# Cyclist killed: ex-ON AG arrested!



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

This is one bizarre story....

Former Ontario AG under arrest - The Globe and Mail



> *Former Ontario AG under arrest*
> 
> Michael Bryant allegedly involved in fatal accident in Yorkville area of Toronto on Monday night; sources say he faces possible charges of criminal negligence causing death, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death.
> 
> ...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

It certainly is bizarre. I wonder what the fallout will be?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

EvanPitts said:


> It certainly is bizarre. I wonder what the fallout will be?


I suppose some solid jail time would be asking to much?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That has to be a manslaughter charge - reports say he swerved across the lanes to brush the cyclist off.....

Arrogant ass is too mild....


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

Looks like manslaughter to me. 

The cab driver who severed the cyclists legs last November was charged with:

1) Criminal negligence causing bodily harm,
2) Dangerous operation causing bodily harm,
3) Fail to stop at scene of accident bodily harm,
4) Attempt to obstruct justice,
5) Aggravated assault,
6) Assault with weapon.

Bryant is in deep dodo but that's not the worst of it. Imagine being the cyclist's wife or child? Such a senseless loss.

I hope this incident is the catalyst for some serious rethinking of how cars and bikes interact in Toronto. The current situation is intolerable.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> I suppose some solid jail time would be asking to much?


No, but I doubt it will happen in our "system".


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

hhk said:


> I hope this incident is the catalyst for some serious rethinking of how cars and bikes interact in Toronto. The current situation is intolerable.


yeah make cyclists get mandatory lessons on the rules of the road before they are allowed to even get on the road with that shiny new bike.

Laterz


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

He's lucky to avoid manslaughter charges...



> *Bryant charged with criminal negligence after crash*
> 
> Updated: Tue Sep. 01 2009 2:48:30 PM
> 
> ...


more

CTV Toronto - Bryant charged with criminal negligence after crash - CTV News, Shows and Sports -- Canadian Television


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

This one is going to get messy....drinking cyclist had already conflicted with the cops......












> Bryant's story shocking and sobering – but also far too common
> Darcy Allan Sheppard is remembered by friends in the bike courier community as a fun-loving colleague with a good sense of humour.
> Details that suggest cyclist had been drinking may help former Ontario Attorney-General muster a solid legal defence –





> The cyclist killed in an altercation with former Ontario attorney-general Michael Bryant had been drinking and was involved in a confrontation with police earlier in the evening.
> 
> Darcy Allan Sheppard was investigated but released without charges Monday night after a former girlfriend called Toronto police, The Globe and Mail has confirmed. The incident, described as minor, took place in downtown Toronto, not far from where Mr. Sheppard and Mr. Bryant collided at 9:45 p.m. in an explosion of violence that left one man dead, the other with his public service career in tatters.


more

Bryant's story shocking and sobering – but also far too common - The Globe and Mail


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

This is not a cut and dry case.

A few years ago as I sat on the bus I witnessed a bicycle courier go berserk. He was pounding a shocked woman's car so hard there were dents in the side door. He was shouting expletives and threatening to kill the bitch. 

It's possible that 2 cases of rage clashed last night with a tragic ending.

The only thing surprising about this case is that it hasn't happened already. I've seen myself all too often how some cyclists, particularly the couriers, have total disregard for rules of the road. The way some carry on there should be more dead bodies. I had some close calls myself when I lived downtown.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yep - this information sure moves it off the cut and dry board to the messy and horrid...

Testosterone spike


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

adagio said:


> This is not a cut and dry case.
> 
> A few years ago as I sat on the bus I witnessed a bicycle courier go berserk. He was pounding a shocked woman's car so hard there were dents in the side door. He was shouting expletives and threatening to kill the bitch.
> 
> ...


I agree with you 100% - couriers in particular need to have anger management, driving lessons on how to share the road with others around them.

I have been in a few conflict myself with bike couriers a few times - but i restrained myself from going as far as what the former LIberal - minister did.. but it crossed my mind - unfortunately - someone died.. which is very tragic.

But i hope Bryant goes to jail - which i do not think that will happen, too many connections -also few road changes for cyclists ( mainly the bike couriers - should be a permit given out after a road test to better understand how to share the road..)

But hey this is what David Miller wants more Cyclists on the road..


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Miller has given cyclists a sense of entitlement and superiority. They need to understand the car isn't going anywhere and both have to share the road and follow the rules. I think it's time for bike licensing and all that it entails including obeying signs, riding the correct direction on the road etc with a point system to back it up. Drunk cycling should have all the same penalties as drunk driving.


----------



## imachungry (Sep 19, 2004)

adagio said:


> Miller has given cyclists a sense of entitlement and superiority. They need to understand the car isn't going anywhere and both have to share the road and follow the rules. I think it's time for bike licensing and all that it entails including obeying signs, riding the correct direction on the road etc with a point system to back it up. Drunk cycling should have all the same penalties as drunk driving.


I agree 100% with you, and I have been both a cyclist and a driver for 20 years.* In Toronto, you cannot criticize cyclists.* They are completely immune to any rules and most citizens see cyclists as pitied, powerless shmoes, with the driver ALWAYS being the devil. It's a very strange thing for me to drive now almost full time after being a cyclist full time. Cyclists ignore every frikkin rule of the road and then scream at you because you didn't stop on a right turn to let them blaze around you in the most unsafe manner. 

I feel something for the guy that died, as he was already drunk and under emotional stress, but hey, it sound like what he did was a death wish, something that I myself did in my more angry cycling days (but without being drunk, the nail in the coffin). 

People say "the guy didn't deserve to die" but it sure sounds like he did a few things that any thinking, rational cyclist would NEVER do. It's tragic, but it _might_ not be the driver who's to blame. We can't assume anything. 

Whatever the case is here, we have to take our blinders off about cyclists being Mother Theresa's and drivers being devil worshippers. I know lots of couriers and they spit on drivers, they play games with them. Why? Because of a power differential that eventually makes any cyclist crazy. Why do cops never have any time for cyclist enforcement, but can sit on the overpass to the Gardiner nailing people every day all day? 

Answer: Because cyclists are godly and cars are the devil.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

Wow, so much resentment towards cyclists. 

I, for one, would love to see the city teeming with cyclists, like Beijing two decades ago. It would be good for our health, our environment and would make the city a much livelier place.

For those raging about "bad" cyclists, go for a 1/2 hour drive and take a mental count of bad cyclists vs. bad motorists. I'll bet the motorists outnumber the cyclists about 2 to 1. But here's the rub - a bad motorist can kill. And they kill in very large numbers. I've never heard of a bad cyclist killing anyone.

I think Christie Blatchford said it best:



> For as the cyclist will always physically lose in any contest with a car, so the driver of a car always will yield the high ground to the cyclist. In any modern version of the Biblical parable of David and Goliath, including this one, Goliath doesn't get to say, “Well, he used his slingshot first” or “David started it.”


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

hhk said:


> For those raging about "bad" cyclists, go for a 1/2 hour drive and take a mental count of bad cyclists vs. bad motorists. I'll bet the motorists outnumber the cyclists about 2 to 1. But here's the rub - a bad motorist can kill. And they kill in very large numbers. I've never heard of a bad cyclist killing anyone.


No surprise there given cyclists are outnumbered by motorists hundreds of thousands to one. But their ratio of bad to good is substantially higher.

Point being cyclists simply refuse to follow the rules of the road. they go the wrong way, ride across cross walks when the law states they should dismount, ride on sidewalks, weave in and out of traffic, fail to signal 99% of the time and I could go on, but by now you get the idea.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Actually someone died just last month from a bad cyclist...but it is rare and your point is valid.

There is no good outcome on this mess... 



> *Like something out of a gangster movie'*
> TheStar.com | GTA | Michael Bryant's deadly duel
> Michael Bryant's deadly duel
> 
> ...


more details o the events leading up to the clash

TheStar.com | GTA | Michael Bryant's deadly duel


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

imachungry said:


> People say "the guy didn't deserve to die" but it sure sounds like he did a few things that any thinking, rational cyclist would NEVER do. It's tragic, but it _might_ not be the driver who's to blame. We can't assume anything. Whatever the case is here, we have to take our blinders off about cyclists being Mother Theresa's and drivers being devil worshippers. I know lots of couriers and they spit on drivers, they play games with them. Why? Because of a power differential that eventually makes any cyclist crazy.


Where there are some points I will agree with you on, this guy absolutely did not deserve to die. There should be no question.

From all accounts the driver acted in an aggressive manner which included driving the wrong way down a major downtown street and jumping the curb in order to knock the cyclist off his car. Which he did.

If this was purely a defensive action, he wouldn't have been charged with not just one major offense, but two.

How do we know the cyclist was not just hanging on for dear life? Grabbing hold of a stationary vehicle is one thing but letting go of one driving at high speeds and in an erratic fashion is another.

I have lived in Toronto all my life and am both a driver and cyclist. In fact, I both drive and cycle downtown frequently. Yes there are many cyclists that do not obey the rules of the road but there are just as many aggressive, distracted drivers vying for the same space. I believe in licensing cyclists in order to make them responsible for their actions but I also believe in mandatory driver training with an emphasis placed on sharing the road in an urban environment. This is 100% shared blame except when an aggressive or distracted driver injures or kills an innocent cyclist/ pedestrian which was the case the last night in Toronto.

TheStar.com | GTA | Three cyclists hurt in crashes


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

What about bad pedestrians. They jaywalk, they talk and text. They don't use the TTC escalators properly. Hell, I'll bet some of them are drunk. Let's license them too.

The solution is not legislation, it's education.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

hhk said:


> The solution is not legislation, it's education.


I agree that education is required, note what I said about drivers, but I also realize what a great motivator _consequences_ are. Such as being fined, going to jail, losing your license and therefore your ability to ride.

Comparing pedestrian to bicycles is irrelevant. One is a vehicle...

Trust me, I'm not picking on cyclists. I feel that if they want to share the road, they need to share the responsibility.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

We the general public simply don't know all the details of this case. I think it's something we'll have to keep an open mind about and see how it plays out in the courts. This story goes deep.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> I agree that education is required, note what I said about drivers, but I also realize what a great motivator _consequences_ are. Such as being fined, going to jail, losing your license and therefore your ability to ride.
> 
> Comparing pedestrian to bicycles is irrelevant. One is a vehicle...
> 
> Trust me, I'm not picking on cyclists. I feel that if they want to share the road, they need to share the responsibility.


We don't need any more licensing or legislation. Do you want to discourage people from buying bikes and riding them? My wife rides 10-20 times a year. Make her get a license and that bike will be donated to Goodwill.

The #1 motivator for riding responsibly is this - if you are a reckless or careless rider, you will die.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

hhk said:


> We don't need any more licensing or legislation. Do you want to discourage people from buying bikes and riding them? My wife rides 10-20 times a year. Make her get a license and that bike will be donated to Goodwill.
> 
> The #1 motivator for riding responsibly is this - if you are a reckless or careless rider, you will die.


I think if you want to ride a bike, you will get a license. 

Many cyclists break the law simply because they don't know it. If you then propose rider education, why not issue a license or certificate at the end of this course. Same deal.

As far as death being a motivator, obviously yes but how many cyclists do you think consider themselves reckless or careless?


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

adagio said:


> We the general public simply don't know all the details of this case. I think it's something we'll have to keep an open mind about and see how it plays out in the courts. This story goes deep.


very true. will be interesting if any security camera footage gets leaked (not from a morbid point of view, but rather to see exactly what happened).

sad situation all the way around.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> I think if you want to ride a bike, you will get a license.
> 
> Many cyclists break the law simply because they don't know it. If you then propose rider education, why not issue a license or certificate at the end of this course. Same deal.
> 
> As far as death being a motivator, obviously yes but how many cyclists do you think consider themselves reckless or careless?


I'm just tired of over legislation and all the pieces of plastic in my wallet. I remember when it used to be free to fish in Ontario. Now you have to pay $30 or so. The money was supposed to go towards conservation but some years ago, the Ontario gov't admitted it just goes into the general kitty.

Boaters are now licensed which seems like a great idea until you realize that the licensing process is a joke. You can write your test online which means you are free to cheat at will.

Firearms are now registered. This was supposed to cut down on illegal weapons and gun crimes. Guffaw.

So now a motorist kills a cyclist and the solution to this is - bike licensing? I don't get that. Talk about blaming the victim.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

hhk said:


> So now a motorist kills a cyclist and the solution to this is - bike licensing? I don't get that. Talk about blaming the victim.


I agree with being over legislated but when it comes to vehicles sharing the road, I believe a level playing field is necessary. 

By all means make driver education a requirement in this process and certainly make testing more rigorous than a boating license but I believe it's the only way to ensure all cyclists are equipped to deal with the danger and unpredictability of urban cycling.

That being said, I'd like to see more education/ testing placed on driving in urban environments for drivers as well. How a driver can be so unaware as to not check for cyclists whether they be turning or opening their door is beyond me. Excuses such as 'accidents happen' don't apply to this level of incompetence.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Not sure it's so deep....

Stressed courier with too much booze meets alpha male protecting mate in vehicle.... 

The interaction of course is very complex but not sure it's so deep as muddy.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

The real sad part of this story is that if it wasn't the Ex-ON AG that was involved, this story would have been hardly a story at all I bet. I really can't stand how ahole supposedly "important" people always garner the attention. I do hope he gets what he deserves! stupid idiot what was he the Dukes of Hazard County?


----------



## smellybook (Aug 31, 2006)

*Everything aside,*

whether he was provoked or not, whether there was an argument or not, whether the cyclist was drunk or not;

I'd like to think that I live in a country where you are not allowed to kill people.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I figured that drugs and / or booze was involved. Apparently it had nothing to do with the bicycle or anything, just some nutbar going off the deep end, and had just a half hour previous, been in an altercation with police officers.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Manatus (May 11, 2009)

mrjimmy said:


> Trust me, I'm not picking on cyclists. I feel that if they want to share the road, they need to share the responsibility.


I totally agree with that. As a pedestrian, I've seen my fair share of bad cyclists (and bad drivers too of course). Regularly I've seen cyclists charging down the sidewalk, ringing their bells without slowing down to make pedestrians get out of the way. How would they feel if they were on the road and some driver tailgated them and started honking his horn? In fact yesterday I was almost hit by two cyclists who were chatting to each other and not watching the sidewalk in front of them as they rode fast side-by-side.

Of course, when a cyclist runs a red light, rides on the sidewalk or uses pedestrian crossings to cut across the road, you get the argument that "drivers can kill other people, cyclists only put their own life in danger". What if someone hits them and ends up losing their license or going to jail, or at the very least living with the guilt of killing, paralyzing or seriously injuring someone? The reason we have rules of the road is because everyone on the road is affected in some way, and you have to be a responsible driver, cyclist or pedestrian in order to keep things flowing smoothly and to avoid accidents, not taking an attitude of "I'm only risking myself, I'm allowed to do that".

Right now the problem is that for the most part, only drivers are forced to be responsible. You suffer consequences and rightly so, for driving drunk, driving erratically, speeding and breaking the rules of the road - whether or not there is an accident. Bad cyclists and pedestrians who dash across oncoming traffic should also face consequences above and beyond risks to themselves, because we are all road users.


----------



## imachungry (Sep 19, 2004)

Manatus said:


> I
> Right now the problem is that for the most part, only drivers are forced to be responsible.


This is the bottom line.

As a cyclist, you don't drive intoxicated and get into a fight with a car. It's just stupid. I've done it without alcohol and it wasn't pretty. No one deserves to die, but I will bet that as time plays out on this, the cyclist's action will be as flawed as the drivers might be. He was drunk after all, and even if you're on a bike, you don't drive drunk.

Eyewitness accounts say the cyclist tried to choke Bryant. If true, end of story. 

And before the comments come, I was a cyclist everyday for twenty-ish years. I speak with the authority of someone who knows what it is to be a cyclist. Rage comes easily. Add in being emotionally distraught AND loaded, and you're dancing with the devil--literally. 

RIP to the guy, as it could have been me.

edit update: Just want to add Christie Blatchford's comment, which seems perfect:

"For as the cyclist will always physically lose in any contest with a car, so the driver of a car always will yield the high ground to the cyclist. In any modern version of the Biblical parable of David and Goliath, including this one, Goliath doesn't get to say, “Well, he used his slingshot first” or “David started it.

And that speaks volumes.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Will see how this plays out. I think the cyclist may have been threatening them. It may have been a testosterone laden defensive reaction where the drivers instincts overpowered his intellect and logic. The angrier we humans get, the lower our reasoning capacity becomes.


From what has come out, it has nothing to do with a bicycle or anything, and was all about some nutbar attempting to attack a member of the provincial parliament. I think the fact that this dude had an earlier altercation with police really changes this whole story; and that opinions would be different if the MPP and his wife had been attacked and killed two blocks away from Queens Park...




> I've seen cyclists threaten to kill people time and time again, damage their cars, etc. Sometimes the driver was at fault, sometimes the cyclist, other times, not sure.


I had an incident on the weekend when some crazy dude decided that riding his bike on the sidewalk was boring, so he drove right out into the road while I was passing. Then, when I was attempting to turn right, with signals, the dude insisted in driving between the curb and my car - then started to curse me. He really wanted a fight, and was issuing all kinds of threats, until I got out of the car. He then fled, appropriately, by running a red light and cutting off all of the cars that were coming down the mountain access.

Although I can see that drivers do need to give appropriate space to bicycles - I also think that cyclists have to use some common sense, and start using their vehicles as vehicles. It is entirely inappropriate to drive between a car and the curb - unless there is a specific bicycle lane, just as it is inappropriate to be driving on the sidewalk one second, then right in front of a car the next.

I have seen cyclists in this city perform some crazy stunts, some more outrageous than the regular pantheon of stunts that drivers engage in on the roads.

Another place that is dangerous is out in Halton, above Burlington and around Milton, where bicyclists engage in all kinds of dangerous activities, like riding beside each other and blocking the entire road while cars are trying to pass. Quite often, they form into packs and entirely block things, causing dangerous tailgating situations for drivers behind. I don't have a problem if they are on some of the quieter sideroads - but it is inappropriate on busy roads like Derry, or Guelph Line.

In the City, we have a real problem with cyclists and pedestrians around the University - where on a daily basis it is proven that university students are among the dumbest animals in the world. Not only stunts, but they will run across the road without looking, when if they walked twenty feet, they could walk at an actual crosswalk. Many times, they just walk out into traffic, and get fragged, because they were concentrating on listening to their iPod rather than bothering to look before they run across. I think the University should have cameras, and any of their students that performs dumb stunts should be given the heave-ho for being stupid, leaving spaces open for those that have common sense but chose not to take the tossed salad route in high school.


----------



## imachungry (Sep 19, 2004)

Evan, you're right. The whole culture is in a state of perpetual distraction. 

Here's a priceless cycling example from yesterday, as common in my experience as the sun rising in the east: 

A woman is going the wrong way on a one way street with her entire family on bicycles. So there's five people riding bikes the wrong way on a narrow street. As I turn the corner to come on the street, she scowls at me, giving me the death stare. Undaunted, I scream at her "honey, you're going the wrong way with your entire family!" 

This is classic cyclist irresponsibility. And it's endless, because we hold drivers accountable but not cyclists. It's like a religion.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
That kind of stuff goes on all the time. I really wonder some times about the mentality and lack of intelligence that some cyclists have. Out by my girlfriends place they have an entire trail dedicated to bikes and pedestrians that is less than a half block away from one of the busiest roads in town, but cyclists don't bother, preferring to dabble with death than to peddle a little extra to get onto a path that is entirely made for them. We also have cyclists that take Main Street at rush hour, even though again, there is a street that is a bike path only a block or two away. In the part of Main Street that actually has a bike path, I quite often see cyclists not using it. Some cyclists prefer to take the ride up the mountain accesses - very busy routes in this town where bad driving, speeding, and giant buses predominate - rather than riding a little extra and taking the mountain stairs that have a "bicycle lane" so one doesn't have to carry it.

Other things include cyclists that wear dark clothes at night, and don't bother with reflectors, reflective tape, or lighting of any sort. But that is less of a problem than the endemic problems of the clueless around the University - where they regularily do stupid stunts devoid of common sense, and end up running or biking in front of large vehicles, like garbage trucks. They also love to pretend to be "pedestrians", riding on the sidewalks then cutting across the road when they feel like it. Few actually stop at stop signs or stop lights, in fact, few even bother to slow down or even to look to see what is going to hit them.

Of course, there are also the clueless drivers who perform stunts - proof that stupidity and ignorance are all around...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

imachungry said:


> "honey"


?


----------



## Manatus (May 11, 2009)

EvanPitts said:


> They also love to pretend to be "pedestrians", riding on the sidewalks then cutting across the road when they feel like it.


That's probably what annoys me most - cyclists who want the rights of a car, but the convenience of a pedestrian. There are a lot of them too, taking up a whole lane and backing up traffic because "they deserve to be treated like a vehicle just like a car", but of course when it suits them they cut across crosswalks, ride on sidewalks and run red lights and stop signs because then it's more advantageous to be a pedestrian. Not all cyclists do this of course, but enough of them do so that I get worried when I see one, whether I'm walking or driving.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> Of course, there are also the clueless drivers who perform stunts - proof that stupidity and ignorance are all around...


I think this is important to remember when vilifying cyclists. Yes there are bad apples on the road but this is not exclusive to cyclists.


----------



## imachungry (Sep 19, 2004)

mrjimmy said:


> ?


You'd prefer if I called her "bitch"?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

imachungry said:


> You'd prefer if I called her "bitch"?


Do you feel justified in calling her either?


----------



## imachungry (Sep 19, 2004)

mrjimmy said:


> I think this is important to remember when vilifying cyclists. Yes there are bad apples on the road but this is not exclusive to cyclists.


*Who's vilifying cyclists*? I'm a cyclist myself. What we're pointing out is that there is zero enforcement against cyclists, so therefore no restraint against a whole army of people on bikes who do what they want when they want. Motorists are at least restrained by the thought of a policeman pulling them over and/or having a license plate viewable by all. You're making the mistake in comparing apples to apples: The vast majority of cyclists break the law and do whatever they want. 

*The vast majority. *

All it would take is even a little enforcement, just a hundred or so tickets, and word would get out that you couldn't blaze through stop signs at will, go the wrong way down a one way street and expect the seas to part, riding on sidewalks then switching to the road and back again...on and on...and you'd see cyclists start to take heed.


----------



## imachungry (Sep 19, 2004)

mrjimmy said:


> Do you feel justified in calling her either?


You're one of those dull people that calls "sexism" when a man refers to a woman as "honey"? Let me tell you that the woman I hang out with--strong, independent women--would never get offended at such a trivial thing. 

I suspect they'd get annoyed if I called them an "idiot" or a "moron" or a "bitch", and at least two of those words apply in this case, yes.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

mrjimmy said:


> I think this is important to remember when vilifying cyclists. Yes there are bad apples on the road but this is not exclusive to cyclists.


Every discussion I've read about this sad incident seems to devolve into this mass slagging of cyclists, as if they are some kind of homogenous group.

Because most people drive, we know that drivers are not a homogenous group, we readily recognize that there is a range of drivers and that driving safely and courteously is the goal of most of us. Most of us who have a grown-up attitude recognize that we are not always good drivers at all times and strive to be better.

Because the incidents of flagrant disregard for law by a few cyclists stand out in people's minds who possibly haven't done a lot of cycling, they seem to somehow make this leap to tarring ALL cyclists with this brush. As a cyclist who tries to be safe and courteous, I resent that. I also resent the bad cyclists out there who do the ridiculous things that we all know about, I've yelled at them myself, even while on my bike, but I have no reason to be lumped in with those people.

You can take all the statements made about "cyclists" in this thread and substitute drivers and they become ridiculous ... "drivers" have to learn to obey the law.

The real answer to safer cycling is more bikes on the road and better infrastructure to accommodate them. But cycling will always be somewhat more anarchic in nature than driving, just as being a pedestrian is, and drivers will just have to learn to accommodate that and watch for that as we do with peds. I concur with what hhk said earlier in the thread:



hhk said:


> I, for one, would love to see the city teeming with cyclists, like Beijing two decades ago. It would be good for our health, our environment and would make the city a much livelier place.
> 
> For those raging about "bad" cyclists, go for a 1/2 hour drive and take a mental count of bad cyclists vs. bad motorists. I'll bet the motorists outnumber the cyclists about 2 to 1. But here's the rub - a bad motorist can kill. And they kill in very large numbers. I've never heard of a bad cyclist killing anyone.


This story isn't so much about cyclists and drivers as it is a general story about road rage gone wrong. The "cyclist" was a pedestrian when he got into the altercation. Beyond that, we don't yet know much about what really happened and I'm not inclined to pronounce blame upon one party or the other at this point.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

imachungry said:


> *Who's vilifying cyclists*? I'm a cyclist myself. What we're pointing out is that there is zero enforcement against cyclists, so therefore no restraint against a whole army of people on bikes who do what they want when they want. Motorists are at least restrained by the thought of a policeman pulling them over and/or having a license plate viewable by all. You're making the mistake in comparing apples to apples: The vast majority of cyclists break the law and do whatever they want.
> 
> *The vast majority. *
> 
> All it would take is even a little enforcement, just a hundred or so tickets, and word would get out that you couldn't blaze through stop signs at will, go the wrong way down a one way street and expect the seas to part, riding on sidewalks then switching to the road and back again...on and on...and you'd see cyclists start to take heed.


I would say *The vast majority* are law abiding in my experience. Perhaps the ones you encounter are reacting to your driving?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Every discussion I've read about this sad incident seems to devolve into this mass slagging of cyclists, as if they are some kind of homogenous group.
> 
> Because most people drive, we know that drivers are not a homogenous group, we readily recognize that there is a range of drivers and that driving safely and courteously is the goal of most of us. Most of us who have a grown-up attitude recognize that we are not always good drivers at all times and strive to be better.
> 
> ...


I totally agree.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

imachungry said:


> You're one of those dull people that calls "sexism" when a man refers to a woman as "honey"? Let me tell you that the woman I hang out with--strong, independent women--would never get offended at such a trivial thing.
> 
> I suspect they'd get annoyed if I called them an "idiot" or a "moron" or a "bitch", and at least two of those words apply in this case, yes.


Wow.

Ever suffer from road rage?


----------



## imachungry (Sep 19, 2004)

mrjimmy said:


> I would say *The vast majority* are law abiding in my experience. Perhaps the ones you encounter are reacting to your driving?


First you're a fool for assuming anything about my driving. 

Second you have no credibility now because I have never seen more than a handful of cyclists who obey the laws--and that's 20 years of two wheel and four wheel observation. Let's start with stop signs and could nail 99% of all cyclists. 

What's annoying to many of you is that I am both a driver and a cyclist so I don't have one religion or another. The reality is cyclists, all of them, do what they want. The exceptions are like strange animals that we behold. 

Cyclists take their lives into their hands when they drive around cars. But this does not mean that ipso facto they too should not be held accountable. But we view cyclists are sacred. Simple as that.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

imachungry said:


> First you're a fool for assuming anything about my driving.
> 
> Second you have no credibility now because I have never seen more than a handful of cyclists who obey the laws--and that's 20 years of two wheel and four wheel observation. Let's start with stop signs and could nail 99% of all cyclists.
> 
> ...


Hey, we're even! You were a fool with no credibility when you referred to a stranger as 'honey'.

Now back to the thread.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

imachungry said:


> First you're a fool for assuming anything about my driving.
> 
> Second you have no credibility now because I have never seen more than a handful of cyclists who obey the laws--and that's 20 years of two wheel and four wheel observation. Let's start with stop signs and could nail 99% of all cyclists.
> 
> What's annoying to many of you is that I am both a driver and a cyclist so I don't have one religion or another. The reality is cyclists, all of them, do what they want. The exceptions are like strange animals that we behold.


Of course, we should take your personal anecdotes as scientific fact? I guess you've heard about the recent Toronto study that pins the blame for "the vast majority" of bike/car accidents on the motorist: 

Experience Research



> While there is a public perception that cyclists are usually the cause of accidents between cars and bikes, an analysis of Toronto police collision reports shows otherwise: The most common type of crash in this study involved a motorist entering an intersection and either failing to stop properly or proceeding before it was safe to do so. The second most common crash type involved a motorist overtaking unsafely. The third involved a motorist opening a door onto an oncoming cyclist. The study concluded that cyclists are the cause of less than 10 per cent of bike-car accidents in this study.
> 
> The available evidence suggests that collisions have far more to do with aggressive driving than aggressive cycling.


Note: "failing to stop".


----------



## Manatus (May 11, 2009)

I totally agree that not all cyclists are bad, much like not all drivers are bad. Sorry to sound like I'm lumping everyone together. But the difference to me is that all drivers, good, bad or indifferent, have to answer to a higher power. If a driver is weaving in and out of lanes, mounting the sidewalk and so on - someone will call the police, regardless of whether or not anyone is injured or even near him at the time. He could cause an accident, and therefore calling the cops is a good thing to do. Cyclists don't have that, no one is going to call the police because a cyclist ran a red light, or went the wrong way down a one way street, and likely the police wouldn't do much anyway. Occasionally some bad cyclists may get ticketed, but realistically not at all often - yet they too are likely to cause an accident. They may be the one injured rather than the one injuring, but the end result is that someone will be hurt or dead, someone else will be involved, and police officers, paramedics, other health workers and everyone else stuck in the massive traffic jam behind them will be wasting their time because of one idiot - driver, cyclist or pedestrian. It affects everyone, and everyone should be kept in line regardless of whether their life is the one at risk.


----------



## imachungry (Sep 19, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Of course, we should take your personal anecdotes as scientific fact? I guess you've heard about the recent Toronto study that pins the blame for "the vast majority" of bike/car accidents on the motorist:
> 
> Experience Research
> 
> ...


What does "who causes the accident" have to do with my statement that 99% of all cyclists break the law. You just gave yourself away. It's the false equalization argument that most people suffer from. Cars are overwhelmingly more dangerous to cyclists than vice-versa, but does this mean we give cyclists carte blanche to what they want? 

And just as importantly: if cyclists (me, you, whoever) want to be taken more seriously and somehow begin to even out the gamble they take every time they go out into traffic, wouldn't a good start be following the rules of the road?

Do we have two rules for the rich and two rules for the poor? Of course not. We carry all kinds of inequities in our system while having the same laws for all. So motorists have most of the power on the road, and the carnage on the roads is entirely the result of cars hitting cyclists and not the other way around, BUT, cyclists add huge gobs of stress to driver's lives when they flout the law and do what they want. Most drivers I know feel like "**** them, they don't even stop at a stop light". Now I am careful about that mentality, but that's because I have cycled in traffic for 20 years, but that energy is generated entirely by lawlessness and utter stupidity that cyclists engage in. We already know that driver stupidity is enormous, but if 99% of drivers broke the law, watch out.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Manatus said:


> I totally agree that not all cyclists are bad, much like not all drivers are bad. Sorry to sound like I'm lumping everyone together. But the difference to me is that all drivers, good, bad or indifferent, have to answer to a higher power. If a driver is weaving in and out of lanes, mounting the sidewalk and so on - someone will call the police, regardless of whether or not anyone is injured or even near him at the time. He could cause an accident, and therefore calling the cops is a good thing to do. Cyclists don't have that, no one is going to call the police because a cyclist ran a red light, or went the wrong way down a one way street, and likely the police wouldn't do much anyway. Occasionally some bad cyclists may get ticketed, but realistically not at all often - yet they too are likely to cause an accident. They may be the one injured rather than the one injuring, but the end result is that someone will be hurt or dead, someone else will be involved, and police officers, paramedics, other health workers and everyone else stuck in the massive traffic jam behind them will be wasting their time because of one idiot - driver, cyclist or pedestrian. It affects everyone, and everyone should be kept in line regardless of whether their life is the one at risk.


I am completely in favour of more stringent traffic enforcement on our roads, but I doubt we'll see it. Traffic casualties are a huge cause of death in our society and being on the road, as a driver, cyclist or ped is one of the single riskiest activities most of us ever engage in.

The reason we won't see it is because so many people feel entitled to do what they think is "right" on the streets. Here in BC we had photo-radar for a few years and the evidence shows that it was causing speed on city streets to drop, as most people subsequently stayed at least within the 10 km/h over rule of thumb. But there was a vast cry of the tickets being a "tax grab" and the BC Libs made a popular decision to cut the program.

I think the police should put traffic enforcement as their number one priority, more people die in needless collisions than murders or all these other things people obsess about, but as a society we are numb to the death toll. Until it happens to someone we know or love.


----------



## imachungry (Sep 19, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The reason we won't see it is because so many people feel entitled to do what they think is "right" on the streets.


I agree. But you somehow give a pass to cyclists? This is the tunnel vision we have about cyclists.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

imachungry said:


> Cyclists take their lives into their hands when they drive around cars.


This is the bottom line really. The number one priority when cycling in the city is how to keep the clearest line of travel with the least likelihood of having cars taking up the same space as you. Whether that line follows the rules of the road or not is a very distant second. 

People who are anti-cyclist love to parrot the old mantra "you should be forced to follow the laws of the road". The problem is, regardless of what the law says, bicycles are NOT cars. No matter what you write in law, the laws of PHYSICS still apply. 

There are certain bridges and underpasses that I will always take the sidewalk at. There are areas of the city that I will not stop at stop signs or red lights because keeping moving is a critical component of keeping safe.


----------



## Manatus (May 11, 2009)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Traffic casualties are a huge cause of death in our society and being on the road, as a driver, cyclist or ped is one of the single riskiest activities most of us ever engage in.


I totally agree with what you said, especially that. One thing that struck me was the attitude towards driving in Canada (and North America in general), I suppose because it is a necessity for many people. I did my driver's ed in the UK, and pretty much every lesson it was reinforced to me that "every time you get behind the wheel, you are taking possession of a weapon, and every mental or physical mistake you make, you are accidentally discharging that weapon." Most of the time you won't hit anyone or even damage your vehicle, but there's always that risk - and conversely, as cyclists or pedestrians, you shouldn't act rashly, much like you wouldn't run across a shooting range even if you think they'll see you. So it kind of boggles me every time I see a driver eating or on the phone, or a cyclist weaving or running lights, or a pedestrian running (or sometimes even walking) across the street and gambling that drivers will see him and stop for him if necessary.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

imachungry said:


> What does "who causes the accident" have to do with my statement that 99% of all cyclists break the law. You just gave yourself away. It's the false equalization argument that most people suffer from. Cars are overwhelmingly more dangerous to cyclists than vice-versa, but does this mean we give cyclists carte blanche to what they want?
> 
> And just as importantly: if cyclists (me, you, whoever) want to be taken more seriously and somehow begin to even out the gamble they take every time they go out into traffic, wouldn't a good start be following the rules of the road?


If you've read my other posts in this thread and others on ehMac you'll know that I'm solidly in favour of following the traffic laws. If it's true that 99% of all cyclists break the law then it is also true of drivers. I can stand on any street corner at any time and if I had the ability to write tickets I could write them non-stop to drivers who are speeding, not stopping, running yellows and reds, not signalling, yakking on their cells (driving without due car and attention). So what's your point?

I drove yesterday and I was speeding. The sign said 50 km/h and I was doing 55 - 60. Every last one of us break the rules occasionally. I have also rolled through stop signs, when no other vehicles are around both on my bike and in my car. Everyone has.

If you advocate a strict zero tolerance for any infraction from bikes then also apply that to vehicles please, because drivers breaking these rules are a far more dangerous affair. If this is the new regime we will have, I will gladly comply both on my bike and in my car, but we both know that's not going to happen.



imachungry said:


> I agree. But you somehow give a pass to cyclists? This is the tunnel vision we have about cyclists.


 Did I say we should give a pass to cyclists?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Manatus said:


> I did my driver's ed in the UK, and pretty much every lesson it was reinforced to me that "every time you get behind the wheel, you are taking possession of a weapon, and every mental or physical mistake you make, you are accidentally discharging that weapon."


That's a good analogy. I'll have to remember that.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

adagio said:


> Miller has given cyclists a sense of entitlement and superiority. They need to understand the car isn't going anywhere and both have to share the road and follow the rules. I think it's time for bike licensing and all that it entails including obeying signs, riding the correct direction on the road etc with a point system to back it up. Drunk cycling should have all the same penalties as drunk driving.


This is something that I've written about to both my MPP and city councilor in the past with no response but with this latest incident hopefully bicycle licensing will come out as an issue.

Laterz


----------



## imachungry (Sep 19, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> If you've read my other posts in this thread and others on ehMac you'll know that I'm solidly in favour of following the traffic laws. If it's true that 99% of all cyclists break the law then it is also true of drivers. I can stand on any street corner at any time and if I had the ability to write tickets I could write them non-stop to drivers who are speeding, not stopping, running yellows and reds, not signalling, yakking on their cells (driving without due car and attention). So what's your point?
> 
> I drove yesterday and I was speeding. The sign said 50 km/h and I was doing 55 - 60. Every last one of us break the rules occasionally. I have also rolled through stop signs, when no other vehicles are around both on my bike and in my car. Everyone has.
> 
> ...


Point is, which I guess you missed, is that there is no enforcement of cyclists, while there's plenty of enforcement of motorists. To equalize how much cyclists break the law and drivers is simply ridiculous. Sigh.

Anyway, this is fatiguing.


----------



## imachungry (Sep 19, 2004)

bsenka said:


> This is the bottom line really. The number one priority when cycling in the city is how to keep the clearest line of travel with the least likelihood of having cars taking up the same space as you. Whether that line follows the rules of the road or not is a very distant second.
> 
> People who are anti-cyclist love to parrot the old mantra "you should be forced to follow the laws of the road". The problem is, regardless of what the law says, bicycles are NOT cars. No matter what you write in law, the laws of PHYSICS still apply.


That is rich. Cyclists should not have to obey the rules of the road because they're not cars. Okay.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

imachungry said:


> That is rich. Cyclists should not have to obey the rules of the road because they're not cars. Okay.


If you want to stay safe, the rules of the road are completely irrelevant.


----------



## imachungry (Sep 19, 2004)

bsenka said:


> If you want to stay safe, the rules of the road are completely irrelevant.


It's true: you're safer as a cyclist when you blow red lights, go the wrong way down a one way street and don't bother with stop signs. 

Anyway...off I go. Nothing more to say here.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

imachungry said:


> It's true: you're safer as a cyclist when you blow red lights, go the wrong way down a one way street and don't bother with stop signs.


In certain circumstances, yes. It's what in front of you and around you at the time that matters, not what the law says. Generally the reality and the law will coincide, but frequently it does not.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I'm a cyclist who follows the rules of the road, I must be a hazard to myself and everyone around me then?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Nope, just the exception.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

Guy on a 15 lb. aluminum bicycle blows a stop sign. Honestly, what sort of hazard does this pose? I guess, hypothetically, they could cause a car to swerve which might, in turn, disrupt the balance of the earth's rotation, causing the planet to spin uncontrollably towards the Sun. 

Let's continue to blame the victim, shall we?


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

dona83 said:


> I'm a cyclist who follows the rules of the road, I must be a hazard to myself and everyone around me then?


Depends on the conditions you're riding under. 

When I ride near my house, or between my house and the park where I like to trail ride, not only can I follow all rules, it generally is safer to do so.

When I'm riding to and from work, it's a whole different kettle of fish. For my own safety, the rules of the road have to be mostly disregarded. 

I work nights, and my trip to work takes me through downtown, and through the roughest area of the Winnipeg. Several people I know have been jumped on their bikes when riding after dark. The most important thing, especially when riding through the north end, is do not stop. Keeping moving is an absolute necessity, stop signs and red light are irrelevant. I can see well in advance if cars are coming on the cross streets, but what I can't see in the dark are the people standing behind trees and sign posts.

On the way home in the morning, it's a different story. No one is around in the rough area, but I'm fighting four lanes of inbound rush hour traffic. Attempting to make a left turn is not only a life threatening experience, it's pretty much futile. If you want to get across safely, it requires a combination of sidewalks, blown red lights, and wrong ways.

In both directions, there are bridges and underpasses with very narrow lanes, and serious potholes. There are certain ones where the sidewalk is the only safe place to go.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

hhk said:


> Guy on a 15 lb. aluminum bicycle blows a stop sign. Honestly, what sort of hazard does this pose?


I can see one squashed dude on a pretzel that was formerly a bicycle, and deployed air bags that force insurance companies to write off the vehcile because it is too expensive to fix. Bicycles are vehicles, and they need to obey the rules of the road like everyone else.

That is, for those that even bother with the roads, as many of them have an affinity for riding on the sidewalk, where they are a danger to pedestrians, and as vehicles, they are breaking the law as well.



> Let's continue to blame the victim, shall we?


Yeah, people keep blaming Michael Bryant, when all of the evidence is that this "cyclist" was drunk, was "known to police", had threatened a minister of the government, and engaged in assault and attempted battery. So people are making an issue out of what actually did not involve a bicycle at all, just some nutjob attempting to hijack a car because he was psycho simply because our society looked down at his constant abuse and beatings he heaped upon a former girlfriend that he was stalking.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> Bicycles are vehicles, and they need to obey the rules of the road like everyone else.


I don't think anyone who has commented in this thread has disagreed with that. Anyone.



> So people are making an issue out of what actually did not involve a bicycle at all, just some nutjob attempting to hijack a car because he was psycho simply because our society looked down at his constant abuse and beatings he heaped upon a former girlfriend that he was stalking.


Wow. Your accusations and assumptions are startling. Do you read your posts before you send them?


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

There was a Toronto Police week-long bike safety blitz in June this year and the numbers are somewhat staggering.

1,373 tickets issued to cyclists for violations such as disobeying traffic signals & failing to yield to pedestrians
*5,302 tickets issued to motorists for offenses such as opening doors unsafely & failing to yield to cyclists*
747 tickets to cyclists for bike equipment offences such as lack of a bell
198 tickets issued to vehicles parked in designated bike lanes
84 cyclists under the age of 18 charged with not wearing helmets while riding a bike


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

-


----------



## Manatus (May 11, 2009)

hhk said:


> Guy on a 15 lb. aluminum bicycle blows a stop sign. Honestly, what sort of hazard does this pose? I guess, hypothetically, they could cause a car to swerve which might, in turn, disrupt the balance of the earth's rotation, causing the planet to spin uncontrollably towards the Sun.
> 
> Let's continue to blame the victim, shall we?


The hazard is that it could cause an accident.

The problem with that kind of statement is that it's assuming that it matters who causes the accident, versus who is more injured. It makes no difference if a car runs a red light or stop sign and kills a cyclist, or if a cyclist runs a red light or stop sign and kills himself (other than additional charges may be laid for killing someone else, which is above the level of general traffic enforcement). Just because a cyclist is going to harm himself rather than someone else, does not give him more right to behave in a risky manner.

The end result is that there will be an accident, whoever is at fault, which will result in delays, police, ambulance and hospitals having to work more, ill-feeling and the associated results. The victim is not solely the injured party, because accidents have affects on society as a whole. Basically, we will all end up paying because one party did something stupid. That party should be held to account, whether they are safe within their steel cage, or badly injured in hospital. Likewise, those who act in a manner likely to cause an accident should be punished to help to prevent accidents, regardless of whether they are likely to survive one or not.


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> ...So people are making an issue out of what actually did not involve a bicycle at all, just some nutjob attempting to hijack a car because he was psycho simply because our society looked down at his constant abuse and beatings he heaped upon a former girlfriend that he was stalking.


And earlier this week, it was revealed he was wanted by Edmonton police on about six dozen warrants. (today's Toronto Star)

As Lance would say, it's not about the bike.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
It's all about the nutjobs... Of course, people mock my comments because they'd love nothing better to see a former Attorney-General put in jail. Just like when people accused me of being "insensitive" when I commented that it was probably some skid-row loser strung out on drugs that abducted and killed Tori Stafford - stuff that in the end, was shown to be correct if unfortunate.

Besides, there has been a lot of talk about bicycles - when this incident had nothing to do with bicycles, but rather, a nutjob that was issuing death threats who chose to hand on to a car while it was moving. To say that Bryant was at fault is to say that a locomotive engineer is at fault because some hobo falls off of the underside of one of the railcars and is killed.

It is good to remind people about bicycle safety, but I can not see how they could ever police such things, considering that they can't even police things like massive drug smuggling operations, or gun crimes, or other such things, like perhaps if they pulled over some of the people that do 140 on the Linc...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

jawknee said:


> There was a Toronto Police week-long bike safety blitz in June this year and the numbers are somewhat staggering.
> 
> 1,373 tickets issued to cyclists for violations such as disobeying traffic signals & failing to yield to pedestrians
> *5,302 tickets issued to motorists for offenses such as opening doors unsafely & failing to yield to cyclists*
> ...


That's very interesting information jawknee. I'd appreciate a link to the source if you have one, please.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> ^^^
> It's all about the nutjobs... Of course, people mock my comments because they'd love nothing better to see a former Attorney-General put in jail. Just like when people accused me of being "insensitive" when I commented that it was probably some skid-row loser strung out on drugs that abducted and killed Tori Stafford - stuff that in the end, was shown to be correct if unfortunate.
> 
> Besides, there has been a lot of talk about bicycles - when this incident had nothing to do with bicycles, but rather, a nutjob that was issuing death threats who chose to hand on to a car while it was moving. To say that Bryant was at fault is to say that a locomotive engineer is at fault because some hobo falls off of the underside of one of the railcars and is killed.
> ...


I think it's far too early to make any guesses about what may have happened. If you were right about your conclusions in this other case you are only trumpeting that your GUESS was right. You or I or anyone else don't have enough evidence to make any judgements in this case.

I agree with you that this case is not really about bikes, it's about road rage precipitating something horrible. I'm only responding on the issue of cycling because some have come on here and used this issue to slander the "vast majority" of cyclists.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> That's very interesting information jawknee. I'd appreciate a link to the source if you have one, please.


It was in this months issue of spacing. The stats were provided by the Toronto police association. I only have a hard-copy sorry.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

jawknee said:


> It was in this months issue of spacing. The stats were provided by the Toronto police association. I only have a hard-copy sorry.


Google was my friend - I found it mentioned in several places around the web. It seems they did a bike safety blitz in Toronto the year before with similar results, percentage-wise.

Incidentally you made a typo on the numbers from what I can tell.

The numbers I found were:

Officers issued 5,907 tickets to motorists and cyclists who were found committing offences. Of the tickets issued:
• 3,502 tickets were issued to motorists for offences such as opening vehicle doors improperly and failing to yield to cyclists,
• 1,373 tickets were issued to cyclists for moving violations including disobeying traffic signals and failing to yield to pedestrians,
• 747 tickets were issued to cyclists for bicycle equipment offences,
• 84 people under the age of 18 were charged with not wearing helmets,
• 198 parking tickets were issued for parking in designated bike lanes,

It looks like you reversed the 3 and 5 in the motorists numbers.

These stats seem to put the lie to many of the assumptions being touted here. It's clear that when the police are specifically targeting both cyclist infractions and driver endangerment of cyclists on bike routes and areas of high bicycle usage, it's the drivers who are the worst offenders. Add to this that a driver breaking these rules might be killing someone whereas a cyclist committing these violations is far less likely to be killing someone other than themselves.

There's plenty of blame to go around here, I wish some drivers would quit assuming that none of it is on their group. 

As a driver myself I can see that and I always attempt to be safe around cyclists on the road. Many other drivers don't like this, such as when I follow behind a cyclist, if there is not enough room for me to pass them safely, then I don't. I refuse to attempt to blow by a cyclist with only a foot or so between my car and their bike, although many motorists think this is just fine. I'll attempt to change lanes and properly pass the bike but if the road is congested, well I just have to wait rather than endanger a life. But being an adult and all, rather than some of the road-raging babies I see flying around in their cars, I can do that.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Google was my friend - I found it mentioned in several places around the web. It seems they did a bike safety blitz in Toronto the year before with similar results, percentage-wise.
> 
> Incidentally you made a typo on the numbers from what I can tell.
> 
> ...













Actually if your numbers are correct, then Spacing reversed the numbers.  I too drive in the city (infrequently). I also bike as much as possible... and agree with all of your sentiments.

As a driver I sometimes tend to get lost in the bubble of anonymity which is a car. I have to think like a cyclist, and I have to be careful when passing, turning etc etc.
These are all things that we as motorists need to remember. Someone on this thread said that it wasn't about bikes... and they were partially right. This is about bikes and cars. Toronto is not a pedestrian friendly city. There are plenty of pedestrians, but people are generally in way too much of a hurry.

I don't want to see anyone basted in this scenario. But it should serve as a reminder that as a motorist/cyclist/human being, you never know who you're going to encounter on the next corner. Weh. I feel preachy, but I like this place, and I feel like when I bike (or drive) I communicate visually with those around me, and there's a mutual respect that exists.

So if you see my plumbers crack, on Richmond, and you think I'm riding too far from the parked airport shuttle, it's not because I want to slow you down, it's because I'm afraid of wiping out in front of your car on account of the pits between the streetcar bed and the asphalt.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

jawknee said:


> Actually if your numbers are correct, then Spacing reversed the numbers.  I too drive in the city (infrequently). I also bike as much as possible... and agree with all of your sentiments.


I just checked it in Google again to be sure and it looks like the magazine made a typo. It's reported everywhere else as 3502.

I agree that people are in way too much of a hurry. I never understood taking a huge risk in traffic to save a few seconds of travel time. This goes for all road users.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yesterday afternoon as I sat in the shade of the garage in 32 degree heat, seven cyclists passed our home. We live on a corner lot. Three were riding on the sidewalk, two were without helmets and not one of the seven either stopped or signalled at the intersection. Every vehicle, too many to count, stopped at the intersection and only two failed to signal.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Yesterday afternoon as I sat in the shade of the garage in 32 degree heat, seven cyclists passed our home. We live on a corner lot. Three were riding on the sidewalk, two were without helmets and not one of the seven either stopped or signalled at the intersection. Every vehicle, too many to count, stopped at the intersection and only two failed to signal.


Yesterday, as I stood in the shade of a big Douglas Fir on the main drag of my island at least 7 vehicles passed me by. Every one of them was going faster than the posted limit of 30 km/h due to a playground nearby. I wasn't paying particular attention to smaller infractions but at least one had a cracked taillight (I'd bet there were a few trucks without mudflaps too) and I didn't see one signal a right or left turn at the stop sign. I know that you know the difference between anecdotal info and fact, so ... what's yer point SINC?

[Edit} Oh yes, I forgot to mention that several big trucks and SUVs were parked on a too-narrow shoulder, with their left tires on the pavement, forcing the speeding drivers to cross over the yellow line to pass them. Our local cop has actually made several appeals for people to not park this way, as well as written tickets, but those anarchistic law-breaking drivers just keep doin' it )


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> what's yer point SINC?


Gee, you mean to say you missed it? Figure it out for yourself.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

SINC said:


> Yesterday afternoon as I sat in the shade of the garage in 32 degree heat, seven cyclists passed our home. We live on a corner lot. Three were riding on the sidewalk, two were without helmets and not one of the seven either stopped or signalled at the intersection. Every vehicle, too many to count, stopped at the intersection and only two failed to signal.


Well then, you shoulda got off yer butt and got yer shotgun and made'em pay.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

Manatus said:


> The hazard is that it could cause an accident.
> 
> The problem with that kind of statement is that it's assuming that it matters who causes the accident, versus who is more injured. It makes no difference if a car runs a red light or stop sign and kills a cyclist, or if a cyclist runs a red light or stop sign and kills himself (other than additional charges may be laid for killing someone else, which is above the level of general traffic enforcement). Just because a cyclist is going to harm himself rather than someone else, does not give him more right to behave in a risky manner.
> 
> The end result is that there will be an accident, whoever is at fault, which will result in delays, police, ambulance and hospitals having to work more, ill-feeling and the associated results. The victim is not solely the injured party, because accidents have affects on society as a whole. Basically, we will all end up paying because one party did something stupid. That party should be held to account, whether they are safe within their steel cage, or badly injured in hospital. Likewise, those who act in a manner likely to cause an accident should be punished to help to prevent accidents, regardless of whether they are likely to survive one or not.


The thing is, it rarely, rarely happens - an accident, that is. I'm not talking bout a cyclist blowing through a red at Weston Rd. and Hwy 7., I'm talking about what all of us cyclists do - we approach a stop sign, we check for traffic and if it's safe, we proceed through. This doesn't cause a safety hazard to anyone. Strict application of laws designed to control 2000lb. rolling hunks of steel and glass will only serve to discourage a healthy activity that is good for society.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

SINC said:


> Yesterday afternoon as I sat in the shade of the garage in 32 degree heat, seven cyclists passed our home. We live on a corner lot. Three were riding on the sidewalk, two were without helmets and not one of the seven either stopped or signalled at the intersection. Every vehicle, too many to count, stopped at the intersection and only two failed to signal.


Helmets are required for those aged 16 and under. Did you ask for I.D.?
Riding on the sidewalk is illegal only if your wheel size is over 24 inches. Did you get out the tape measure?

If you're gonna play cop, do it right.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

jawknee said:


> Well then, you shoulda got off yer butt and got yer shotgun and made'em pay.


That would be cool - justice like in Gran Torino...


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> That would be cool - justice like in Gran Torino...


pow pow pow


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Yesterday afternoon as I sat in the shade of the garage in 32 degree heat, seven cyclists passed our home. We live on a corner lot. Three were riding on the sidewalk, two were without helmets and not one of the seven either stopped or signalled at the intersection. Every vehicle, too many to count, stopped at the intersection and only two failed to signal.


Yesterday afternoon as I sat in the shade of my front porch, I saw numerous cars, too many to count, race up my street at easily 20 - 30 km over the limit. This in a school zone! Also, many swerved at high speeds to miss the laughable things the City calls speed bumps. On two or three occasions they came dangerously close to children playing in front of the school. Dangerously close.

Every cyclist that passed was riding well to the side out of the way of traffic and posed no threat whatsoever to the children playing.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

Also, while on topic. There has been an influx of articles relating to the cyclist/motorist dichotomy in Toronto. 

more stats (though I'm unsure how good the fact checking is at metro) : 

Metro - Statistics help explain cyclists? anger

More to do with bike law:

TheStar.com | GTA | Cyclists entitled to whole lane, bicycle cop says


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

hhk said:


> Helmets are required for those aged 16 and under. Did you ask for I.D.?
> Riding on the sidewalk is illegal only if your wheel size is over 24 inches. Did you get out the tape measure?
> 
> If you're gonna play cop, do it right.


You have zero knowledge of local cycling bylaws in our city, so why make a stupid accusation like that? Helmets are required by law for EVERY person who rides a bike. Cycling on sidewalks is not allowed.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

SINC said:


> You have zero knowledge of local cycling bylaws in our city, so why make a stupid accusation like that? Helmets are required by law for EVERY person who rides a bike. Cycling on sidewalks is not allowed.


Without waging a war, your observations have absolutely no base in a discussion where your laws do not exist. You're obviously very embittered about cyclists. You might want to talk to someone about that.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

It's kind of WAY off topic - since the incident the OP has posed has been shown to have nothing at all to do about cyclists - and everything to do with a drunken nutbar attempting to attack and assassinate a minister of the government. Bicycles were not involved, but rather, copious amounts of booze pounded into a loser that was wanted fro crimes all over the place, and was severely upset because police would not allow him to assault, attack, and rape an ex-girlfriend.

I am no friend of Liberals, and would be more than pleased to have seen Bryant go off the deep end and commit crimes that would lead to the collpase of the Liberal regime in this province. However, as the facts stand, that Bryant simply did what anyone else would have done given the same situation, of a booze saturated loser soused on drugs, and no alien to the crimes of aggravated assault and battery, attempting to attack and murder someone who was just minding their own business.

It shows the lack of backbone of our Nation, that people will engage in endless off-topic talk about nonsense that isn't related to the topic, simply because the guy happened to be riding a bike at some point before he attempted to murder a member of our provincial parliament. And if the loser happened to have succeeded, he'd end up with a light sentence, perhaps three or four days, perhaps less with parole - and we'd be talking about how weak our justice system is.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> It's kind of WAY off topic - since the incident the OP has posed has been shown to have nothing at all to do about cyclists - and everything to do with a drunken nutbar attempting to attack and assassinate a minister of the government. Bicycles were not involved, but rather, copious amounts of booze pounded into a loser that was wanted fro crimes all over the place, and was severely upset because police would not allow him to assault, attack, and rape an ex-girlfriend.


That's a pretty colourful story.

It has everything to do with bicycles and motorists. The incident of which Bryant was leaving, was what caused the altercation. This is not to say that what occurred after it was justified on either part, but a motorist's lack of awareness was the tipping point. Obviously the cyclist in this case was disturbed but until the police investigation is done, comments like yours above only serve to make you sound like an idiot. But then maybe that's what you're going for?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

The cycling topic is filled with all kinds of bunk. It comes down to this, if bicycles are to be on the roads and are vehicles, then the system has to treat them as actual vehicles, subject to the rule of law. I don't care about the mass of a vehicle, the law is the law. A stop sign means stop, and blowing through because it is "light" is a load of bunk.

Many cyclists simply flaunt the law, and worse, it isn't some kids or some occasional riders that engage in such stuff - it mainly consists of those who have pretentions of being "professional", with all of the regalia. They are the ones that generally do not share the road, who do not follow regulations, and who cause much of the problems. Kids generally don't blow through stop signs, nor do they go from the sidewalk right into crazy traffic, nor do kids generally jump from their bikes into automobiles in order to score a kill.

If bicycles are to be "respected" by drivers, they had better act with responsibility as adults. Some things I note on a daily basis is how cyclists are even worse behaved if they are University students, driving willy-nilly all over the place, going the wrong way on one way streets, with no ability to figure out what the red octagonal sign means, and no ability to actuall use bicycle lanes or bicycle routes where indicated. It is funny that so many of them ride in order "to exercise", but are unable to go that extra 200 feet to ride on a path that is expressly made for them, prefering to mix it up with giant transport trucks, articulated buses, delivery vans, and other large vehicles. It's funny that such flippant attitudes and bad riding habits are not endemic near high schools, a place where one would expect much stupidity to ensue - but rather, around an institute of higher learning where it is obvious that self-absorption and self-entitlement are rife.

I think everyone is in agreement that cyclists in general show a great deal of disrespect for the rules of the road; just like there are many drivers that also show a great deal of disrespect. However, because others disrepsect does not mean that it is justified or correct. It is less of a problem of "sharing the road", and much more about putting behind those impulses of self-ownership of public roads, of putting beside self-entitlement. Really, if bicyclists want to be in a race and take huge risks - go join the Tour de France; just like car drivers that want to sprint at high speeds between lights should head to Daytona or Indianapolis.

We have laws, it is time to enforce them. It shows the odd thing that most yound cyclists are entirely respectful of the laws and of safety, and only later, when people learn to be pretentious baboons, does it become an issue.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I don't know where to start. Now he's an assassin - is that right? A bit over the top there. Seems to me you're simply engaged in blithely assassinating a man's character. A dead one, at that. Neither you nor I were there that night but your observations sound like a particularly lurid episode of "Cops." Cue the ominous music.

And while we're at it, I'm wondering why you capitalized "Nation." Holy pontification, Batman.

Trying to remove from this story the thorny dynamic of cyclists and motorists is just a wee bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

jawknee said:


> Without waging a war, your observations have absolutely no base in a discussion where your laws do not exist. You're obviously very embittered about cyclists. You might want to talk to someone about that.


Embittered? LOL! I simply watch the majority of cyclists I see break the law, most notably by failure to signal at nearing 100%. And that's a fact in this part of the country. While many drivers don't signal, they are well in the minority compared to cyclists.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> We have laws, it is time to enforce them. It shows the odd thing that most yound cyclists are entirely respectful of the laws and of safety, and only later, when people learn to be pretentious baboons, does it become an issue.


Well DUH. Of course. That was why I posted the stats from the blitz in June. If this many people are not paying attention to the laws (motorists & cyclists) then there is an obvious need to enforce them. 

...And anyone could be caught in bad mood and make a bad, bad, BAD decision based on that.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Embittered? LOL! I simply watch the majority of cyclists I see break the law, most notably by failure to signal at nearing 100%. And that's a fact in this part of the country. While many drivers don't signal, they are well in the minority compared to cyclists.


Where, on your street?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Gee, you mean to say you missed it? Figure it out for yourself.


I guess then you didn't get my point -- or don't have an answer for it.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> a drunken nutbar attempting to attack and assassinate a minister of the government.





> copious amounts of booze pounded into a loser that was wanted fro crimes all over the place, and was severely upset because police would not allow him to assault, attack, and rape an ex-girlfriend.





> booze saturated loser soused on drugs, and no alien to the crimes of aggravated assault and battery, attempting to attack and murder someone who was just minding their own business.


You are, if nothing else, mildly amusing. 

Just curious, are you frothing at all?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

jawknee said:


> It has everything to do with bicycles and motorists. The incident of which Bryant was leaving, was what caused the altercation.


So you are saying that the bicycle made him do it? What a sop. No one has the right to attempt to hijack a car and attempt to kill someone. If there was a collision, then it is all about settling that in a rational manner, like paying for damage or whatever. Nothing at all justifies the attack, a. It goes without saying that the actual death itself had nothign t odo with a bicycle - it wasn't as if the dude was still on his bicycle with his hands around Bryant's neck while tooling down Bloor.

The issue is not about any collision or damages - but rather, the act itself, the attempt at hijacking a car and of assaulting and attempting to do harm or murder to someone else; all the while by being taked up with booze, drugs, and after having attempted to do other greivious harms to other parties, of assaulting police officers previously, or his attempt at attack and rape of a previous girlfriend, or a long history of run ins with law enforcement in other jurisdictions.



> This is not to say that what occurred after it was justified on either part, but a motorist's lack of awareness was the tipping point.


The tipping point has nothing to do with motorists, but rather a criminal lifesyle that featured a long history of run ins with law enforcement, of excessive abuse of booze and drugs, of assaults, batteries and attempted rapes. He was out looking for someone "to pound out", and it is just by circumstance was Bryant in the wrong place at the wrong time.

There is no justification for doling out blame, since defensive driving skills apply to all operators of vehicles, from transport trucks down to bicycles. If the dude had not been self absorbed, he would have easily avoided the whole incident since he would have used defensive driving skills to drive in a careful manner, and wouldn't have been riding in the the blind spot of a much larger automobile. Also, he wouldn't have freaked out and attempted to kill the driver, but rather, attempted to settle for the damages done. I am sure Bryant would have had no problem replacing a wheel or tire or whatever at his cost, if he had actually been in the wrong and had not been assaulted by a drunk boozehound that was out looking for trouble.



> Obviously the cyclist in this case was disturbed but until the police investigation is done, comments like yours above only serve to make you sound like an idiot. But then maybe that's what you're going for?


I love it when someone's case becomes so weak and devoid of truth, truth entirely demonstrated on TV and in the media, that they resort to personal vindiction. The point is that no matter what the circumstances were, there are no justifications for the actions of this man. Most people, given an accident of some sort, are not prone into attempting to assault and murder the other party.

By the same token, if we waited for police investigations, where would be no justification whatsoever for a discussion on bicycle safety, because police have not determined if bicycle safety was even involved. And even when the police investigation ends, it becomes a wait for the justice system to make it's pronouncement, meaning that none of this should be discussed or mentioned for the next two decades.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> Bicycles were not involved, but rather, copious amounts of booze pounded into a loser that was wanted fro crimes all over the place, and was severely upset because police would not allow him to assault, attack, and rape an ex-girlfriend.


Speaking of weak and devoid of truth.

No I didn't say that a bicycle made him do it. I merely said that a incident was what was the tipping point. It's about mutual respect, and that mutual respect hardly exists between the two here.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> The cycling topic is filled with all kinds of bunk.


Yep, I've read a lot of that bunk in your posts. Every slag you and other posters have made about SOME cyclists, equating them will MOST cyclists, could be made about drivers too.



EvanPitts said:


> It comes down to this, if bicycles are to be on the roads and are vehicles, then the system has to treat them as actual vehicles, subject to the rule of law.
> ---
> 
> If bicycles are to be "respected" by drivers, they had better act with responsibility as adults.
> ...


Bicycles should be "respected" on the road because the law says so -- not at the whim of any driver. I expect to be respected when I'm riding my bike, those drivers who don't and infringe my rights on the road are law breakers, and it happens every time I cycle, whether I'm on a bike route or busy street. Yes, we have laws, it's time to enforce them -- couldn't agree more.

This whole thread seems to be this stupid back and forth, where someone asserts something to the effect of "all cyclists are law-breakers", then presented with ample evidence that not "all" cyclists are, they just put their fingers in their ears and repeat it. Don't let the facts have any bearing on your opinion, just keep repeating stories about some crazy cyclist you saw once. I've got enough crazy driver stories to last a lifetime, want to hear them?

The evidence of rampant law-breaking by motorists could lead someone taking the same dumb rhetorical approach to say that "all" motorists are law-breakers, but of course that would be unfair and ridiculous. I guess you could watch pedestrians on any corner and say the same thing also and advocate a crackdown on peds, helmet laws, licensing and insurance.

I have agreed multiple times here that cyclists should follow the law, that cyclists should be safe and courteous and that police should prosecute those who don't. I agree with the approach of the bike safety blitz that the police had in Toronto. Notably more drivers than cyclists received tickets for endangering cyclists on the road, which proves that this is not a one way street. But those wanting to paint a distorted picture of cyclists want to keep pretending that all fault lies with cyclists.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Where, on your street?


Nope, right across Alberta and western Canada and seven US states. I drove over 9,000 km this year alone and I repeat, nearly 100% of cyclists I have seen making turns fail to signal.

That number among drivers might be as high as 20%, so my deduction is more cyclists break the law than motorists regarding signalling.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I guess then you didn't get my point -- or don't have an answer for it.


There is no defence for cyclists who don't signal. They are in the majority everywhere I go.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> There is no defence for cyclists who don't signal. They are in the majority everywhere I go.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias

Your self-reinforcing anecdotes aren't unbiased facts, even if you use a percent symbol in an attempt to make them appear so.

If I use your method, I could say that all drivers are law-breakers because every one I "noticed" passing me while I'm cycling does so far too closely. Not to mention all of those scofflaw speeders. There is no excuse.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Your self-reinforcing anecdotes aren't unbiased facts, even if you use a percent symbol in an attempt to make them appear so.


OK, then simply put more do not use signals than those who do use signals. I believe that forms a majority and is far greater than vehicles I observe not signalling.

Anyone who is at all observant will find the same thing regarding cyclists and signalling in many communities.

As for those speeding vehicles you see, I take it you carry a radar gun, do you?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Oh the futility.

Nothing more to contribute or learn here.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Every slag you and other posters have made about SOME cyclists, equating them will MOST cyclists, could be made about drivers too.


We have had entire threads about bad drivers and poor driving habits - and as drivers, we see such things every day. Speeding, running lights, rampant tailgating, cutting others off, not signaling turns or lane changes, yapping on cell phones, arguing while driving, surfing the web, reading books while driving, eating while putting on makeup, masturbation - all of these things occur on the roads, making them unsafe places. Ev if someone is acting stupid or belligerent, it does not justify attacking and attmpting to murder someone.

No one has actually studied cycling, there are no hard numbers to go by. Sure, we have a safely blitz, but that isn't the tale of the tape. We have to rely on anecdotal evidence. Thus, I relate those events that are prevalent around the local University, where cyclists perform stunts each and every day - even though they should know better. I also related what I witness up and around Milton, with faux "professional" cyclists pretending that they are in some Tour de France, hogging the roads, performing stunts, riding two or three abreast, going slow on busy, over crowded roads, with no signalling evident.

I also witness cyclists that are "crowded" out by cars simply because the cyclists ride in or near the gutter, rather than staking out a proper lane. I also not that even in places where there are specidfic bicycle lanes or paths, many cyclists are too lazy to go the extra 200 feet to get to them, and end up jousing with heavy traffic in the various pinch points around the City, especially on mountain accesses and the 403 crossings - places where there are purposefully designed alternatives, not because of some hate on for cyclists, but because the City has inadequate capacity on these roads for regular car traffic.

We all know that many cyclists don't bother with signals, I also note the vast number that have no lighting or reflectors, and those that wear black or dark clothing. Not only that, many engage in ridiculous activities, like riding on sidewalks, running stop signs, running red lights, pretending their are pedestrians when they feel like it, riding the wrong way on one way streets. I also note that these are endemic problems around the University, where people are supposed to be "smart" and know better; while I give much credit to those in hgih schools around here that ride in a more responsible manner.

One problem I note in my neighbourhood is that cyclists do not inhabit their lane, and hence, ride far too close to parked cars and have been subject to collisions with car doors. That is one thing, but quite often, when I am standing by the car waiting for a cyclist to pass, they don't even move a single foot to get around me - and hence, are actually riding their bikes in my lane.

It is not that we lack the knowledge of the law or of safety - our society simply lacks the collective common sense. People feel far too entitled. A bicyclist feels that they are entitled to blow through stop signs, because to actually stop and look all ways as is lawful and common sense, would lead to extra effort. When I used to ride regularly, I never had problems with cars, because I had lights, signals, and I inhabited my lane. I also avoided dumb, overloaded routes, and instead, exploited what bike paths and lanes were available. And I did this without incident. I used to spend my summertimes in the country, and used to do a great amount of riding, and again, it was common sense, avoiding roads clogged with trucks, inhabiting my lane, stopping at stop signs and lights, signalling, etc., and did so without incident.

It's all about defensive driving, but also to use the tactic of making space. People do not do this, whether it is a bike or a car or a truck. Tailgating is an epidemic that costs our economy billions of dollars. And it is not like tailgating is getting you anywhere faster, as one can not go faster than the one in front.

If Sinc has made observations from his neighbourhood, or from his travels, it is entirely valid because they are observations, and such stuff is in evidence elsewhere by a myriad of people.

"Respect" has noting to do with the law - respect happens when people ride bicycles in a manner that 



> Notably more drivers than cyclists received tickets for endangering cyclists on the road, which proves that this is not a one way street. But those wanting to paint a distorted picture of cyclists want to keep pretending that all fault lies with cyclists.


Of course, there are a thousand cars on the road for each bicycle, so one has to expect more car stunts than bike stunts. No one is assigning all fault to cyclists - just making the observations that many cyclists have some very bad and dangerous habits, as evidenced every day on our roads. Cars might do stunts, but cars have safety items - while cyclists tend to eschew any safety items, and prefer to ride their bikes denuded of reflectors, lights, signals and in black clothes, all of which are common sense items to have.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

> ... while cyclists tend to eschew any safety items, and prefer to ride their bikes denuded of reflectors, lights, signals and in black clothes, all of which are common sense items to have.


Oh, really! An astonishing claim.


----------



## imachungry (Sep 19, 2004)

jawknee said:


> Speaking of weak and devoid of truth.
> 
> No I didn't say that a bicycle made him do it. I merely said that a incident was what was the tipping point. It's about mutual respect, and that mutual respect hardly exists between the two here.


Mutual respect? Are you on crack? How about I sneak up behind you after you cut me off in traffic and try and choke you while I'm high as a kite. I'll await your "mutual respect" response. So much keyboard nattering, so little considering the actual circumstances. It was very apparent that the deceased went too far, and he paid a great price. It may become apparent that Bryant went too far, but I have terrific sympathy for someone who was attacked in his car by a drunk and belligerent loon. Does this mean the guy deserved to die? No, but it might just have been the stupidest final thing he ever did. Anyone who rides a bike for a living better have tremendous self restraint. Because you ride a bike means it's okay to get high/drunk and choke me?? 

If Bryant used excessive force by using the car as a battering ram, he may go to jail, but more than likely he'll get off using a "feared for his life" defence which sounds perfectly reasonable when some drunken nutbar goes crazy on you and your wife. 

If he had put his hands on my neck in my car I would have done *anything* to get him off of me, and so would you and when people are put in a desperate situation they don't exactly have the comfort we do of composing their thoughts. I'll bet it happened in all of four seconds total. Bam!

I agree that this has nothing really to do with bikes and cars, but a guy who was drunk, distraught and angry, who got ticked off by some guy, and went too far. Whether Bryant also went too far is an open question.

I had some nutbar posting Bryant's home address yesterday on the deceased's Facebook page. That crowd is crazy, out for blood. I feel for Bryant. It could have been any one of us who deals with the rare loony cyclist.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> I also related what I witness up and around Milton, with faux "professional" cyclists pretending that they are in some Tour de France, hogging the roads,





EvanPitts said:


> I also witness cyclists that are "crowded" out by cars simply because the cyclists ride in or near the gutter, rather than staking out a proper lane.


uhh


----------



## Kaiu (Sep 3, 2009)

It was wrong for the cyclist to cling onto the car in the first place...

No one deserve to die, but the fault would mainly be on the cyclist here... What else could you do as a driver.... Stay parked in the same spot for the rest of the day? People have a life, and time is limited nowadays....

It does make me realize, alot of accidents do come from careless drivers too...

I have seen so many times *at least in Toronto* women doing their make up while driving... The cell phone ban is a joke, since you see that pretty much every single day more than once @[email protected]


----------



## imachungry (Sep 19, 2004)

BTW I want to point out that eyewitness accounts are now saying that Darcy was hitting the car with his bike lock, which, if true, adds another potential element of danger and perhaps death to the driver and his wife. Fists to the head are scary enough, but a guy who's drunk and enraged with a bike lock ready to strike me or my wife??

I can't even imagine what I'd do. 

And you would too. 

Interesting that many couriers and Darcy's friends are now blaming the police for his drunkenness and driving. Incredible. While there may be some truth to that, it is amazing that not one of these people will actually come out and say "he shouldn't have been on his bike while he was drunk." Instead, it's the police's fault--the whole thing. :baby:


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Kaiu said:


> I have seen so many times *at least in Toronto* women doing their make up while driving... The cell phone ban is a joke, since you see that pretty much every single day more than once @[email protected]


I've discovered that it's far more distracting to fuss and fiddle with the Bluetooth thing in my car to try and figure out why they hell it's hanging or crashed or otherwise not working THIS time than to just use the damn phone.

Sad but true.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

hhk said:


> The thing is, it rarely, rarely happens - an accident, that is. I'm not talking bout a cyclist blowing through a red at Weston Rd. and Hwy 7., I'm talking about what all of us cyclists do - we approach a stop sign, we check for traffic and if it's safe, we proceed through. This doesn't cause a safety hazard to anyone. Strict application of laws designed to control 2000lb. rolling hunks of steel and glass will only serve to discourage a healthy activity that is good for society.


yeah it rarely happens to you but tell that to the cyclist last year who decided that running a stop sign was worth becoming a new hood ornament on my suv.

Laterz


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Yep, I've read a lot of that bunk in your posts. Every slag you and other posters have made about SOME cyclists, equating them will MOST cyclists, could be made about drivers too.


I actually equate all bad road users in the same boat regardless of what vehicle that they are operating if they disrespect the law they deserve whatever comes to them.

Laterz


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

SINC said:


> There is no defence for cyclists who don't signal.


It totally depends on traffic and road conditions. Signaling requires taking one hand off the handlebars. If conditions make that unsafe, a cyclist absolutely should not do it.

It's self preservation. Cars seldom respect cyclists, they try to pass inside the same lane as the bike. You can't just stick your arm out so that a car can hit it, and they wouldn't ever yield to the signal anyway so it's a useless exercise. Add potholes and cracks to the mix, and signaling can be downright dangerous. I used to signal all the time, but the more I bike, the more I realize that it's futile to try. Cars don't see the whole you, lights on, in the middle of the lane, let alone what you are doing with your arm. They don't even know what those arm signals mean even on the odd chance that they do see you doing it.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

K_OS said:


> I actually equate all bad road users in the same boat regardless of what vehicle that they are operating if they disrespect the law they deserve whatever comes to them.
> 
> Laterz


I agree.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

bsenka said:


> It totally depends on traffic and road conditions. Signaling requires taking one hand off the handlebars. If conditions make that unsafe, a cyclist absolutely should not do it.
> 
> It's self preservation. Cars seldom respect cyclists, they try to pass inside the same lane as the bike. You can't just stick your arm out so that a car can hit it, and they wouldn't ever yield to the signal anyway so it's a useless exercise. Add potholes and cracks to the mix, and signaling can be downright dangerous. I used to signal all the time, but the more I bike, the more I realize that it's futile to try. Cars don't see the whole you, lights on, in the middle of the lane, let alone what you are doing with your arm. They don't even know what those arm signals mean even on the odd chance that they do see you doing it.


I have a place in one of the rides that I often do in Vancouver where I make a left turn at the bottom of a hill. It's difficult to do because I've got both hands on the brakes trying to slow down from the hill, so to stick my left arm out is really difficult. Most of the time when I'm riding there it's early morning and there's no oncoming traffic so I can make my left without having anyone to signal to. Occasionally a driver is coming up the hill, so I slow to a crawl, so I can safely put my arm out for a second or two or in most cases just wait for the driver to pass. This is also dangerous because you never know if a driver behind you is paying attention to your slowing down. There was a recent case in Vancouver that a friend unfortunately witnessed, where an inattentive driver on his phone plowed right into a pair of cyclists that had decided to stop for a yellow light. I never heard if they died, but she said they both flew through the air like rag dolls. Sometimes I pull over to let all the vehicles pass before I make the turn.

So yes, I can see that there are circumstances unique to bikes the might necessitate some rule bending. But in sharing the road with vehicles the best thing a cyclist can do is attempt to be predictable. This is primarily what is difficult for other road users. Drivers (the ones who aren't self-absorbed jerks who think they own the road) expect other road users to follow the rules and if you do that it makes you predictable. Because a cyclist is vulnerable it is best to clearly signal one's intentions and make sure you know that the drivers around you know what you're about to do. 

I don't buy the idea that making up the rules is a good idea, as some cyclists do and as some drivers do as well. If it's difficult to follow a rule for whatever reason, the driver may not be aware of that and when you do something without the driver expecting it you put yourself at risk of being hit. It's better in that case then to just get off your bike and wait or walk it across an intersection than to risk being a hood ornament. Some drivers and some cyclists think it's fine to take a risk in traffic to shave a few seconds off their trip, but I never agree with that.

Because some drivers don't respect cyclists, think they don't deserve to be on the road, drive aggressively around cyclists due to their warped beliefs, etc, is no reason to prove them right by being as bad as them. And you shouldn't assume that just because someone is driving that they are anti-cyclist. If I'm driving around cyclists I give respect and try to be predictable in my driving and appreciate the same in return.

As I've been saying repeatedly throughout this thread, it's a two-way street.


----------



## madhatress (Jul 22, 2007)

I wonder where the truth lies...
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/691400[/URL

]


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

bsenka said:


> It totally depends on traffic and road conditions. Signaling requires taking one hand off the handlebars. If conditions make that unsafe, a cyclist absolutely should not do it.


Singalling requires one to remove a hand from its proper position in a motorized vehicle, so what's your point? If a road is so dangerous and rough that one can't signal, they shouldn't be on the road at all. A cyclist could also put signal lights on their bicycle, which would not require releasing the handlebars at all.

Of course, signalling is less of the problem than having cyclists that use the roadway when they see fit, then jump onto the sidewalk to mow down some pedestrians, perhaps to have a better run at the stop signs and signals they will blow though.



> You can't just stick your arm out so that a car can hit it, and they wouldn't ever yield to the signal anyway so it's a useless exercise.


If the cyclist actually inhabited the lane, rather than schmaltzing along the gutter, this wouldn't be a problem. Same with the cyclists that insist on scraping their bikes along the sides of cars that are lined up at a red light. Car drivers will not "respect" cyclists if cyclists pretend not to be actual vehicles, and engage in those acts that are not respectable.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

sad


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

hhk said:


> I've never felt the need to say this in a public forum but you are truly an idiot. Do some research before open your trap.


That was uncalled for. Post reported.

I was referring to our local bylaws in our city, not Toronto which I clearly pointed out in my post.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

SINC said:


> That was uncalled for. Post reported.
> 
> I was referring to our local bylaws in our city, not Toronto which I clearly pointed out in my post.


You started it. Okay, I humbly apologise. I posted in the heat of the moment and I deleted the offensive post. I'm fresh from posting on another forum defending the rights of cyclists.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

hhk said:


> You started it. Okay, I humbly apologise. I posted in the heat of the moment and I deleted the offensive post. I'm fresh from posting on another forum defending the rights of cyclists.


I started nothing. You made comments regarding my observations on cyclists in our city. You assumed our bylaws were the same as those of Toronto. I pointed out that you did not know our local laws and were wrong, so I posted that by law, every cyclist must wear a helmet in St. Albert. End of story.

Apology accepted.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

SINC said:


> I started nothing. You made comments regarding my observations on cyclists in our city. You assumed our bylaws were the same as those of Toronto. I pointed out that you did not know our local laws and were wrong, so I posted that by law, every cyclist must wear a helmet in St. Albert. End of story.
> 
> Apology accepted.


You're right. I assumed we were talking about Toronto. How Toronto-centric of me. But the discussion is about cycling in Toronto, right?

i would think cycling in St. Albert is a whole different ball game.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

hhk said:


> You're right. I assumed we were talking about Toronto. How Toronto-centric of me. But the discussion is about cycling in Toronto, right?
> 
> i would think cycling in St. Albert is a whole different ball game.


A city of 53,081 vs a city of 5,555,912… yeah perhaps a tad different.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

jawknee said:


> A city of 53,081 vs a city of 5,555,912… yeah perhaps a tad different.


Actually we are now over 60,000 and with no discernible border with Edmonton, the metro area is well over a million. I suspect the issues are about the same when it comes to using proper signals.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

SINC said:


> Actually we are now over 60,000 and with no discernible border with Edmonton, the metro area is well over a million. I suspect the issues are about the same when it comes to using proper signals.


Sinc, the priority when riding in Toronto is survival. That is paramount. I usually don't signal when I ride a bike. The main reason being - I want both hands on the handlebars. I've also ridden on the sidewalk on narrow streets or streets with fast traffic. I will continue to do so and make no apologies about it. It's my life and I plan to live a few more years.

My good friend, Alan Tamane, was killed two years ago on Bayview Ave. This is an especially treacherous piece of roadway - narrow and fast. The police regularly sets up radar traps here but traffic routinely clips along at 80km/h (it's a 60 zone).

TheStar.com | GTA | 'Ghost bike' a reminder roads unsafe for cyclists

I also coast through stop signs. I'm not stupid - I stand high on my pedals, look up and down the road and then go through. If it's a blind corner, I stop. The reason for this is simple - momentum. That's what makes biking enjoyable and efficient. I'm not stopping unless I have to. Again, I make no apologies about it because I'm taking a car off our crowded and polluted streets and I'm staying healthy.

Sorry if it offends you and other motorists. I'm offended by all the cars I see with a single occupant.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Can I play too? Here's my go:

_Here here! I'm a driver who's also into doing things my way. I roll through stop signs. I'm not stupid - I shave a few K off of the speedometer, take a good look around, look up and down the road and then step on the gas. If it's a blind corner, I stop. The reason for this is simple - momentum. That's what makes driving enjoyable and efficient. I'm hypermiling - doing my bit to save the environment. I'm not stopping unless I have to. Again, I make no apologies about it because I'm burning less gas on our crowded and polluted streets, I'm staying healthy by joining the ranks of the hypermilers, all of us doing our part to lessen our cost on the environment. Plus by ditching all this pesky stopping, I get from point A to B faster and then I can leave park my car all the sooner. The environment benefits again!

Sorry if it offends you and everyone else. I'm offended by all the people I see breaking the law so I've decided to break it myself but make up clever justifications for my behaviour._

_________________________________

Bit of a thorny problem, this cyclist/pedestrian/driver tangle. It sure isn't going to go away any time soon.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

Max said:


> Can I play too? Here's my go:
> 
> _Here here! I'm a driver who's also into doing things my way. I roll through stop signs. I'm not stupid - I shave a few K off of the speedometer, take a good look around, look up and down the road and then step on the gas. If it's a blind corner, I stop. The reason for this is simple - momentum. That's what makes driving enjoyable and efficient. I'm hypermiling - doing my bit to save the environment. I'm not stopping unless I have to. Again, I make no apologies about it because I'm burning less gas on our crowded and polluted streets, I'm staying healthy by joining the ranks of the hypermilers, all of us doing our part to lessen our cost on the environment. Plus by ditching all this pesky stopping, I get from point A to B faster and then I can leave park my car all the sooner. The environment benefits again!
> 
> ...


Clever but you ignore my main point which is about survival. Hypermiling isn't about survival. Riding on the sidewalk often is. Riding with both hands on the bars often is.

I'll acknowledge that failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign is not about survival so I'll take my medicine if I get a ticket. Same thing with speeding in my car which I do on occasion. I guess you stick to the speed limit at all times.

Everybody chooses to ignore certain laws. Most of us certainly abide by the big ones but all of us ignore some laws. Parking laws, HTA, poop-and-scoop. We all have our justifications. I'm just being honest about mine.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I agree with you about riding with both hands on the bars. No question! Especially downtown. I am not in agreement with you regarding sidewalks. I have been hit by cyclists twice in the last decade or so... as a pedestrian walking along a sidewalk. Once it was coming out of a store on Queen West - got ploughed into by a dude on a bike, using the sidewalk like it was a collector lane.

Yet I myself, when on my bike, have blown stop signs, jumped onto sidewalks when it suited me... same as a ton of cyclists. It's no wonder drivers often hold us in contempt. It's no wonder many pedestrians resent the intrusion of bikes on the sidewalks on busy downtown streets.

I understand your stated motivation regarding keeping momentum. I'm just not sure that using it as a rationale trumps all else. It certainly shouldn't trump safety or the rights of those around you... pedestrians, motorists and fellow cyclists alike. I'm sure you would agree. Traffic flow in a crowded urban area is already by its nature a complex thing... adding in all the variables induced by various transport methods and it becomes chaos theory writ large, especially in the more pleasant months of the years. Consider scooters, bladers, boarders, cyclists, cars, trucks, motorcycles, e-bikes, motorized boards... and good old fashioned walking and jogging. All on the same relatively small chunks of real estate. And we wonder why road rage these days is, well, all the rage.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

I follow all rules of the road on my bike. That way, when a car hits me i can sue for damages. A broken arm and dislocated shoulder is worth about $27,000 in damages. beejacon


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

Max said:


> I agree with you about riding with both hands on the bars. No question! Especially downtown. I am not in agreement with you regarding sidewalks. I have been hit by cyclists twice in the last decade or so... as a pedestrian walking along a sidewalk. Once it was coming out of a store on Queen West - got ploughed into by a dude on a bike, using the sidewalk like it was a collector lane.
> 
> Yet I myself, when on my bike, have blown stop signs, jumped onto sidewalks when it suited me... same as a ton of cyclists. It's no wonder drivers often hold us in contempt. It's no wonder many pedestrians resent the intrusion of bikes on the sidewalks on busy downtown streets.
> 
> I understand your stated motivation regarding keeping momentum. I'm just not sure that using it as a rationale trumps all else. It certainly shouldn't trump safety or the rights of those around you... pedestrians, motorists and fellow cyclists alike. I'm sure you would agree. Traffic flow in a crowded urban area is already by its nature a complex thing... adding in all the variables induced by various transport methods and it becomes chaos theory writ large, especially in the more pleasant months of the years. Consider scooters, bladers, boarders, cyclists, cars, trucks, motorcycles, e-bikes, motorized boards... and good old fashioned walking and jogging. All on the same relatively small chunks of real estate. And we wonder why road rage these days is, well, all the rage.


Max. The sidewalk is there only as a last resort safety measure. I don't do it just to gain a speed or distance advantage. Anyone who rides on busy sidewalks - downtown or not - deserves a ticket. I generally avoid the really busy arterial roads but if I have to ride them, I'll sometimes do so on the sidewalk. But I do it very carefully, knowing full well I am not supposed to be there.

Regarding stop signs, you've probably heard of the "Idaho Stop". It allows cyclists to perform a rolling stop at stop signs. This is law in Idaho and is gaining support in many other juristictions. I think it's realistic and practical.

That's all I'm after - realistic, practical and courteous operation of a bicycle. That doesn't equate to following the HTA to the letter.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

Max said:


> Consider scooters, bladers, boarders, cyclists, cars, trucks, motorcycles, e-bikes, motorized boards... and good old fashioned walking and jogging. All on the same relatively small chunks of real estate. And we wonder why road rage these days is, well, all the rage.


oh god... E-bikes are the worst.

Edit: CTV News - Top Stories

article on ctv website today.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Hhk: I agree with the spirit of your posts - absolutely! It's merely that the specifics of each incident are what count. The devil is in the details - if nothing else, that's the lesson I'm coming away with since that Bloor St. incident of nearly a week ago now. I think we need to do away with all the high and mighty posturing that people tend to take up, drivers, pedestrians and cyclists take up, when confronted with uncomfortable accusations.

I am somewhat familiar with the Idaho stop... makes sense to me. If the laws need changing to reflect the growing numbers of bikes on city roads, I am all for it. Let's change 'em sooner rather than later, because all of the grey zones most of us daily navigate are precisely what can kill us or kill others in yet another precise and all too tragic intersection of instances.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

imachungry said:


> Mutual respect? Are you on crack? How about I sneak up behind you after you cut me off in traffic and try and choke you while I'm high as a kite. I'll await your "mutual respect" response.


You obviously have the reading comprehension of a two year old as I was not talking about 'mutual respect' in this instance.

You embarrass yourself with your "nattering" by the way.

...and you obviously have many friends within the Police and/or Law communities, as you seem to be privy to so much inside information that not even the mainstream media is reporting.

bravo :clap:


----------



## imachungry (Sep 19, 2004)

jawknee said:


> You obviously have the reading comprehension of a two year old as I was not talking about 'mutual respect' in this instance.
> 
> You embarrass yourself with your "nattering" by the way.
> 
> ...


Actually directly from CTV News. I'm sorry I misread the context of your comments. Feel smarter than me now?

Just another knife-sharpening bull**** discussion. In the end, every one of you would have reacted in kind if some drunken idiot came at you while in your car with your wife. 

Cars are overwhelmingly the killers of the street, the powerful against the meek. But what happens when the meek get fed up and cross the line? The sheep line up with the meek, instead of with the aggressor, and it leads to the kind of confusion that people can't process--unless you're not addicted to one position or the other, but with all human beings. 

The overdogs always have the power of being the incumbent, the established, while the underdogs get away with a different kind of power. The reason this issue is so huge is not because of the violence of the case--hell, a guy was shot to death at Rabba around the corner from me last night--but because it plays with our sacred cows, the bike and car. We hate to think we don't actually know it all, that everybody's playing with a different deck of cards.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

EvanPitts said:


> Singalling requires one to remove a hand from its proper position in a motorized vehicle, so what's your point?


You don't fall off a car when you hit a pothole one handed.



> A cyclist could also put signal lights on their bicycle, which would not require releasing the handlebars at all.


Signals on a bike seem like a good idea. They're just a small blinker under your saddle though, so my concern is that it would probably give the rider a false sense of security when motorists don't pay any attention to cyclists as it is.



> Of course, signalling is less of the problem than having cyclists that use the roadway when they see fit, then jump onto the sidewalk to mow down some pedestrians, perhaps to have a better run at the stop signs and signals they will blow though.


That must be a Toronto thing. I've never seen anyone do that here. 



> If the cyclist actually inhabited the lane, rather than schmaltzing along the gutter, this wouldn't be a problem. Same with the cyclists that insist on scraping their bikes along the sides of cars that are lined up at a red light. Car drivers will not "respect" cyclists if cyclists pretend not to be actual vehicles, and engage in those acts that are not respectable.


Unfortunately, here in Manitoba, bikes are specifically NOT vehicles according to the highway traffic act, and are required to stay as far to the right as possible.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

hhk said:


> Max. The sidewalk is there only as a last resort safety measure.


Why not walk your bike instead of riding it on the sidewalk?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

bsenka said:


> You don't fall off a car when you hit a pothole one handed.


You haven't been to Hamilton - where the potholes have been known to break transport trucks in half.



> Signals on a bike seem like a good idea. They're just a small blinker under your saddle though, so my concern is that it would probably give the rider a false sense of security when motorists don't pay any attention to cyclists as it is.


Perhaps bigger lights - especially with super bright LED technology that doesn't sap batteries so quickly. It's like on my car, because the one thing the Japanese fail with on cars is the cheap sounding horns. Driving around here, one needs something much better, like an air horn off of a locomotive.

It all comes down to the fact that cyclists need to be vehicles on the road. For instance, this morning there was a woman riding on Main Street, in rush hour, but wasn't even in a lane at Queen Street, rather, she plunked herself in the stripped zone - which is so ambiguous. Either be a vehicle and get into a lane (rather than blocking two lanes by being right on the line); or don't bother cycling. To give her credit, she did signal, but I think she was also stupid because: she was wearing pyjamas, which I am sure offer great protection if she fell off her bike; and also because if she rode three streets to the south, she'd be on a bike route without the wall of traffic that Main Street has.



> Unfortunately, here in Manitoba, bikes are specifically NOT vehicles according to the highway traffic act, and are required to stay as far to the right as possible.


In Ontario, they come under the Highway Traffic Act, and are vehicles. Anything that has an engine smaller than 50cc, and bicycles, simply do not have to have licenses. I think the main problem that cyclists bring upon themselves is that they do not assert their lane, and tend to ride in the gutter. They also engage in those things that annoy drivers, like riding through signals, not bothering to signal intent, riding on the sidewalk one minute then plunking themselves into traffic the next.

People here will make all kinds of crazy arguments to the contrary - it comes down to "When in Rome, do as the Romans". So if a cyclist is on the road, they are expected to behave like the other vehicles, meaning that they stick to their lane, signal lane changes and turns, stop at stop signs, etc.

I also think it comes down to a lack of common sense, since many cyclists will choose to take foolish routes, when clear and safe alternatives exist. In Hamilton, we have a number of excellent routes that cyclists don't bother with, like the bike lanes through the neighbourhoods, or the full sized lane that is walled apart from the road on the McKittrick Bridge, or the Rail Trail system, or the path along the harbour front.

One can entirely ride from my girlfriend's place in Dundas, through the various paths and lanes, and end up downtown without hitting many of the main streets. And it is getting better every year, as more and more lanes are being added. Same with going up and down the Mountain, where some of the Steps also have bicycle gutters, rather than blocking traffic on the dangerous Accesses at rush hour. The Mountain is a different story, since the city there was not laid out with biking or walking in mind, so they are forced onto very busy and dangerous arterial roads - and hence, is more like the situation in the north of Toronto or in Mississauga or other poorly planned and laid out communities.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

jfpoole said:


> Why not walk your bike instead of riding it on the sidewalk?


Why bring your bike if you're just going to walk?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

If bicycles are indeed vehicles, why do cyclists use crosswalk buttons to stop traffic so they can cross a street? A vehicle waits for an opportunity to cross without running out and hitting the crosswalk button. Bikes should too.

And come to think of it, mandatory collision and liability insureace along with proper licensing would be a great idea too. No reason those cyclists who want to be treated like vehicles should not be, is there?


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

SINC said:


> If bicycles are indeed vehicles, why do cyclists use crosswalk buttons to stop traffic so they can cross a street? A vehicle waits for an opportunity to cross without running out and hitting the crosswalk button. Bikes should too.
> 
> And come to think of it, mandatory collision and liability insureace along with proper licensing would be a great idea too. No reason those cyclists who want to be treated like vehicles should not be, is there?


Because bicycles are NOT vehicles. If a bike is a vehicle, so are skis, skates, toboggans, skateboards, etc. A person on a bike is just a faster moving pedestrian. They put bikes and pedestrians together on multi-use paths for a reason: they are far more similar to each other than bikes are to cars.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

SINC said:


> If bicycles are indeed vehicles, why do cyclists use crosswalk buttons to stop traffic so they can cross a street? A vehicle waits for an opportunity to cross without running out and hitting the crosswalk button. Bikes should too.
> 
> And come to think of it, mandatory collision and liability insureace along with proper licensing would be a great idea too. No reason those cyclists who want to be treated like vehicles should not be, is there?


Cyclists are sometimes just plain stupid. Yesterday I got to witness a dumbass run his bike through a red light, and he ended up crashing into another bike that was driving legitimately and going through on the green. Unfortunately the innocent dude was bashed up fairly bad because he was broadsided onto the pavement.

Not all cyclists are dumb and unrespectful of common sense, because yesterday I also saw a rider that actually inhabitied the lane, as per the law, and the bike even had proper reflectors, a mirror, a horn, and signal lights. A rare sight indeed, since he actually signalled turns and stuff. Of course, unlike the moron above, this rider was no where near the University, and thus, probably had a few clues to rub together.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bsenka said:


> Because bicycles are NOT vehicles. If a bike is a vehicle, so are skis, skates, toboggans, skateboards, etc. A person on a bike is just a faster moving pedestrian. They put bikes and pedestrians together on multi-use paths for a reason: they are far more similar to each other than bikes are to cars.


Then my question becomes, why are they allowed on streets? If they are not vehicles, they have no business being there. Pedestrians aren't allowed to walk in traffic lanes. Seems like there is a hole in that argument.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

SINC said:


> Then my question becomes, why are they allowed on streets? If they are not vehicles, they have no business being there. Pedestrians aren't allowed to walk in traffic lanes. Seems like there is a hole in that argument.


I agree, bikes belong on the sidewalk. 

Besides, many new streets don't even have sidewalks, walking on the street is the only option.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

hhk said:


> The thing is, it rarely, rarely happens - an accident, that is. I'm not talking bout a cyclist blowing through a red at Weston Rd. and Hwy 7., I'm talking about what all of us cyclists do - we approach a stop sign, we check for traffic and if it's safe, we proceed through. This doesn't cause a safety hazard to anyone. Strict application of laws designed to control 2000lb. rolling hunks of steel and glass will only serve to discourage a healthy activity that is good for society.


And yet, it is the law. Cyclists are to follow the rules of the road while on the road. I follow the rules of the road when on my cycle and can honestly say that it doesn't have an impact on my enjoyment of the activity or the amount of exercise I get (actually starting back up after a stop burns more calories than coasting in which case following the rules is a positive). To those who complain that following the rules is dangerous because of the neighborhood thugs I say talk to your city counselors, the police and whoever else will listen; in the meantime, find a new route. If you can't follow the rules of the road, stay off the road. If the rules need to be changed, then find a way to change them. Ignoring a rule you don't like isn't good for anyone.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macified said:


> If you can't follow the rules of the road, stay off the road. If the rules need to be changed, then find a way to change them. Ignoring a rule you don't like isn't good for anyone.


:clap::clap::clap:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

^

+1


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Macified said:


> If you can't follow the rules of the road, stay off the road. If the rules need to be changed, then find a way to change them.


If drivers were held to that same standard, 90% of them would be off the road, and cycling would be safe enough that following most of the rules wouldn't be a problem. 



> Ignoring a rule you don't like isn't good for anyone.


If following the rule is dangerous and/or unproductive, sure it is.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

bsenka said:


> If drivers were held to that same standard, 90% of them would be off the road, and cycling would be safe enough that following most of the rules wouldn't be a problem.


Then 90% of drivers should be taken off the road. I'm not falling on one side or the other on this one.




> If following the rule is dangerous and/or unproductive, sure it is.


 The rule isn't dangerous, road conditions, etc provide the danger. Get involved and do what you can to get things fixed. Sure it sounds trite but if everyone just breaks the rules to fit their own circumstance where are we. As I said, if the rules require change find a way to get them changed.


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

*What?*



bsenka said:


> Because bicycles are NOT vehicles. If a bike is a vehicle, so are skis, skates, toboggans, skateboards, etc. A person on a bike is just a faster moving pedestrian. They put bikes and pedestrians together on multi-use paths for a reason: they are far more similar to each other than bikes are to cars.


Rats! I was just planning to toboggan down Yonge St. when the snow hits!

On the serious side, I find a huge percentage of both cyclists and car drivers having disregard for the law and rules of the road. I've been driving 30 years and also have been doing serious cycling for years and it's just shocking to see how both sides having disregard for each other. Cyclist disobeying the lights/stop signs AND cars going through stop signs just as much. The AG and cyclist incident to me is just a situation gone beyond normal and is not a typical bike/car situation. It has happened with car/car, bike/bike etc.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macified said:


> Then 90% of drivers should be taken off the road.


:clap::clap::clap:


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> I think that to maintain drivers licenses it should be required by law for all drivers to be road tested and have to write the written exams every three years. The tests should also be made tougher and training much more thorough. All drivers license applicants should have to visit hospitals where people are paralyzed and otherwise injured by bad driving. Also, be forced to watch graphic images of vehicle carnage etc.
> 
> I also think that anyone that is physically able bodied should be required to cycle in traffic for at least two years before being allowed to drive, and have to log a minimal amount of mileage. They should also be required to show competency in cycling in traffic to a tester before being allowed to get a motorized learners license. Those that can't comply with this for medical reasons must be required to go through increased and more thorough driver training.


Although I do agree, I think it would be much more practical if "the system" concentrated on weeding out the bad drivers by actually applying the rules of the law. We do need better driver training, with more hours in the class and in the car, with tests that are tougher than the multiple guess exams needed for the beginners and the cheezy 15minutes of fluffing around the block.

However, lack of driver training is not responsible for the bulk of the collisions and deaths on the road. Rather, stuff like drunk driving, driving while stoned on drugs, driving while putting on makeup, getting dressed, feasting, fooling with the cell phone, using a laptop, or a combination of such furtive behaviours; coupled with a lack of common sense and the urge to practice for next year's Grand Prix at Monza - that's the root of most of the deaths, injuries and collisions on the road.

Now some stuff just happens, road conditions, mechanical failures - but these are generally rare. It's all about the furtive behaviour in conjuction with some driver's believing that they are somehow more important than other drivers, or even more important than buildings. 

We need to concentrate on those laws we have now, and to make sure transgressors actually pay fines or serve time that is proportional to the crimes they commit. We have a lot of collisions that care caused by people that already have their licenses suspended and are driving without insurance - it's time to throw the book at them with hard jail time of no less than 10 years, with no chance of ever getting a license again. Same with people stoned on drugs, or have had multiple DWI charges.

Once the laws start to be applied - then it is time to talk about appropriate driver training, which should include a minimum of three days of "skid school", since everyone in this country is subjected to ice in the winter and crazy rains in the summer.


----------



## Manatus (May 11, 2009)

I agree that driving is a privilege and not a right. I also agree that driver education is extremely important - however, making it much harder to get a licence may not help that much, as the problem is right now many drivers do all the study and practice for the test, but never carry it over to the road once they pass. Kind of like a student cramming for a final, and then forgetting it all after they graduate because it's just "book learning" and not seen as having real life value. It's taken as given that no one really drives like they expect you to on your driving test. Even a driver who is technically excellent will be lazy if allowed to be, it's just how people are.

There needs to be proper enforcement - not just when someone gets killed or injured, but whenever there is dangerous activity going on. People who knowingly and deliberately commit a dangerous offence (driving blind drunk, road racing, driving without a licence/suspended licence etc) should lose their privileges totally and indefinitely. Regardless of whether it will mean you lose your job, force you to move or whatever sob story. The problem is two-fold: firstly not enough people being caught due to lack of enforcement, and secondly people who do get caught tend to get let off much easier than they should. If you take the privilege of driving for granted, it should be rescinded for good.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Manatus said:


> IEven a driver who is technically excellent will be lazy if allowed to be, it's just how people are.


Sometimes, laziness is evident - but more often than not, someone out doing stunts on the road will have a cell phone pressed up against their face, perhaps while eating a Big Mac, and half the time, they are drunk or stoned to begin with. Sometimes I see someone on the road doing something outrageous and think that I have seen it all - then five minutes later, some Jerkulese breaks that little hope of mine. I think people have to allot more time for travelling, so they are not "late" all the time; or just accept the fact they will be late and get there in one piece.

Being stoned doesn't just mean high on cocaine or something - people regularly get stoned on regular kinds of drugs, like anti-histamines, you know, the stuff that has a warning about operating a vehicle because the drug will make you drowsy. Some people get stoned out on rage and anger as well, like their girlfriend dumped them so he is going to take it out on all of the other cars. No amount of training can fix that.

Another thing I see all the time here is tailgating. It seems to be all the rage to tailgate because, really, as a driver, it is important to be able to read the DOT number on the taillights of the car in front. When it comes down to it, I can understand the urge to speed, because you are going to get there faster; or even to run a stop sign, because it's about getting there faster - but I can not, for the life of me, understand tailgating at all, since one can not achieve higher velocities than the dude in front. There is no advantage of tailgating at all, except that it makes for a more spectacular collision, and the higher collision speed will probably mean the dude in the tailgating car will be killed more thoroughly.



> The problem is two-fold: firstly not enough people being caught due to lack of enforcement, and secondly people who do get caught tend to get let off much easier than they should. If you take the privilege of driving for granted, it should be rescinded for good.


Many cases just get thrown out of court. I think fines are generally not steep enough to be a deterrent, and really, a dude out in a Porsche is liable to have large cash, so fines are just the cost of commuting. Suspended licenses are a scam. No one that has any respect for anything gets into a car and attempts to entirely loose their license. People that get them suspended are simply outrageous, and deserve to loose their license for good. It's not like they happened to not see a stop sign hidden behind a tree, or they were doing 125 in a 100 - it's more like they are drag racing through downtown, burning rubber, or some other outrageous stunt.

The weakness isn't in our laws, it is in the system of justice that follows, with minimalist fines, no real punishments for the outrageous, and a system where it takes too long to get to an overinflated court system. But then, cops shouldn't have quotas to fulfill, because that comes with it's own hive of corruption.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

Charges against Bryant to be dropped | Toronto & GTA | News | Toronto Sun

Charges against Michael Bryant dropped - thestar.com

What a joke. No special treatment going on here...


----------



## imachungry (Sep 19, 2004)

jawknee said:


> Charges against Bryant to be dropped | Toronto & GTA | News | Toronto Sun
> 
> Charges against Michael Bryant dropped - thestar.com
> 
> What a joke. No special treatment going on here...


You're the joke. *It has now become clear what many of us had suspected--that the cyclist was seriously intoxicated and life threatening in his demenor if not his intent.* This will come as a hard lesson for all those who believe cyclists are always saints and drivers always devils. 

Case closed. RIP.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

imachungry said:


> You're the joke. *It has now become clear what many of us had suspected--that the cyclist was seriously intoxicated and life threatening in his demenor if not his intent.* This will come as a hard lesson for all those who believe cyclists are always saints and drivers always devils.
> 
> Case closed. RIP.


+1.

It is obvious the cyclist was a loose cannon and the man and his wife did what they could to try and escape. Justice prevailed.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

It's unfortunate that the cyclist lost his life, but given the circumstances there is no sound reason for the driver to be punished.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Given the full story--as now described by the prosecutor assigned to the case--I side with the driver as well, and agree with the bicyclist's father:



> Allan Sheppard, the dead man’s adoptive father, said after that if he had been presented with the same evidence he wouldn’t have insisted on a trial. “I’m content with the result as it came,” he said on the steps outside Old City Hall.


The initial reports stated something entirely different.

More than 20 years ago I drove over the arm of a roaring drunk lying face down in a mud puddle during a rainstorm at 3:00 a.m. By the time police arrived "witnesses" who were alerted by flashing police lights were pouring out of adjoining buildings telling police I deliberately knocked the man down as he was crossing the street. You have to experience something like that to understand what "eye witnesses" approached right after the incident might say.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

To all of you (especially those who called me 'a joke'), at the time I posted those links, there were absolutely NO DETAILS, in the articles. They have been updated as of that time. As such, I was referring to the cavalier manner to which the information was disseminated + the lack of details. I was more sickened by the fact that it seemed like there *was* special treatment being given and that we wouldn't actually find out why and/or what happened.

So thanks for the personal insult. I appreciate it.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

SINC said:


> +1.
> 
> It is obvious the cyclist was a loose cannon and the man and his wife did what they could to try and escape. Justice prevailed.


That's obviously the story the officials wanted you to believe. Looks like it worked.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

SINC said:


> +1.
> 
> It is obvious the cyclist was a loose cannon and the man and his wife did what they could to try and escape. Justice prevailed.


agreed

I was no fan of Bryant but justice has been done. I may not like his politics but as a fellow human being I can sympathize with his ordeal. This cyclist was a lunatic. If it is my life or that of a nut job, I'll do whatever it takes to defend myself.

A few years back when I lived downtown I witnessed a similar altercation on Dufferin St. The cyclist was jumping on the hood of a poor terrorized woman's car. In that case the woman drove forward and the cyclist fell off to the side of the car. She took off and the cyclist left the scene with his bike. I never forgot that moment. It was so surreal. 

Today I read about the life of Darcy Sheppard. No wonder charges were dropped. No jury would ever convict Bryant. Have a look at these pictures taken during another altercation just weeks before his death. This was hardly some poor innocent cyclist. I'm amazed other cyclists would attempt to side with him. He's the kind that gives good cyclists a black eye. 

Darcy Allan Sheppard taunted other drivers before Michael Bryant: photos | Posted Toronto | National Post


----------



## imnothng (Sep 12, 2009)

And nothing happens to me when I shoot the crackhead that breaks into my house??? I will be charged. With what, I'm not sure. But I am sure the Crown would find something to charge me with.

He killed a human being. Was this other human being crazy, yeah. That hasn't mattered in the eyes of the courts many times before, why should it now?

Karma's a bitch, and it's working here. I really hope this bastards life is over and he puts a gun in his mouth.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

imnothng said:


> And nothing happens to me when I shoot the crackhead that breaks into my house??? I will be charged. With what, I'm not sure. But I am sure the Crown would find something to charge me with.
> 
> He killed a human being. Was this other human being crazy, yeah. That hasn't mattered in the eyes of the courts many times before, why should it now?
> 
> Karma's a bitch, and it's working here. I really hope this bastards life is over and he puts a gun in his mouth.


What a sick and twisted post. You have my sympathy.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

imnothng said:


> Karma's a bitch, and it's working here. I really hope this bastards life is over and he puts a gun in his mouth.


How do you see karma at work here? It would be just as easy to say that karma knocked the bicyclist to the ground as it would to imagine that something will happen to Bryant.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

As much as I hate to side with any politician, the aggressive record of the cyclist leaves me no other choice.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

imnothng said:


> And nothing happens to me when I shoot the crackhead that breaks into my house??? I will be charged. With what, I'm not sure. But I am sure the Crown would find something to charge me with.
> 
> He killed a human being. Was this other human being crazy, yeah. That hasn't mattered in the eyes of the courts many times before, why should it now?
> 
> Karma's a bitch, and it's working here. *I really hope this bastards life is over and he puts a gun in his mouth.*


What a sick and twisted comment. He didn't kill a human being. A human being died because of his own insane actions. Who holds onto a car refusing to let go when they are trying to get away from you. *He* held onto the car, that an accident happened because of his actions is his fault, not Bryant's.

I was an avid cyclist and licensed road racer for over 10 years and it was all the hot head cyclists like Sheppard who gave the rest of us a bad name. His actions were indefensible. Full Stop. If he didn't do what he did he would be alive today, he was the instigator and the aggressor and you wish death on Bryant??!! Time for a reality check.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The photos released today of Sheppard pulling a similar stunt on another vehicle make the decision look even more reasonable.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

screature said:


> What a sick and twisted comment. He didn't kill a human being. A human being died because of his own insane actions. Who holds onto a car refusing to let go when they are trying to get away from you. *He* held onto the car, that an accident happened because of his actions is his fault, not Bryant's.
> 
> I was an avid cyclist and licensed road racer for over 10 years and it was all the hot head cyclists like Sheppard who gave the rest of us a bad name. His actions were indefensible. Full Stop. If he didn't do what he did he would be alive today, he was the instigator and the aggressor and you wish death on Bryant??!! Time for a reality check.


Actually he died as a result of his head smashing into a mailbox.

Granted he was "insane" as we are all now lead to believe, his "insane" actions lead to his head smashing into a mailbox causing his death.

Two things can be learned from this. (insert tongue into cheek.)

1. Dont' be a f**ktard while riding your bicycle.
2. While *in a state of panic*, the best way to get someone off your car while they're clinging on to your door, is not to swerve into the opposite lane of traffic and dislodge them via mailbox, but rather to slam on the brakes and watch them fly forward.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jawknee said:


> Actually he died as a result of his head smashing into a mailbox.
> 
> Granted he was "insane" as we are all now lead to believe, his "insane" actions lead to his head smashing into a mailbox causing his death.
> 
> ...


Apparently there are witnesses who say they saw the break lights come on the car and Bryant try and dislodge Sheppard and then after he couldn't and Sheppard kept swinging at him that is when Bryant sped away.

At any rate both your points should indeed be lessons learned.


----------



## irontree (Oct 28, 2006)

I wonder why are some people surprised at the results? The day the event happened it was reported that the cyclist was intoxicated and a madman... this isn't news.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

irontree said:


> I wonder why are some people surprised at the results? The day the event happened it was reported that the cyclist was intoxicated and a madman... this isn't news.


The news is that we are getting a police report, not interviews with bystanders.


----------



## imachungry (Sep 19, 2004)

screature said:


> What a sick and twisted comment. He didn't kill a human being. A human being died because of his own insane actions. Who holds onto a car refusing to let go when they are trying to get away from you. *He* held onto the car, that an accident happened because of his actions is his fault, not Bryant's.
> 
> I was an avid cyclist and licensed road racer for over 10 years and it was all the hot head cyclists like Sheppard who gave the rest of us a bad name. His actions were indefensible. Full Stop. If he didn't do what he did he would be alive today, he was the instigator and the aggressor and you wish death on Bryant??!! Time for a reality check.


Thank you. Some sanity and a much needed reality check. Any experienced cyclist will know that this guy had a death wish. It was only a matter of time. He neither represents cyclists nor the goals of cyclists. Maybe rage-aholics or alcoholics or super insane bike couriers who delight in seeing drivers suffer, but he certainly doesn't represent civilized cyclists or drivers for that matter. God the way people identify themselves in this world always baffles me. To say that it's "open season on cyclists" is so beyond laughable.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

So imnothing, you're suggesting that the proper thing for Bryant to do was to stop the car, confront Sheppard, and get the s**t kicked out of him? (or s**t kick Sheppard back).

Sheppard was a lunatic. The sooner we get people who suffer from road rage off the roads, both drivers and cyclists, the better.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

imachungry said:


> To say that it's "open season on cyclists" is so beyond laughable.


You're right. It's open season on pedestrians.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

dona83 said:


> ...Sheppard was a lunatic. The sooner we get people who suffer from road rage off the roads, both drivers and cyclists, the better.


As you say the gene pool benefits from his removal. Long live the Darwinian effect.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Hey I just saw photos... no wonder Sheppard was mad: Bryant was driving a BMW X6.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

dona83 said:


> Hey I just saw photos... no wonder Sheppard was mad: Bryant was driving a BMW X6.


^^^ GD Capitalist!!


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Now that it's over, quite a bit of Sheppard's life is coming to light. 

Apparently he spent his early childhood in as many as 30 foster homes and had serious mental health issues later on in life. Even his stepfather agreed with the special prosecutor's decision. Go figure.

This dude should have been in treatment and not on the streets of Toronto riding a courier bike.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

screature said:


> ^^^ GD Capitalist!!


Lol either that or had Bryant been driving a less ugly car, Sheppard wouldn't have gotten angry.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

dona83 said:


> Lol either that or had Bryant been driving a less ugly car, Sheppard wouldn't have gotten angry.


Too bad Bryant didn't have a tazer?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jawknee said:


> Too bad Bryant didn't have a tazer?


Nah, he isn't a cop, if Sheppard died from the taz he would have been brought up on man slaughter charges.


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

screature said:


> Nah, he isn't a cop, if Sheppard died from the taz he would have been brought up on man slaughter charges.


So the moral of the story is, if you're going to kill someone who scares you, and you feel threatened by, do it with a car and all charges will be dropped.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jawknee said:


> so the moral of the story is, if you're going to kill someone who scares you, and you feel threatened by, do it with a car and all charges will be dropped.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

jawknee said:


> So the moral of the story is, if you're going to kill someone who scares you, and you feel threatened by, do it with a car and all charges will be dropped.


More along the lines don't start a war from a bicycle when the other guy has a tank. If you are that stupid don't hang onto the tank.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> More along the lines don't start a war from a bicycle when the other guy has a tank. If you are that stupid don't hang onto the tank.


+1 :clap:


----------

