able to remain impartial since she has friends who’ve been hit by cars while riding.

The panel they ended up with reflects the diversity of the city — mostly women, with white, African American, Hispanic, Asian and Middle Eastern members, as well as one who may be Indian or Pakistani, according to Wheels, with an average age somewhere in the mid-30s.

He added that the one thing they all seemed to have in common was a recognition that there are bad drivers and bad cyclists. And that fault could lie with either party, depending on the facts.

Which is, I suppose, all we can ask of any jury.

Although personally, I’d feel better if they all showed up in spandex, cycling shoes and Livestrong wristbands for opening statements.

For me, though, the most interesting part was a ruling the judge made on Wednesday to excluded friends of the Good Doctor and other Mandeville Canyon residents as potential witnesses.

That suggests a defense strategy based on blaming the victims, or at least, blaming the actions of cyclists as a group for creating an atmosphere in which the Good Doctor’s actions were understandable, if not justified. Combined with earlier reports that he now claims it was an accident — despite his initial statements to the police — that suggests that he may say he was merely trying to stop so he could confront the cyclists or collect evidence of their actions for the police.

And that could negate the intent to cause harm that would be required to convict on the most serious charges.

DJwheels say the exclusion of the other witnesses may also mean that testimony the Good Doctor could have to testify himself — a move most attorney’s are reluctant to allow because it exposes their client to cross-examination.

And that’s one day of testimony I’d pay to see.

Opening statements are scheduled for Friday morning, between 9 and 11, at Department C of the Airport Courthouse, South La Cienega Blvd just below Imperial Highway; no afternoon session is scheduled due to a previous juror obligation. The trial is expected to last through the end of the month.


The Department of DIY creates a new bike lane on the UCLA campus. Evidently, L.A. cycling infrastructure wasn’t much better at the turn of the 20th Century. No Whip provides a great update on the new L.A. bike plan, and what you can do to get involved. Gary joins in support for Saturday’s L.A. Bike Working Group’s look at the bike plan, noting the new time and location. Dr. Alex dodges a massive flying disc while riding (no, not the possible hoax in my home town). CNN asks if ebikes will be the new “commuter cool.” Courtesy of our New Zealand correspondent, TheTricksterNZ, a report of a fatal hit-and-run in Auckland; clearly, it’s not just an American phenomenon. More evidence of a blame the victim mentality north of the border, including testing the victim for drugs or alcohol — but not the driver who killed him. A look back at the Higginson twins, cycling champs from the 1950s. A report from India notes the rise in cycling injuries in the U.S. A cyclist is injured in an apparent hit-and-run in Holywood — no, the other one with just one L. Finally, good news for lovers of massive burritos — East L.A.’s El Tepeyac isn’t going anywhere.

%d bloggers like this: