City
Darcy Allan Sheppard Memorial and Protest Ride in Photos
A memorial bike ride for Darcy Allan Sheppard, the cyclist who was killed in an altercation with Michael Bryant, took place earlier this evening near where the tragic events occurred on Monday. About a thousand participants and a throng of local news media congregated on Bloor just west of Bay before taking to the streets in a ride that was as much a protest over poor riding conditions as it was a tribute to the fallen cyclist.
Although tempers remained mostly in check, as I photographed the ride I did take note of a number of heated exchanges between people passing by and cyclists waiting to depart. In fact, just prior to my arrival, the driver of a Sun TV van was the recipient of a verbal tirade from a cyclist who felt the he wasn't given a wide enough berth. I didn't see the events that led the cyclist to anger, but it doesn't matter. It served to demonstrate just how tight and dangerous riding in that area can be and how tense relations are between cyclists and motorists.
While the the news that Sheppard had been drinking prior to encountering Bryant has made an already controversial event even more so, the cyclists I spoke to held to the notion that with better and safer riding conditions the tragedy could have been prevented.
As part of this, a number of riders set up a temporary/makeshift bikelane beside the memorial. Even though the road was packed, it was pretty clear that this section of Bloor could accommodate the addition of a dedicated lane from a spatial standpoint.
The participants in the ride came from various cycling backgrounds, including commuters, couriers, and even some roadies. And while spirits were at times high, sobering reminders of Sheppard's death kept the lighthearted banter to a minimum.
Although the ride did cause a significant disruption for pedestrians and drivers on their evening commute, people seemed more fascinated by the events than angered. And, as far as protests go, it didn't last too long (in any one place).
The latest news from the police investigation is that Sheppard may have grabbed the wheel of Bryant's car or Bryant himself. Should this be the case, it'll certainly cast an entirely different light on who was primarily responsible for the tragedy. But, I think it's critical to remember that the origin of the altercation was a minor collision between Sheppard and Bryant which then escalated. These types of arguments happen all too often, even if they don't get out of control. But, an event such as this one forces home the fact that there's a widening chasm between cyclists and drivers. And as great as an increase in bike lanes would be, it seems that a massive attitude shift has to take place to bridge the gap between these two groups so as to ensure that future tragedies of this nature are prevented.
Discussion
248 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
Maybe its time for both sides (cyclists and drivers alike) to stop trying to turn this into a battle (as illustrated by the photo above showing the sign "driving kills") and turn it into an opportunity to COOPERATE and develop a solution that makes Toronto's streets safe for all methods of transportation...INCLUDING PEDESTRIANS.
The best part is: if he had been wearing a helmet, he'd still be alive, but as a manly-man bike courier, helmets are forbidden.
Let us all mourn this man's tragic fate at the hands of an uncaring motorist, and let us all push aside any thought that he might have contributed to his own demise in any fashion.
How is it, exactly that reckless cycling "causes just as much danger to everyone around".
When's the last time you heard of a car driver being crushed to death under the weight of a recklessly-driven bicycle.
The lethal potential of a 2-tonne, combustion-propelled steel vehicle is obvious and inherent - all it takes is a slight slip of the hand.
In contrast the lethal potential of a 20lb bicycle is far more limited. I can only think of one incident where this has ever happened.
I have nothing against car-drivers. However, driving should be done with an awareness of its potentially fatal consequences.
What we should be mourning is the loss of a hardworking public servant, whose political life may be ruined, b/c of a drunk, out of control bike courier. Thanks, Mr. Sheppard, for your contribution to this province!
I don't stand for drivers totally against cycling, as it is within all of our rights to ride a bike, but the cyclist need to respect the drivers, as it is our right to drive a car for our transportation and our personal situations. Can that be agreed upon?
Cyclists have been trying to achieve this for years, but time and time again, our SAFETY is sacrificed in favour of drivers' CONVENIENCE. THAT (and not a sense of self-importance or superiority) is what has made many cyclists angry.
If the design of our roads and laws placed equal priority on the safety of cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists, they would look very very different.
As a cyclist I have had my life, and seen the lives of others, put in danger by cyclists and drivers alike.
Yes a car may be more directly involved in any harm simply by virtue of it being the tool of harm, but a cyclist that does not obey the rules of the road, thereby disrupts traffic and pedestrians is just as culpable for any harm that may occur.
The world is not black and white, there are shades of gray that can alter any viewpoint if one simply opens their minds to consider it for a moment, rather than trying to rationalize.
Toronto wants more people living downtown, but not to face the reality that some people have a lifestyle, voluntarily or involuntarily that requires them to drive and the roads need to accomodate everyone, and maybe you haven't noticed, but there aren't any new roads for drivers to drive on, but there are a lot of new bike lanes in the city and I'm trying to see where any anger against cars can come from.
Please explain to me how reckless cycling "causes just as much danger to everyone around".
The lethal potential of a 2-tonne, combustion-propelled hunk of metal (to pedestrians, cyclists, and other motorists alike) is obvious and inherent.
In contrast when is the last tune you heard of a motorist being crushed to death under the weight of a 20lb bicycle? Do you really think someone hit by a car stands the same chance of survival as someone hit by a bicycle?
Our fixation on technical compliance with the rules ("he broke the rules first") bespeaks a wanton disregard for the ACTUAL safety of our fellow commuters.
"Alayton" Please explain to me how reckless cycling "causes just as much danger to everyone around". The lethal potential of a 2-tonne, combustion-propelled hunk of metal (to pedestrians, cyclists, and other motorists alike) is obvious and inherent. In contrast when is the last tune you heard of a motorist being crushed to death under the weight of a 20lb bicycle? Do you really think someone hit by a car stands the same chance of survival as someone hit by a bicycle? Our fixation on technical compliance with the rules ("he broke the rules first") bespeaks a wanton disregard for the ACTUAL safety of our fellow commuters.
The guy is a murderer and the cyclist killed is being smeared by liberal owned media to cover for their golden boy.
This is why Canada is ashamed of Toronto. You 'Citizen' and the like are why Canada is ashamed of Toronto.
Incidentally the woman now being touted as his wife in the car was NOT his wife. NOT his wife. Only when it was shown her face wasn't visible on the video did the liberal media start claiming it was his wife and their anniversary etc.
Your lies are blatant guys. I hope Michael Bryant gets 30+ years in jail for murdering that poor guy.
My point boils down to this: if Mr. Sheppard and Mr. Bryant had BOTH been riding bicycles last night, then Mr. Sheppard would still be alive.
What is up with that?
That is the issue here.
No one was "murdered", no one is brainwashing, and get me a link to a story about the passenger being not his wife.
Insane, think before you type.
That's like asking why African Americans remained angry after the end of slavery. "More" is not the same as equal.
There are no "new" car-routes because there was already one in every available gap between buildings. All the bike lanes are "new" because there were none before.
Angry cyclists will cease to be angry when its just as safe, comfortable and effecient to bike in the city as it is to drive.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/girlfriend-of-dead-cyclist-questions-police-refusal-to-drive-him-home/article1273891/
If those angry cyclist are waiting until cycling is as safe, comfortable and efficient as driving, they are going to be waiting a long time. It's better exercise with a bike, can't you guys just live with that?
I still can't believe you are paralleling this with slavery, Man!, get Jesse on the phone.
Regarding the media campaign, however, it's not fair to dismiss it out of hand. Soon after the accident, Mr. Bryant hired "Navigator Ltd." - a high-end Toronto "communications" firm. I've got acquaintances there, and find it rather suspicious that many columnists who've gone after Mr. Sheppard's character aggressively seem to be those with Navigator connections. A core part of Navigator's standard communication strategy is to lean on friendly columnists, and recruit guest editorialists to "volunteer" their opinions in major newspapers.
As it is now the defendants story that no intent was their and that it was all an accident is being pre-judged as factual.
I thought we were having a rational discussion. How are we going to get anywhere when you attack straw-man positions you KNOW I was never arguing.
Clearly I'm analogizing, rather than equating, the situations of the two groups. The point I'm making is that people who are treated unfairly shouldn't have to be satisfied by the fact things are becoming slightly less unfair. They're entitled to demand equality.
Why on earth is it unreasonable for cyclists to demand that their comfort and convenience, or (at the very least)their safety get the same protection as everyone else's?
Isn't it reasonable to be angry when you're being put at disproportionate risk of being killed?
It's a very tragic loss, and it seems to highlight the extremes on either side of the cycling/driving equation.
My comments below are not in regard to the altercation between Mr.'s Bryant and Sheppard yesterday, but rather to cycling in the city in general.
I agree with Bay Street Lawyer: I think most cyclists just want safer cycling in the city, and it's not out of a sense of superiority or self-importance. It's simply that many die-hard drivers in this city seem to think that there should be NO place on the road for cyclists. Many drivers don't seem to know that ALL roads are legally shared with cyclists, even if there are no cycling lanes, and that it is EQUALLY the responsibility of the driver to be AWARE and looking for cyclists, as it is the cyclist's responsibility to RIDE safely and follow the rules of the road.
In response to David's comment: "the cyclist need to respect the drivers, as it is our right to drive a car for our transportation and our personal situations". My only response to that is that drivers also need to respect cyclists. Many of them don't.
With regards to the details that have come to light about Mr. Sheppard's intoxication and him possibly grabbing the wheel of the car, etc. I think we have to wait for the entire story to come out in court before passing harsh judgements on either side. But
I can't help but think that even if he did jump on the car and grab the wheel... He didn't hit the accelerator. Mr. Bryant could've stopped the car. I have a hard time believing that Mr. Sheppard was that big a threat that he had to speed away.
However, this goes to show that, as stressful and difficult as it is to be a cyclist on the streets of Toronto sometimes, you can't get into altercations with drivers. Bike rage doesn't pay. You have to just ride away.
If any good comes out of this, let's hope it is that drivers and cyclists learn to have more respect for EACH OTHER on the road.
First, there is an investigation regarding intent. Just so you know, there has been an massive ongoing investigation about this taking many many police hours.
Second, no, any other person wouldn't not be charged with manslaughter, that's just not true. You don't shoot for the stars when charging someone, you charge appropriately, it's not Law and Order.
Third, This isn't a case of just what the driver said, in fact, I don't think anyone has heard exactly what Mr. Bryant has to say about this case.
Should he be the poster boy for an increasingly overzealous and opportunistic legion of cycling advocates who want to politicize this tragedy? No.
Zealots like those at The Toronto Cyclists Union have turned a complete blind eye to the inconvenient circumstances of both driver and rider exhibiting road rage, by all credible accounts. Get some perspective and drop the empty-headed rhetoric.
I just don't get the bicycle lobby - sorry, I just don't. I choose to drive because it is safe, convenient and, well, this is the 21st Century. We could bring back horses, no?
I also get to pay thousands of dollars in insurance, taxes, fees and fines for the joy of sitting in our gawdawful traffic, thanks to the cause-du-jour convincing our spineless elected municipal officials that autos are the cause of all evil in the known universe. (Next to white guys, of course!)
Funny, however, but at the very large downtown condo project where I work EVERYBODY is worried about whether their unit comes with a parking space and don't give a tinker's damn about bicycling to and from their new abode.
Oh, and just to be very honest, a few are interested in which streetcars stop nearby. Probably in case their car is in for repairs.
BayStreetLawyer: thanks for the chuckles. Drawing in the 'white man is evil' argument actually made me laugh. And you seriously propose that the 3-5% who cycle to work (on a sunny day in August, I might add) are ENTITLED to equal road space as the 70% who drive?? Can I have the number of your dealer? You're smokin' good gunga!!!
There is an inherent risk involved with riding a bike in the city, I'm sorry, there just is, and you have to realize that. The same with anybody that rides a motorcycle, they are also at risk, they accept it.
Can we have a more classic rich vs. poor, the have vs. the havenot, the powerful over the not, case for Toronto.
Michael Bryant's an idiot. A man that proclaims to be on a high horse, leading a 'successful' life, and then at the test of true integrity he drives off. Way to show your character big guy --- please walk out of our city in shame.
No one would be talking about criminal negligence in the operation of a pool cue.
He didn't exactly drive off into the night, he pulled into the Hyatt front driveway and called 911.
Wow, angry at the guy because he had a job and car and a family, what a jerk, high horse indeed.
What is your point exactly??
If I got caught driving 40 over the limit, I'd get a speeding ticket, that is how the law works.
You do realize that has nothing to do with the bryant incident right?
That wasn't exactly checkmate.
Trials are not made for figuring out the charges.
From what you say, you and your condo-mates are exactly the kind of people who shouldn't be driving.
Your CONVENINCE is simply LESS IMPORTANT than other people's SAFETY! Choosing to drive poses a greater threat to the lives of others than choosing to cycle or take public transit. Therefore, the ethics of driving for the sake of "convenience" are questionable. How would you feel if you mistakenly ran over a child? Would the convenience make you feel any better?
In fairness, some city-dwellers choose to drive because they're afraid to bike or walk to work. However this is precisely the problem I'm proposing to solve. If cycling were safer and more convenient, then its safe to say cycling numbers would increase.
As for your allegations that I hate "white man" ... that's news to me, as I'm married to one (ok, a woman actually). I haven't said ANYTHING that could reasonably lead to the conclusion I've got it in for Euro-canadians.
I'm sure the reason most bicycle couriers don't own cars are ethical reasons only. Yeah.
We should all ride clouds, and eat rainbows instead, and cure diseases with music and love.
Cycling is dangerous to pedestrians (as there has been 1 death and 1 critical injury in the past two weeks of pedestrians, perpetrated by cyclists!) and pedestrians are dangerous to caterpillars, and so on. Where do YOU want to draw the line?
I prefer to draw the line at the democratic process, and 70% is a very strong mandate; in fact, the numbers reach far higher than 70% who drive every day once you leave the central core of this city.
Feel free to scream about the rights of cyclists, but the last time I looked we have winter here about 7 months of the year. Don't see many cyclists on Sherbourne or Wellesley in January. (Actually, the ugly truth is there aren't many there in August or September, either. SHHHH!!)
The risk to cyclists is not inherent. At least most of it isn't.
The danger could be mitigated almost entirely if we redesigned our laws and highways.
Bike lanes should be ubiquitous, and protected from heavy vehicles by concrete curbs or barriers. Penalties tailored to the ACTUAL danger which reckless road behavior poses to OTHER individuals... the bigger the risk, the harsher the sentence. Police should take it seriously when cyclists report having been "bumped" by vehicles, and drivers who bump cyclists should have their licenses suspended, at minimum.
The efficacy of these measures may be demonstrated by comparing the rate of cycling fatalities in Toronto with that in Amsterdam or Copenhagen (where virtually nobody wheres a helmet).
These measures may be INCONVENIENT for drivers, but as I've said, safety must trump convenience. In any case, a large percentage of drivers have the option of switching to bicycles or public transit. There departure would leave the car lanes safer and less gridlocked.
(I understand that Darcy's case is contentious, based on the allegation that he may have assaulted or aggravated the driver)
But to respond to David and other's comments regarding cars:
Give me a break! I don't agree! Technically yes, legally it is within your right(privilege) to drive an automobile for personal situations, but that doesn't mean that it should be anymore. Driving was OK when we were ignorant - Now, the science on climate change is settled - we know the risks within a clear quantifiable range, even without the ability to predict the future precisely. Based on the principles this country is based on, we all have a responsibility to uphold justice, and as citizens we are violating that most basic element of the social contract that has been established between members of our societies, and between our societies on a global scale, when we drive an automobile unnecessarily and contribute to the risk of passing the tipping point threshold for catastrophic climate change (vs. manageable). I don't believe that automobiles need to be abolished - we can have taxis on call with cellphones and vehicles to assist the elderly and transport trucks to deliver our food and cars for rent for trips etc. But the idea that someone has the right to own and drive a car when not essential is absolutely outrageous! You might think that banning cars is fascism, but I think that selfish car drivers are the ones contributing to oppression and injustice, not people who might change the law to better reflect a philosophy of 'contraction & convergence' where we might reduce our North American size ecological footprint, to make space for others to live peacefully on this planet without suffering unnecessarily. That is justice. Forget the car - our society needs to grow up and take responsibility for it's impact on the planet, and be willing to work just a little bit harder, so we can all live with clean air, fresh water, health, and happiness. I might respect the law, but I don't respect drivers; never will. I'm not alone - this is our world to take back, generation WE. Keep it under 350 degrees! (parts per million CO2 equivalent in the atmosphere)
So yes, there is a widening gap between the cyclists, and the cars, and between generations - I just wanted to represent this viewpoint, for others to acknowledge that it exists, while respecting the fact that many may still disagree unfortunately.
Argue too hard on every point on a blog you start to sound like a guy working overtime for a PR firm. ;|
With respect to safety:
First, I'd like to think you value human cyclists' lives more highly than those of invertbrates.
Second, any calculation the risks posed to pedestrians by choosing to cycle must take into account the risk that would have been posed by the alternative modes of transportation. If the alternative were driving (which is often the case), then the resultant number pedestrian deaths would greater.
both attack the summer roads with reckless abandon.
Why does every generation think that they have discovered something new? Oh, it's the bad motorists that are selfishly destroying the environment. Never mind that China spews more C02 in a day than Canada does in a month!
But that's what social engineers do: they ram their version of revisionist history and junk science down society's throats until the poor 'ignorant' drivers see the light. Praise Allah!
Well, boys and girls, I think we've covered just about all the worlds ills tonight: the oppression of the Third World by the West, the Evils of Detroit. Hey, wait - we haven't dragged Israel into this yet!
All of the rest is a fanciful, tenuous incorporation of class issues, the environment and differing sensibilities. Which is a shame, really.
Well, in any event, all of this will blow over in another decade or so, just like those cultists who keep moving off the End of the World to the next decade.
Let me paraphrase what you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong):
"I am too lazy and self important to suffer the effort and indignity entailed in cycling or taking public transit. I insist upon driving my car every day, even though it increases the likelihood that I will hit and kill BayStreetLawyer on his way home from work. BayStreetLawyer's death would be his own fault, because he refuses to drive to work and put OTHER people's lives at risk. A bleeding-heart wuss like that deserves to die."
You've been reading too much Nietzsche.
It's not your fault
It's not your fault
It's not your fault
It's not your fault
It's not your fault
It's not your fault
It's not your fault
Don't do this to me man
It's not your fault
It's not your fault
It's not your fault
Let it out man, just let it out.
You are saying Bryant is a complete moron? I guess we can agree there.
Enough with the hyperbole. I never said anything about cars or suburbs being "evil".
Aren't I entitled to argue they're just not the safest or most efficient way of doing things?
As for the "700 sq ft townhouse" argument, we can't, and aren't entitled to get everything we want.
I could have a much more luxurious lifestyle if I bilked bilked clients of their last cent. However, I'm not entitled to do that. I'm not entitled to gain luxuries for myself at the expense of other people's neccessities.
In any case, families in other (developed, industrialized) parts of the world live full and happy lives without backyards and driveways.
The comment was censored faster than you can say "Navigator"...
All hail the glory of the blog comment thread.
Explain to me how your argument differs in substance from what I said.
1) You stated that you prefered to drive because it was more convenient.
2) You acknowledged (at least implicitly) that driving was more likely to kill people than cycling.
3) Yet you persisted in the argument that you are entitled to cycle.
4) The only support you gave for this persistance was that (a) people with cars and big houses have earned it and should not have that interfered with by rules that pro (b)cars are more convenient and modern than bicycles.
My paraphrase was an attempt to connect the dots between these points... because you failed to do so.
Both made mistakes
Sheppards previous run-ins with police are not important and should not affect anyone's opinion
Bryant most likely didn't make the best decision possible
Sheppard didn't make the best decision possible
Bryant shouldn't be treated as an "aristocrat" and and targeted as being "The Man"
That's where I stand.
Yess, it would be convenient but it isn't what the law says.
Changing laws and street designs is much more plausible than changing fundamental human nature.
Second:
A: Yes, for me to now have a car would be incredibly inconvenient for me, enough to decide that I need a car for transportation.
B. Yes, I think, as stats show, driving is one of the most dangerous modes of transportation. Based on # of deaths and # of drivers.
C.I am entitled to cycle, I'm not sure who isn't.
D. Cars are more convenient and modern than bicycles, I didn't think that was a leap. Also, I'm not sure who "earns" a car, but if you can afford a car, and your lifestyle requires one, I don't see why someone should be demonized for it.
Thirdly, you didn't try to paraphrase my words, you tried to twist them into something warped and biased, and ignorant.
You feel "entitled" to drive, even though it could kill someone else?
Don't you see how those positions are extreme and morally unsupportable?
"Comments have been disabled
Editor's Note: We have closed comments on this story for legal reasons. We appreciate your understanding."
Invest in Toronto... the city where, with the right friends, you can always run down any problem...
Let's look at the facts. Of Canadians under 30 who died between 2000-04, motor vehicle collisions killed 17.3%. One in five. ( http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-x/2008003/article/10648-eng.htm )
So, it's true. Driving does kill. Especially people with their whole lives out ahead of them! So buckle up and look both ways. :)
Please don't use stats to confuse discussions. It's never the outright lie that can deceive you, it's the truth that's just been bent a little.
While, as I said earlier, I don't have any hard view about the Bryant incident in particular, I do think you're mischaracterizing how the Criminal justice system works.
There's no point in waiting for the outcome of the criminal justice system to tell us whether Mr. Bryant is factually guilty, because that's not what criminal trials are designed to do.
The Supreme Court of Canada has stated expressly and repeatedly that Criminal trials do NOT determine whether someone is factually guilty or innocent.
Criminal trials determine whether the Crown has, (using a body of evidence strictly limited for reasons unrelated to its reliability), proven that the defendant is guilty without any reasonable doubt.
I'm virtually quoting the court here when I say that the "not guilty" verdict encompasses individuals ranging from someone who probably didn't do it to someone who is almost certainly guilty (but just short of beyond a reasonable doubt). The Crown could prove to 95% that Bryant rammed Mr. Sheppard into the mailbox with the intention of killing him, and still not be entitled to a conviction.
Namely, the risk of death due to driving is borne in significant part by people who did not CHOOSE to take it on.
Skiers ski dangerous by choice. Pedestrians have no choice but to try and cross dangerous streets.
Above you made a comment saying how skiing had nothing to do with driving, because skiers choose to participate in the event as opposed to pedestrians. Surely you understand that the driving deaths were to a vast, vast majority all drivers that were killed in accidents. I sincerely hope your not a lawyer, I have no idea how you would have made it through law school.
Isn't it good and proper that drivers should be "stressed out".
I don't mean that vindicitively.
I mean that any decent person would be stressed out when the lives of innocent bystanders depend on how I drive.
This was a long time ago, but I remember reading a study which says the most stressful and unpleasant roads and intersections are the ones with the fewest traffic fatalities, because drivers were paying attention.
Separately, my mother (from out of town) is "stressed out" by driving downtown too. She solved the problem by taking the subway instead.
You obviously aren't a public policy maker.
There's nothing unreasonable about what I'm asking.
I'm asking you to explain how it can be morally justified to do something which increases the overall risk that other people will be killed - simply for your own convenience.
Rather than answering the question, or explaining which (if any) of the premises you've disagreed with, you've been disparaging my intellect and professionalism.
Are you denying that a driver is more likely than a cyclist to kill other people in the course of commuting / travel? If so, why?
Why don't you just answer the question squarely and get it over with?
On a finer point, I think there's something wrong with the interpretation of the math you used in responding to Antony.
You say that if driving deaths (which currently amount to 1/5) were eliminated, then another cause of death, which currently accounts for less than 1/5 of aggregate, would then amount to 1/5 of aggregate.
That may be true (not quite - but the right direction), but only because the aggregate number of deaths would decrease (reducing the denominator) while the number of deaths from that cause (the numerator) might remain static.
Since the whole point is to reduce the aggregate number of deaths, how is that an argument in your favour (i.e., against focussing on aggressively reducing deaths of cyclists)?
What I've been saying is my best estimate of the truth.
You just don't recognize it without the sugar-coating.
City council is as much to blame for that poor woman's death as the reckless cyclist.
couldn't have said it better myself!
I hope Bryant is cleared of all charges.
Is city council just as guilty for Sheppard's death as well because of poor car/bike lane integration?
Are you just as guility for not electing more competant government representatives?
Why is it so hard to just have some basic common courtesy and respect?
Its not about "bike lanes" or "drunken couriers" or "upper class politicans" -- it is about basic human respect.
Toronto lost it somewhere and its citizens are too busy arguing, it seems, to understand that they just need to get it back.
Moving downtown, however, I can now see their side of the debate. We can't bike on sidewalks – there are pedestrians in the way. We can barely bike on roads – there are cars and opening car doors that endanger our safety. What solution would you propose?
Yes, only a small proportion of the population travels by bike, but that does not mean we are not entitled to safe road conditions.
We are not asking for "equal road space" as you claim – that would be ridiculous. We are just asking for safer road conditions – ones that will prevent altercations like the one that this thread was supposed to be about.
You infer that bikes are neither fast, convenient, nor efficient, but those three things are exactly what bikes are! I live in the heart of downtown. My place of work is a 10-minute bike ride away. Walking takes 20. Driving, I'm sure, would make it 30 – I would have to walk to the underground parking garage, drive it out, sit in traffic, pull it into another underground parking garage, then walk the rest of the way.
The point is, different people favour different modes of transportation for their own reasons. I choose to cycle because it is fast, convenient, and efficient, for me. I can afford a car, but I choose not to own one. Instead, I spend thousands of dollars on vintage bicycles because they look good and also because I may be doing my part to help stave off the end of the world (whatever that is). In winter, I will be walking through snow or taking public transportation because I still prefer either of those alternatives over driving. But for the occasional trip to the north end of the city, I will be using my rental car membership because there is simply no other way.
Would it be so hard to try showing some empathy for people in my situation? I understand why you drive and I don't knock you for it. Understand why I bike and accept it.
When Bryant walks and his high-end legal team cracks the Dom Perignon, you can be sure they'll do so out of camera range...
- What ever the shortcomings of the deceased, he did not deserve to be killed or as you said die the way he did.(There is more than a semantic difference in here)
- Even if the deceased attacked Mr. Bryant and managed to control the steering wheel completely and paralyze Mr. Bryant, there was always the option of using the brakes or was the deceased controlling Mr. Bryant's feet too?
I say lets wait for the facts to be investigated by police, hopefully in a fair manner and lets not condemn someone for not being a priviliged overachiever.
A concerned Citizen
I don't know about you, but if I had some angry man hanging off the side of a car I was driving, I would do everything in my power to get the hell away from him. I understand that car vs man isn't exactly a fair fight, but you never know what people are capable of when they're angry. To expect Bryant to stop when he may have feared for his safety is unfair. Maybe he chose to drive off because he wanted to avoid a fist fight... maybe he female passenger was screaming for him to keep going... you were not involved and thus are not in a position to decide what Bryant "should" have done.
Fact.. hes a criminal wanted on an arrest warrant in Alberta.
He came to Ontario to escape being incarcerated like a coward who can't be man enough to take responsibilities.
The guy has anger issues and mix that with alcohol and you get a bad combination. this is a clear case of drinking and riding and road rage by sheppard.
Michael Bryant was in the wrong place at the wrong time and now his life is messed up. All because of the actions of a drunken criminal thug on a bike who resorted to physical violence to settle a minor dispute.
Michael Bryant is an INNOCENT MAN, who was trying to protect himself and his wife. Charges need to be dismissed asap and let him go back to being a valuable contributing member of this city.
And, although it is unfortunate that Mr. Darcy led what is speculated to be a life of struggle with addiction and strife, he did not deserve to die. Frustrating further is that if the roles were reversed, you could bet Darcy would not be walking around bail-free while Bryant's colleagues and family set up public protests and urban shrines. It's shameful.
However, in an attempt to reach some of the more reasoned debaters on this (very long) thread, I am submitting part of a report that I drew up for members of Council a couple months ago, partly in response to the (silly) idea of a Jarvis St bicycle lane.
Toronto has exactly 4 arterial routes out of the core that are a clear 6 lanes: Gardiner Expressway, Don Valley Parkway, Lakeshore Blvd and (barely) University Avenue. I reluctantly include University, because it bends and twists around Queen's Park, gets horribly bogged down at Davenport (as it is now called Avenue Rd.) and then mysteriously evaporates north of St. Clair. It also is a horrid mess at its southern end, wheezing around Front St., then becoming a hopeless joke at the Gardiner/Lakeshore intersection.
Jarvis St. does not qualify, because it is choked at St. Lawrence Market (lots of opportunities missed there over the years as new condos were thrown up!), chokes at every intersection where a left turn is allowed (Gerrard, Shuter) and also becomes a bloody mess from north of Earl St., thanks to the latest in a series of stupid traffic signals. Besides, at the best of times Jarvis is merely 5 lanes: all it takes is one stopped taxi or driver to snarl what is left.
Vancouver, which is arguably the tree-hugging capital of the Universe, has 6 major arteries out of the core that are 6 lanes, plus: Burrard St., Granville, Cambie, Main, Georgia/Dunsmuir Viaducts and Hastings. Vancouver has 2 Achilles heels, both as a result of the tree-huggers and their relentless agenda to strangle that city: 1) they prevented the Lion's Gate Bridge from being properly widened to 4 lanes (four!!!) when it was refurbished a decade ago, and 2) Vancouver has no highway to speak of. Hwy 1 is a useless, winding 4 lane road that wouldn't be adequate in a city the size of London, Ontario, let alone a city of 2 million. However, Vancouverites can still leave the core on 6 major roads of 6 lanes, which is two more than Toronto has! Additionally, most of the streets in downtown Vancouver are 1 way, which does much to make getting around the core easier.
Once you leave the central core of Vancouver (akin to the Yonge/Eglinton area of Toronto, the 6 lane arterial roads spring up like mushrooms: McGill St (as it comes off the Second Narrows Bridge) is 6 lanes, W. 4th St., Knight St., Broadway, Kingsway (their Eglinton Ave) Renfrew, Grandview Hwy (not really a highway), Boundary Rd and Lougheed Hwy - all 6 lanes. Although Nanaimo is mostly 4 lanes, it has parking on both sides so, effectively, it can efficiently handle a lot of traffic.
Depressed yet? With Toronto, Eglinton does not become 6 lanes until you pass Leslie (which ends at Eglinton anyway, thus dumping more traffic onto that street!), and then has to pick up all the traffic from the central core because there is no way to cross the Don River Valley, from the Bloor Viaduct until you get to Eglinton!!! Oh, and then they hit you with a ridiculous HOV lane during peak periods, anyway. St. Clair, as you know, basically ends at Mt. Pleasant. Where is all the cross-town traffic to go in Toronto? O'Connor (4 lanes), Kingston Rd. (4 lanes), Danforth (what a joke!), Cosburn or Mortimer (ah, yes, the blessed bicycle lanes make them 2 lanes now!) Gerrard (now with a bicycle lane, and you try to get through Little India on any given day!), Dundas in either direction??? (Tell me, how have the tree-huggers missed South Kingsway, arguably the best-kept traffic secret in the city? Shhh!)
How about north-bound options in Toronto? Avenue Rd does a contortionist's dance around Queen's Park and then Upper Canada College - then, to really confound motorists, splits into Oriole Parkway (which used to work as it was originally conceived until the ratepayers complained and had all those planter boxes dropped in the middle!) and does a S-twist a block east through yet another residential area. (And do not get me started with that ridiculous stop sign at the right turn to get back onto Avenue Rd., south of Oriole Parkway!! I have yet to see a pedestrian standing there when I've used it, which admittedly is not every day, but often enough!) Mt. Pleasant is a joke north of Eglinton and then ends at Lawrence. Would it kill the city to put in 2 left-hand turn lanes at Lawrence? Oh, that's right - it might actually improve traffic!
I don't need to tell anyone who lives in this city what a horrid mess the base of the Allen Expressway has become: you'd think the tree-hugging council of the '70s would have had the intelligence to widen Eglinton in the area to handle the traffic, but again, no - that would require giving motorists a break. It's one thing to kill a badly needed expressway; quite another to then contemptuously let 3 lanes of traffic try to squeeze onto 1 eastbound or westbound lane!
Where are the 6 lane arterial roads anywhere in this city? Lawrence Ave. E and Eglinton Ave. E are the only two that come to mind. Dundas St. W, as it approaches Mississauga and Queensway – but nothing in the centre of the city – east-west or north-south!
Calgary, which is half the size of Vancouver has too many 6 lane arterial roads in the core to count. I counted Hwy 1 with 6 lanes, Memorial Dr NE, Hwy 2 has 10 lanes, 6th Ave. 5 lanes and is 1 way, 5th Ave. Is the same and 4th St SW is one way and 6 lanes. That is Calgary!!
Didn't Mayor Miller come back from San Francisco, bragging that they had torn down a highway? (And isn't that the same highway that the earthquake half knocked down anyway?) Again, not to bother him with facts, but the Golden Gate Bridge is 6 lanes, and the Oakland Bay Bridge is 10. The Embarcadero, which hugs the north-east coast of the core, is 6 lanes, plus parking, plus a precious street-car right of way in the center. Drumm St., which is immediately west of that, is a clear 4 lanes, with parking on the side! This is key, because when you allow a mess to happen like Toronto's Bay St., which has no parking, inevitably you force taxis, delivery trucks and hapless condo owners who make a quick dash in to grab something use up one of the two lanes that are available.
Back to SF: Columbus Ave., 4 clear lanes with parking on both sides, Van Ness Ave 6 lanes, Geary Blvd is like our University: 6 lanes with separate turn lanes for parts, and 4 in others, but for the most part it is 6. Divisadaro St. is a clear 4 lanes with parking. Lombard St is 6 lanes. Getting back into the deepest downtown core, Kearny St. is 5 lanes and is one way: it passes right by 555 California St., (formerly the Bank of America Center, the 2nd tallest building in the city).
What's that? Bay St is 2 lanes (thanks to the bus only lane) and King St. is also 2, choked with streetcars, right next to our tallest towers? (Let's not even get into the fact that Chicago's Aeon Tower has 10 lanes of roadway underneath it - can you imagine if Bay and University had done that?)
Oh, never mind, Mayor Miller says SF tore down an expressway - somewhere.
I could continue, like over in Oakland, but I think you get the picture.
Let's fly to Paris, France, now, shall we? Miller loves to compare us to Paris and London, England when it suits him.
The 'Stade de France' is not far from downtown (roughly equivalent to our own Roger's Center, only bigger!) - what's that I see? Omigosh, that's L'Autoroute du N beside it at 11 lanes and the Peripherique de l'lle-de-France that crosses E-W below it at 8 lanes!
Counting 6 and 8 lane bridges that cross the Seine are too numerous to bother.
Unlike Miller, I don't have the audacity to compare Toronto to London or Paris: they are 10 million people and 2,000 years old. How dare we compare Toronto's challenges to theirs? Ninety percent of this city was built after it was abundantly clear the motorcar was going to amount to something. Vancouver's councils in the '30s and '40s had the foresight to account for that; Toronto's myopic councils did not.
By the 1950s, Toronto's Council finally woke up and realized the mess they had allowed to happen, so they formed the expressway maps of the future. Why they never envisioned a city of more than 1 million is beyond me, but the DVP and Gardiner, such as they are, were built at a lousy 6 lanes, which I guess in 1955 must have seemed like a lot.
Still, had the 400 Extension, the Allen and the Scarborough Expressways been built, I dare say Toronto would not be the joke that it is. Just our luck that Jane Jacobs would move here and impose her view of 'every neighbourhood is precious' upon the hapless public. Yes, I agree, neighbourhoods are great, and if you are talking Owen Sound or Gravenhurst, you'd probably have something; however, a city of 5 million has to function for everyone, not just the usual suspects who want to turn the central core into their version of Algonquin Park, with beavers chewing up the trees (Cherry Beach), geese crapping on the lawn and denuding the grass (Sunnyside and Ashbridges Bay), coyotes roaming free on the spit and a bicycle in every driveway.
So now the Millerites want to destroy one more arterial street, Jarvis, by putting yet another stupid bicycle lane that nobody will use.
Can I say, for the record, that I live on the very corner of Sherbourne & Wellesley, two of the main bicycle lanes downtown, and they are rarely used. It is 12:40 on a beautiful Friday in July and I see nary a bicycle on either street, yet Wellesley is backed up 10 cars deep in both directions. Oh, I cannot wait until Verve, 500 Sherbourne, the James' Cooper Mansions, the new condo proposed for Howard/Sherbourne and the 38 story rental building applied for on Bleecker street, are all constructed!
Let's leave 'X' and the other 2- 35 story towers being built at Charles/Jarvis out of this, too, shall we? Would somebody just stand on the corner at any given time of the day and look for themselves? And this is in July, not the other 8 months of the year when our weather is unspeakably awful!
For those who 'choose' to cycle every day, bully for you. However, until Council wakes up and realizes that this city has a wholly inadequate road network, built for a city of less than a million people, congestion and tragedies are only going to get worse - a lot worse.
And in 20 years, when the automobile is still here, Toronto will be forced to follow many other cities (such as Sao Paulo) and raze entire streets or build expensive tunnels to accomodate the extra traffic.
I don't think you stay around to "discuss" the situation with a person who may appear to be a drunk crazy person with you and a family member in an open car. Its the flight reflex. Being attacked in a car can be just as terrifying as being attacked on the street: ask somebody like me who it has happened to. That doesn't negate that drivers can be nuts and drunk too but we are talking about Bryants actions only, he doesnt represent every driver on the road, only himself.
Murder? Intent to kill? I dont think either person wanted to kill each other and calling it that just fans the flames of hyperbole and rhetoric for no reason. The best thing that protesters could do would be to make a strong statment about bike safety and drinking and driving.
Re: Bike Lanes
As a cyclist, i understand the need for bike lanes. I just dont support the idea of creating ultra elaborate cycling infrastructure that will only be used 8 months of the year.
Ban all cars from downtown, what a joke. There is a distinct correlation between temperatures less than 10C and the number of cyclists on the road. Cycling is a seasonal mode of transportation, you can only bend over backwards so far. Id rather invest in public transportation and pedestrian friendly developments which people use all year round.
...of course. Because we certainly wouldn't want anything good to come of this poor man's death, eh? The poor are just roadkill in your little world. There's just too damned many of them, and I'm sure it's inconvenient for you.
But the truth of the matter is, this city is not bicycle friendly ATT ALL...the richer the neighborhood (and I point at you Yorkville), the more wreckless the car drivers. Why don't we have closed/well marked bike lanes so cars wont be parking in bike lanes nor driving in it? We need these bike lanes!!! Cyclists are seen like nuisance, when we just try to get from point A to point B. I love cycling, I love Toronto and I wish that my city would do something for the cyclists to be able to get anywhere in the city SAFELY. If the bike lanes were separated (like in Montreal for example), Briant & Shepard would have most likely not even cross path... How many years are we gonna have to ask for a real smart bike path system? IT DOES HAVE TO BE COMPLICATED.
Because if im to believe Back to the Future 2, and i do, we should all have flying cars right now.
Maybe that would have saved the drunks the life?
Jesus thats all we need.
I hope everyone sticks to the facts. Cycling is a dangerous hobby. Especailly after an 8hr bender.
Darcy may have started the conflict, but an altercation should never end in murder. Byrant responded in rage and could have endangered other with his reckless driving to fling the cyclist off his car. He should have called the police for assistance. It's an outrage that he is claiming he's innocent.
Yes David, all of us (among them, people like me who own two cars and drive quite often) who are vouching for cycling as a better way of travelling around a congested city like Toronto are completely jealous of your hard work and immense material acquisitions (of which, we know nothing about). That must be it. Pardon me while I roll my eyes here.
The problem is, quite simply, utter ignorance on the part of those Canadians who refuse to step outside of their bubble for two seconds to see that other (and yes, richer) countries have recognized that promoting cycling in downtown cores is the most rational choice of infrastructural development to pursue.
But perish the thought of taking our cars from us! We NEED to feel the utter enjoyment that comes with being stuck on Bloor St. at 5:43pm, radio blaring, A/C on full blast, moving at 3km/h with another 30 to go, and boasting a gas mileage of 14L/100km.
Thanks for proving that this North American car culture is truly toxic - not just for the environment but for cognitive reasoning capacities as well.
As for Allan Sheppard - regardless of his past crimes, regardless of his mental state at the time, or even his attempt to grab the wheel - two points on Bryant's need to be charged.
1) Bryant had control over the gas and brake pedals. Moving his foot over to the left and pressing the brake was all he needed to do to ensure that this situation didn't escalate to the point it did.
2) Bryant sped off and left this man to die on the sidewalk.
Enough said.
Its a cruel world out there. Kill or be killed. Its basic human nature dating back to the start of time.
Unforutnate it happened. But no sane person claims guilt.
And dont feed me any moral BS that its the "right thing to do".
Each and every one of us would claim innocent.
Use Fed Ex or UPS.
And gas or break? Which would you do? Try to get him to release your car by speeding up? Or break and throw him forward? The gamble that he may let go if things get dangerous (e.g. faster) is one MANY people would take in the heat of the moment.
There could be any number of reasons Bryant took off and CALLED THE POLICE HIMSELF from elsewhere. Would you stick around to check if the guy who just assaulted you was ok? Not with adrenaline pumping through your veins.
It sounds like I'm defending Bryant but the black-and-white view that he was a killer, or that Sheppard was a drunk who got what he deserved is ridiculous.
good riddance hes gone.
An individual who appeared to have committed an indictable offence attempted to drive away in his car. (failure to stop at the scene of an accident is an indictable offence)
Another individual on foot attempted to stop him by either grabbing onto the vehicle, or standing behind it (I can't remember which).
The driver persisted in trying to drive away, and ended crushing the individual on foot against a tree (or telephone pole).
The individual on foot died as a result.
The driver was charged, and is currently being prosecuted, for murder.
Be reasonable here. Obviously nobody can predict the future with absolute certainty, but this is just common sense.
How could someone riding a bicycle have dragged someone else along and smashed them into a mailbox with sufficient force to kill them.
Mr. Bryant would never even have been able to flee the scened of the original accident.
MikeW;
The driver ought not to have tried to "shake him loose" in the first place. The right thing to do when you hit a cyclist is to stop, ask politely and apologetically whether they require assistance, and then give the cyclist your name, address, and phone number so they can report you to the police. Leaving the scene of the original "minor accident" was an indictable offense, and pursuant to the criminal code "anyone" including the cyclist, and regardless of their "police past" was entitled to stop him.
Now ... how is this fair? Here's a simillar coicidence not too long ago where the driver of a vehicle killed someone without a vehicle, yet no charges have been laid.
Cyclist kills pedestrian, no charges laid
August 13, 2009 22:16
The family of a woman killed by a cyclist while walking on a sidewalk are demanding to know why charges have not been laid.
http://videos.torontosun.com/archive/source/toronto-sun/cyclist-kills-pedestrian-no-charges-laid/33741807001
You may not be able to afford as large a place with good public transit acccess, but that's a matter of luxury rather than neccessity.
Further, the evidence admissable at trial is limited by rules other than simple reliability.
The "cyclist" you refer to was actually a legal child, riding a bike with child-sized tires on the sidewalk, as he was entitled to do.
My argument re: safety does not hinge on who was at fault in this particular situation. Cyclists get hit by cars on a regular basis. (5 serious injuries in Toronto SINCE the Bryant incident). It's disgusting that the media ignores it unless a celebrity politician is involved. Cyclists are raising the broader issue in this context because its the first time anyone has ever paid attention. (in contrast to media fixation on what appears to be the first ever incident of a pedestrian being killed by a cyclist - akin to man bites dog).
I don't know why you're spending your time arguing that we shouldn't be taking measures to prevent it from happening in the future.
Anyway.... I'm sure we've all got things we need to do today.
The argument that our climate is harsher can only go so far. Average highs and lows don't differ by more than about 5 degrees C, and usually by 1-2.
You've also ridiculed the technology of the bicycle, but there's a fallacy there: just because the car is newer and more advanced, it is better? Nonsense; the bicycle is the most energy-efficient invention ever, for the purposes of kJ used (for actual transportation; life-cycle costs depend on source of fuel) to transport a human. Your car might get 30 mpg; on my bicycle I can get 1000 (for the equivalent energy). It used to be that energy efficiency didn't matter much; do you really believe that given the prices you now pay at the pump?
I HIGHLY doubt that was even an option. Have you ever tried to reason with a drunk person and on top of that, filled with rage and adrenaline?
Yes, cyclists get hit by cars on a regular basis. If you are a cyclists on the streets, you know how dangerous it is and should take defense measures - wear a helmet - have a bell. As long as there have been bicycles, there have been bicycle injuries - with or without other vehicles or people involved ... and if we look into history, people have died on bicycles, with and without other people and vehicles involved. I'm sure as this is being typed that someone out there is doing research to say whether or not accidents involving bicycles in increasing or decreasing.
What has changed? Do cyclists feel like they're getting less and less freedom, or are they demanding more and more rights?
As for counter arguments, sir, it isn't about taking or not taking measures to prevent it from happening again in the future, but providing a solid and reasonable balanced view of the events, and in this case, providing clear counters to your arguments. Your assumption on a motive that anyone that argues against your thoughts is against preventing this type of thing from happening again in the future is highly inaccurate. You need to look at an situation from all sides before making a decision on it - that is reasonable.
I dare say Canada is unique in all the world. Our topography is more like Russia's (and size!) but our economy, history, culture is far more like the U.S. (like it or not) than Europe.
Copenhagen, London, Paris - all great European cities to be sure, but their growth/development pre-dates modern times by a millenia or two. Perhaps Amsterdam had some oppurtunity to restructure/redesign foisted upon them by the WWII bombings, but then they were too weakened/depleted after the war to contemplate anything other than bicycles or trolleys.
It is disingenuous at best to compare Toronto to European cities, for whereas their middle class cannot own cottages or take up camping, due to prohibitively expensive land values and lack of greenspace, like we enjoy here in our vast expanse, they think nothing of jetting off to Greece or North Africa for a 'mini-break.' If we are going to drag the environment and 'selfishness' into this, let's put all the chips on the table.
My earler (long-winded) post merely points out that these so-called 'enlightened' cities have had to deal with their motoring public too and in ways that are unique to them. Of course, with their vastly greater populations (and densities) their options are better than ours.
The great tragedy about Toronto is that 80% of this city was built (I would not dare use the term 'designed') AFTER the automobile. It borders on criminal that streets like Dundas, Kingston Rd., O'Connor, Bathurst - to name a few, were not widened decades ago when older buildings were torn down and replaced. Even today, this city obstinately refuses to insist developers 'set back' their properties to allow for future expansion of roadways. We are going to pay an ugly price for this in another 20 years. Cities that reached 10 million persons 30-50 years ago were forced to make hard choices.
Ironically, it may be Mississauga that will be the city of the future in the GTA, for it has the roadspace to eventually build LRTs, bike lanes while continuing to support the automobile as that city becomes more densely developed in the next 20-50 years.
The anti-car lobby bases much of its arguments on visceral, unfounded arguments, which those of us (ahem) over 30 years old are sick and tired of hearing. Every generation spews forth another load of crap and we can only hope that cooler heads prevail; unfortunately, all too often City Hall cow tows to the vocal minority and the result has been some astoundingly bad decisions over the past decade or two.
It's kind of fucked up when you think of it, but that's the way it goes.
A fully public transit accessible city would be nice, but it doesn't exist here. When it does, sure, I'll trade in my car.
good riddance hes gone."
Yeah, right on! He was wanted for writing himself phony cheques. Know what? Why stop there? There are some shoplifters that we can mow down with our cars out there right now! Afterwards, we can stop by the court house and slaughter anyone with warrants for outstanding parking tickets as well.
Any other minor crimes you believe death is the appropriate vigilante sentence to impose?
You probably fapped like hell when Bryant brought in that "kill-the-dog" Act.
Dipshit!
Pathetic!
Equally as pathetic.
Financial realities being what they are, a fully public transit accessible city won't exist UNTIL people start to trade in their cars.
This is for two main reasons:
First, Toronto's transit system (more than any other in North America) is financed by what riders actually pay. Under the current, rider-pay system, we can't deliver buses and light rail to outlying areas unless there are enough riders to pay from them.
Second, until those of us with money and political clout come to depend on public transit, we'll continue to whine and complain about politicians (e.g., Mayor Miller) who raise taxes or incur debt to pay for it.
The ironic thing is - the conservative ideologues who complain most vociferously about gridlock (and their alleged association with bike lanes) are the same ones who make it political suicide to finance transit.
On a related point - if it is currently not practical to rely on public transit - isn't that a very strong argument for supporting cycling? OR... do only those with the money for say ... a Saab convertable... have the right to move around the city.
Further, unless "drunken mess on bike" was waving a knife or gun in his face, "Michael Bryant" had no reason to fear for his LIFE.
He should have stopped, gotten out and let the mess attack him unrelentlessly.
He did what each and every one of us would have done in the same situation. Protected himself at all costs. Except all those defending said mess are too ashamed to admit they think the same for fear of looking insensitive.
Sure its a shame that all costs had to be his life. Sorry to hear.
I had no problem with "Michael Bryant" as a politician. I was actially a fan of his policies and his competence.
I'm just disgusted at the 19th-century London approach people are taking on this issue.
Poor, Metis, message-boy with problems and past run-ins with law: MUST BE GUILTY OF TRYING TO STRANGLE A MOTORIST
Wealthy, Euro-Canadian, Osgoode-educated politician who made a tremendous contribution to Ontario: COULDN'T POSSIBLY HAVE DONE ANYTHING WRONG
What makes it worse is that Bryant's alive (and wealthy enough) to defend himself.
Sheppard's dead, and I daresay his freinds lack two-cents to rub together to defend his good name.
Someone attacks you, you fear for your life. Someone jumps on your car and reaches in, you fear for your life. THAT IS COMMON SENSE.
I find your lack of rational inexcusable as a lawyer, sir.
And before you go off on me about it being hypothetical and I don't know how I would react in the situation let me assure you I have been in situations worse than this one started out as and not killed anyone.
Yes, Sheppard is dead and that's wrong. But maybe if you left it alone and let the law do what it needs to do, then maybe he'll get the justice he deserves ... if the court finds he deserves it.
Your claim that Darcy was trying to "attack [Bryant] unrelentlessly" is unsubstantiated (as well as ungramatical).
Grabbing someone's car door is not attacking them relentlessly.
Grabbing someone's arm is not attacking them relentlessly.
You know what does amount to attacking someone relentlessly? CRUSHING HIM TO DEATH WITH A CAR.
In order for Bryant to have feared for his life, he would have to have been a completely irrational person. Given his outstanding record as AG, I find that highly unlikely.
On the other hand, it seems plausable that he may have lost his temper and reacted inappropriately. I might have done the same in the same situation. But, that doesn't make it ethical... or legal.
All of your complaints work the other way: how do you know he DID have a reason to fear for his life? This message board is not a criminal trial, and I am not a crown prosecutor or a judge, so why on earth are you behaving as though I have to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt (while your position is entitled to the benefit of any doubt).
We are both speaking as citizens, about a public event, for the purposes of ascertianing what would be an appropriate public policy response. For the purposes of public policy discussions, I'm not aware of any requirement for proof greater than a balance of probabilities. (actually-since we're talking theoretically, I merely need to state my premise, and proceed from there)
Separately, please quit the insulting attacks on my rationality. I don't see how that will convince me or anyone of anything. Separately, just because you call something irrational doesn't make it so.
If you see a flaw in my logic, please point it out specifically, and I'll happily change my mind.
I've got no personal stake in this, so I'm not interested in taking a position that's unfounded.
Should we be anything less than relentless in trying to catch someone as they leave the scene of a crime?
The Criminal Code entitles "anyone" to "arrest" an individual one beleives on reasonable grounds to have commited an indictable offence. An arrest is effectuated legally by grasping the person placed under arrest. You cannot injure, kill, or handcuff, etc., the suspect, but you're entitled to hold on.
Leaving the scene of an accident (without leaving name, address, etc.) IS an indictable offence.
We live in a land where we're innocent until proven guilty. The burden is to prove him otherwise.
You unheralded attack on the situation tries to reverse the situation, which by it's own nature calls for rebuttal, sir.
As for the attacks on your rationality, it's because it is irrational, which I've shown again and again. You have years of legal training which should have guided you to present an evidentiary argument ... which you haven't.
So I would invite you to stake your claim of being founded, and provide evidence that is both logical and of common sense.
@BayStreetLawyer
While I don't disagree with some of your points my original argument was against the notion (not made by you) that "car culture" is given preferential treatment and especially that's it's unnecessary and gluttonous.
He drove ... 100M away and into a parking lot to sit in a parking lot and wait for the police? Does that qualify as leaving a scene of an accident ? Never done it before, so I don't know.
"The Criminal Code entitles "anyone" to "arrest" an individual one beleives on reasonable grounds to have commited an indictable offence. An arrest is effectuated legally by grasping the person placed under arrest. You cannot injure, kill, or handcuff, etc., the suspect, but you're entitled to hold on." ... are you trying to justify why he didn't let go? Do you know he was trying to make an arrest? Again, the burden is to prove guilt.
And, yes, I have no stake in this either.
Then you state we are just citizens when someone calls you on it
In my view, it is completely reasonable to flee an environment when someone is attacking you with a bike lock.
We don't know who caused the initial incident but my money is on the agressive drunk guy. This pains me as I am not one to say nice things about liberials, but it makes the most sense objectively.
Once all is said and done it wouldn't surprise me to see that Michael Bryant is the victim and that Sheppard was the architect of his own death
2 Bryant was in danger of a punch in the head, but his life? No, that was never in danger.
3 Even if Sheppard did grab the wheel and cause the car to go into the south lane and then up on the sidewalk, as soon as it did so he would have tried with every ounce of strength to wrench it the other way. Bryant was clearly steering at this point - and accelerating - even though Sheppard's life was in real danger.
4 The stenchy arrival of Eddie Greenspan is imminent.
5 Is there somewhere where the actual charges are listed? Bryant knocking Sheppard off his bike at the intersection is definitely a chargeable offense. I don't know if that has been addressed yet.
7 Bryant's lawyer team will coach him well as to his claim of what actually started the whole thing. Hopefully the statement from the passenger in the car was taken separately.
5. talk about making stuff up, who hit who here? I didn't see video or read the details of that collision in any report.
6. The cops are the ones who sent him home. The fact they didn't detain him until he sobered up or escort him home is an entirely different can of worms.
Video of this is already out there in the interwebs.
I saw it on cp24.
That is what got Sheppard off his bike: he was knocked off it by Bryant who lunged his car forward.
shouldn't you be out protesting or something.
anyone defending that alcoholic thug with a criminal record thats as long as it is from toronto to calgary should be ashamed of yourselves. who knows what kind of weapon he was carrying, bryant was obviously fearing for his safety along with his wifes.
some of you think just talking to a drunken fool like that would calm things down.
get a clue idiots, and go jump into lake ontario.
Strange though, I know many people who would have acted differently than you aver, perhaps they aren't aware that you have decreed how they would behave. Then again, it is more likely that you are an imbecile.
You should probably have some idea of what the hell you are talking about before insisting you are right.
Hotdoggable, for your information, about half of the prospects are coming from the area (downtown - in fact, many actually walk onto the site), while perhaps 20% are parents buying condos for their student children, and about 30% are moving in from Orangeville, Don Mills, etc. However, unlike you they understand that a parking space is good for resale (contrary to what Millerites would have us believe) and although some are concerned about proximity to streetcar lines, almost none have asked about bicycle rooms, lanes, etc.
Being as this is a fairly large project with 600+ units, I would say that compared to the anecdotal opinions expressed in the previous 150+ postings, this is a fairly large statistical sampling.
I see a lot of the 'facts conforming to the theory' type conjecture going on here. This city is a nightmare for getting around; I've found L.A. easier to navigate! Nobody is happy about the state of affairs because our cowardly politicians (in Queens Park and City Hall) have done nothing for 25 years.
Oh, except build Taj Mahals in Regent Park: we do have $300 million for that.
Xavier:
First, I did not use, and I am not using, the name "BayStreetLawyer" as a way to give me credibility re: my knowledge of criminal law. Perhaps this is not widely known, "Bay Street Lawyers" generally practice "business law" such as M&A or corporate-commercial litigation. I understand the basic principles of criminal law, but only as they were explained to me in law school, and by my wife.
I adopted the name "BayStreetLawyer" to explain my relationship to the facts of the incident. I passed the site of Darcy Sheppard's death just 10 minutes earlier, after riding up Bay Street, and turning left onto Bloor. My feeling was that it could just as easily have been me who was killed.
Second, even if I were a criminal lawyer, that would not mean that I am professionally obligated to approach every aspect of my life as though it were a criminal trial. That would be absurd. For example: [[ME]: Where were you this evening? [WIFE]: Oh, I went to see Inglorious Basterds with Jeanette. [ME]: Oh yeah? Prove it! Show me the receipts? The movie was shown at Scotiabank Plaza and ended at 9pm so if that were true you should have been here by 9:30…..] This kind of behaviour would not make me a good lawyer… it would make me an abusive husband.
Third, individuals, including criminal lawyers, talking in public about the factual question of whether a person ACTUALLY killed someone are not bound to apply a criminal standard of proof in reaching their own conclusions. Criminal courts do not determine factual innocence or guilt, but rather whther the Crown is on its own able to prove guilt beyond ANY reasonable doubt, Both the placement of the onus on the Crown, and the high standard of proof are required because of the potentially high penalties (e.g., life imprisonment, travel prohibitions) imposed by Courts. I am not a Court, and I am not in a position to penalize Mr. Bryant. I’m not advocating that anyone do so. Therefore, even if I were trying to argue Bryant’s guilt (which I’m not) there would no “onus” rule, and all I need to do to satisfy myself that he probably did it … is to satisfy myself that he PROBABLY did it.
What I’m actually trying to do is (a) stop you from trashing the reputation of a man who just lost his life, and (b) stop you from using this incident to argue that cyclists as a group aren’t “worthy” of protection from being crushed by authomobiles.
Just Another Torontonian and Xavier, regarding the relevance of citizens’ right of arrest
. First – As former Attorney General, Michael Bryant must have known there was a perfectly legitimate, non-life-threatening reason for Sheppard to grab him (i.e., to arrest him). It would have been unreasonable for him assume Sheppard was trying to kill him. This makes it much less likely that Bryant genuinely feared for his life.
Second – Regardless of whether Bryant actually feared for his life, it shows there was nothing inherently untoward about grabbing Bryant’s car. He could just as easily have been doing a “good deed”. Since you are the ones who’ve been arguing about the need for proof of “guilt”: how can YOU possibly know what was in Sheppard’s head … how can you possibly know that he intended to kill or injure Bryant rather than merely make him stop (i.e. “arrest“ him)
Sometimes my littler cousins would try to punch or tackle me. In response, I would start to smack them around.
On every occasion, I'd get into a shitload of trouble. My mom would tell me it didn't matter who was technically "in the right". I knew full well they couldn't hurt me. I was the bigger kid and it was MY responsibility not to hurt the little ones.
Maybe Mayor Miller should appoint my mom as "Cycling Czar"!
September 3rd, 2009
Monday night’s disturbing, deadly, and highly unusual, incident was triggered by a car/bike collision, and has served, in particular because of the profile of both men involved, to shine the media spotlight on the seemingly ever-present tensions between drivers and cyclists.
At the heart of this tension, I believe, is the fact that our Provincial and Municipal governments have thus far failed to take bicycles seriously as a viable means of transportation, and in turn, to incorporate bikes/cyclists into our transportation network, or to sufficiently educate all road users about our responsibility to share these increasingly busy transportation corridors.
While there are indeed many hazards faced by cyclists along our self-propelled journeys throughout the city, all of which put us at risk of serious injury, and in the worst case, death – car doors carelessly thrown open into our path, pedestrians bolting out from between parked cars, streetcar tracks threatening to send us head over handlebars… (commuting by bike is not for the faint of heart) – there are also many thousands of cyclists throughout our city who enjoy their ride safely and without incident or conflict every day.
I've done close to 40 media interviews since early Tuesday morning and have spoken frequently of the need for much greater respect amongst all road users while we share our busy public roadways in these less than ideal, and often hostile, conditions for the most vulnerable - cyclists and pedestrians.
Due to a absence of sufficient political will, our city is shamefully lacking in cycling infrastructure, and well behind schedule when it comes to the implementation of the many kilometers of bike lanes, and off-street multi-user paths that were plotted, planned and approved (in theory) by council when the Toronto Bike Plan was passed in 2001. In practice however, getting bike lanes approved one or two kilometers at a time has proven to be painfully difficult and has proceeded at a snail’s pace, in part due to a cumbersome approvals process. Thankfully, this has begun to shift in the past year and a half, though there is still a long way to go.
Given the present state of our roads, where for the most part all forms of motorized and non-motorized vehicles are forced by design to fight for the same space, along with the attitude shared by many drivers that bikes don’t belong and are a nuisance to be ‘tolerated’, an individual cyclist can only do so much to be safe on the road. Lights at night, a helmet for those who opt to wear one (they are only mandatory for those under 18), verbal and non-verbal communication to signal your intentions… Cyclists are ultimately, however, due to their size, weight and substance, at the mercy of the larger vehicles around them - drivers must realize how much of a power balance they have, and act accordingly to respect the right to safe passage that cyclists deserve.
The inclusion of the needs of cyclists in our urban planning as we move forward, the implementation of cycling infrastructure, and better education for all road users are keys to dealing with this challenge. Changes in an environment produce real and tangible changes in the mindset and behaviours of the people in that environment.
--------------------------------
Some things we are working towards...
We have begun discussions with the city regarding our recommendation that the City's Can Bike cycle training courses be expanded, in partnership with the Toronto Cyclists Union, and possibly the Community Bicycle Network, to develop and offer an Urban Cycling 101 course that is relatively quick, inexpensive and easily accessible. This idea has been well received and will likely begin development over the winter.
The bike union is also undertaking a longer-term, provincial level campaign to update the Ontario Driver's Handbook so that it includes information about the fact that cyclists have the right to be on the road, their habits, how to share the road, and also addresses the various new road markings and signage that pertain to cycling. Given that many drivers are also cyclists, and vice versa - this serves everyone.
And more...
There is much work to be done on many fronts, and we would not be able to do it without the support of our growing number of members.
Thank you.
Yvonne Bambrick
Executive Director
Is there a driver's union that should be out there doing interviews? Or all we all lumped in a group that cyclists call "the Man"? Wow, I woke up just being a guy with a car, now I've realized that I'm part of the system, I'm the machine I spent my youth raging against. Thanks guys, my eyes are opened.
I for one am glad that the Cyclists Union have had some respect for the situation and are not being opportunistic. Good people. KILL THE DRIVERS!!!!!! I MEAN CAR!!!!!!!
How many people have witnessed cyclists running reds and stop signs, not shoulder checking, or ignoring vehicles in their path altogether. Cyclists may lose in a collison by nature of their vehicle but an incredible amount of responsibility lies with the driver of ANY vehicle.
Just today there were two cycles riding side by side on the side of spadina against traffic. Last month a cyclist on my right cut me off to make a left turn without checking behind her. And a month before that a PACK of un-helmet-ed cyclists charged through a red light at spadina and college. Drivers of motorized vehicles would never be allowed to get away with the kind of dangerous manuvers that some cyclists pull.
We don't have to "fight" for the same space if everyone uses it responsibly and follows the same laws, like in any civilization. But harmonizing road use has to come from both drivers AND cyclists. Cyclists will no longer be treated like a "nuisance to be ‘tolerated’" when there is no longer a reason to.
That would be like a self dubbed 'lawyer' commenting on a legal matter and be considered somewhat of an authority on the subject.
You want it both ways. Not all that surprising it happens a lot. People tend to complain when they get called on it. But by all means push your argument to the extreme. Make it absurd. Good job. Were you the star of your high school debate team?
Anyways, I hope you cut down on the drinking and deal with your anger issue. You don't have a drinking problem or anger issues? Why would you feel as though you could have been killed? If Sheppard had not attacked Bryant he would have gotten home safely.
But I'll take it all back, if you can come up with a plausible explaination of what the good deed could have possibly been. I'm intrigued. This should be a good one. Citizen's arrest? Come one. Even you don't believed that. You were giggling like a school girl when you wrote that. Admit it
(shamelessly copied from Metafilter)
All accounts I've read in the press, although contradictory on many points, seem to agree that a collision took place BEFORE Darcy grabbed the car.
Whose fault the initial collision was, and whether Darcy "attacked" Bryant or simply tried to stop him from leaving the scene of an accident, are matters of speculation until more facts are proven.
Regardless of Bryant's credibility and Darcy's blood alcohol level, it is plausible that Bryant made a mistake and hit a cyclist. Anybody could do it for any reason (cell phone, nagging wife, sun in eyes, brain fart...)
Saying "he wouldn't have died if he just let it go and went home"
could be like saying "if that Iranian woman hadn't protested a fraudulent election and stayed home instead, she wouldn't have got shot in the face," depending on facts you have no way of knowing.
Also, you said "Come one. Even you don't believed that."
Did you mean "Come on. Even you don't believe that?"
Maybe it's you who needs to lay off the booze.
2) I'm just saying he would have survived the evening if he had not chosen to escalate the situation. And talk about speculation, I wouldn't be surprised if Shepard crashed into Bryant. At this point I'll side with the sober operator of a vehicle with a good public image over the drunk cyclist with legal issues in his past.
And no it isn't the same as the Iranian Woman in any way, shape or form. But were you on BayStreetLawyers debate team in high school?
I'm just wondering, if there going to be anyone commenting on how perhaps the best way to not get into a confrontation with anyone, is not slamming a bag on the hood of someone's car or accosting them while they are behind the wheel of a running vehicle?
------------
Before the "slamming a bag on the hood", Bryant lurched his car forward and knocked Sheppard off his bike. THAT is why there was "slamming a bag on the hood". THAT is what escalate the situation from verbal taunts to a physical confrontation.
Maybe you'd like to comment on that, dumbass.
"A small percentage of cyclists disobey the rules of the road and consider themselves outside highway law, and that is too many."
--------
SMALL PERCENTAGE DISOBEY THE RULES OF THE ROAD?
Try vast majority.
Try Kensington, where cyclists ride the wrong way south down Augusta in the middle of the road as if they own it, acting all pissed when they have to move to one side to let a car through.
Try College and Borden or College and Augusta at morning or evening commute time - 99.999999% of eastbound or westbound cyclists do NOT stop when the light's red.
Try streetcars stopped anywhere to pick up passengers or let them off. 99.99% of cyclists creep through instead of stopping.
Try any stop sign. Vast majority of cyclists don't come to a complete stop.
Try crosswalks being used. Vast majority of cyclists simply ignore the requirement to stop. Some weave around the pedestrian. Some don't even slow down.
Try cyclists not dismounting as they "use" crosswalks.
Try cyclists riding on the sidewalk.
Try idiots who ride at night without lights.
These people will never ever ever change their behaviour. And they are NOT a small percentage. I'm afraid you're on glue.
Or at least the jack offs who ride them if banning bikes doesnt seem possible.
11 stop sign violators
3 red light runners
6 ipod wearers
6 adults with no helmet
4 people riding on the sidewalk
...out of a total of 58 cyclists I saw.
One that thinks Bryant is a murderer, and that there is higher safety needed for cyclists and One camp that thinks that the situations is a lot murkier than many are making it out to be.
I'm in the latter group.
It happens to me all the time at a cross walk by my house. Instead of stopping bikers weave around me. They need to abide by the rules just as cars do.
I may have been wrong to assert "a small percentage" but fact is a "vast majority" is just as inaccurate unless you can provided statistics. I was giving the benefit of the doubt, however my point still stands; any percent is too many.
On my 9:30 walk up to my doctor's office on Bloor today, I saw a woman cyclist driving on the wrong side of Wellesley to jump the light at Sherbourne, then she veered through pedestrians crossing so she could get on the southbound Sherbourne bike lane. I saw 3 people well into their 40s driving on the sidewalks. I had a young man riding right up to me on the sidewalk and when I openly snorted at him, he turned and shouted at me. A cyclist flew down Sherbourne, making the right onto Wellesley without even touching his brakes - against a full red; with momentum on his side, I can't say I blame him for not wanting to stop, but rules are rules and if we are to SHARE, then the rules are going to have to be equal.
But, therein likes the big lie: bicycles and cars are not equal. They are not equal in investment of money, they are not equal in investment of training/education, they are not equal in the safety afforded their users (a cyclist wiping out and hitting pavement is not fun, indeed) and they certainly are not equal in their capability of speed on the (shared) roadways. I see a lot of frustration on Jarvis St. as traffic that (occasionally) moves at 50-60 km/hr) has to navigate one hapless cyclist puffing up the incline at 5-10 km/hr - but he is 'entitled' to hold up traffic, isn't he?
Perhaps not the 'vast majority,' but certainly a large majority of cyclists are boneheads. Who can blame them? Most of us learned on BMX bikes or off-roading and those habits die hard.
There is a lot of anger and frustration on this thread, but I can't get past two points: 1) this is a northern climate and cyclists at best can hope for 100 or so good days a year to ride, yet they are 'entitled' to bicycle lanes everywhere, all the time 2) if said roadspace is to be ceded to them, then they must start paying their fair share, through licensing and insurance fees, but you will hear a defining silence from the bicycle lobby on that issue.
Oh, and on a closing note: there is a new townhouse development on Bleecker St. at Wellesley and I can't help but notice that the railings throughout the complex are already banged up and scratched by 'entitled' cyclists who tie up where ever they feel like. [rolls eyes]
It remains possible, until proven otherwise, that Bryant may have hit Sheppard with his car, intentionally or otherwise. If that is the case, then Sheppard had the same right to protest Bryant's leaving the scene of an accident he caused as the Iranian woman had to protest Ahmadinejad's alleged election fraud. Both would still be alive if they hadn't escalated the situation. You say the two situations bear no similarities, but the validity of this argument hinges on facts you don't know, rather than who you "side with" based on background information. In court, just like the high school debate team, you need to back up statements with solid logic, rather than "yes it is, no it isn't" rhetoric.
And about your last question:
Are you asking if I was on a high school debate team called "BayStreetLawyers", or if I was on a debate team with a person dubbed "BayStreetLawyer?"
Without the apostrophe, it's kind of hard to tell.
Please, ultimately it is not a question of what you are using to get around it comes down to the people who operate the means.
As for entitlement, what about idiots who park in bike lanes, or throw their 4 ways on in rush hour on a street like Yonge, or the people who drive 30 km below the speed limit because they are looking for an address or are old or whatever? Don't single out cyclists for this type of shit.
And don't claim there is more training for drivers on the rules of the road over cyclists since a good deal of cyclists have licenses to drive cars or learned at some point how to drive.
Also, drop the tired old Bill Carroll "northern climate" argument. I ride 8 months of the year, some people ride all year and the numbers are getting larger all the time (unless they get killed or scared off the road). I can argue that there are a number of streets which see so little traffic so infrequently that, using your logic, they should be torn out. It is not about entitlement, cyclists pay for the roads and if they don't operate a car then they are subsidizing the drivers since motorists are a highly susidized group. Many people don't drive or cycle and they pay for everyone else to use the road. Don't give me this feeling of entitlement BS. There have been many studies that show a non-driver pays more than a driver for the roads. I will gladly give you the links.
Oh yeah, I can tell you there are a number of green spaces where "entitled" drivers felt they could drive over it or park on it and ruin it. There are maby areas where "entitled" drivers feel they can idle their car for no good reason so anyone around must suck up their exhaust. There are many areas where "entitled" drivers park on the sidewalk preventing nayone from using it. The list goes on and on. (rolls eyes)
You do Socrates a disservice to use the gadfly moniker and spew such sophist nonsense.
The way it should work is this - yield smartly. Give cars the right of way, don't hold them up unnecessarily which means no dumb pedestrians crossing against traffic without looking, no cycling in the middle of the lane unless necessary, no unsignalled turns. Bikes stop acting like pedestrians when it suits you becuase you aren't, signal and shoulder check (car drivers need to do this more as well), don't ride on sidewalks unless they are really wide and you are going to move at a walking pace and yield to pedestrians. Pedestrians just need to smarten up but otherwise everyone should yield to them.
I look at it this way - if I am in a car and have to slow down for a bike or a person, so be it I can get where I am going quickly because I have a motor and am not pedalling so it is easier. If I am on a bike and I have to give a car some room to pass me, well, he is going faster let him go and he is out of my hair. If I see a pedestrian in the way I stop. If I am walking I do it safely and look all around me, I don't jump in front of moving vehicles and I don't impede traffic.
If we all used our heads we would be in such great shape. It is the "I am more important than anyone else" shit that leads to the problems. The people who are careless jerks will be careless jerks to anyone regardless of whther it is car-car, car-bike, car-pedestrian, bike-bike, bike-pedestrian or pedestrian-pedestrian.
Let's stop making it a vehicle issue and make it a human issue because there is a person on the other end not a car or a bike, a person.
Coming soon: a bicycle crackdown - The Sun
http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2009/09/04/10743396-sun.html
I also suggest you find another source for your news than a blue-collar rag that uses words as a filler between the sunshine girl and classifieds.
I am well aware of the clowns that drive their vehicles, too. Personally, I think that turning without signalling should be a capital offense (joking!) Half the problems on our roads are due to inattention and lack of consideration. I drive a friend to work quite often, along Richmond St. and Adelaide (he does not drive) and he is shocked by the people (generally with out of town dealer stickers on the back) who do the darndest things right in front of us. The difference is, they take a great risk in doing so that an officer won't see what they do and pull them over. I know of people who are paying $9000 a year in insurance because of violations against their license.
You and I do agree on one other issue: that is we are all people, not 'motorists' or 'cyclsts.' I don't blame either camp for the war that our roads have become; however, I do blame the social engineering attitudes that the cycling camp brings to Council and which they, out of laziness, are only too eager to follow. Our roads are disaster. Cars (and bicycles) are not going away. Simply taking scarce road space from one camp and handing it to another is not the solution either - that only inflames the embers that are already there.
What needs to be done is the city has to get off its collective asses and fix our infrastructure. That means burying the Gardiner and widening the DVP to get cars off the roads (which is why they were built in the first place - 50 years ago). The city also needs to start planning for the day when they will have to widen major arteries, by setting up easements with developers when new properties are put up. To not do so is criminally incompetent.
As I said much earlier, other cities hit 3 and 5 million decades ago and were lucky to have had the foresight to widen their streets. Toronto did not. A day of reckoning is coming. Sao Paulo is one city that comes to mind: a city that was poorly laid out, grew too quickly and then was forced to bulldoze streets (like Avenida Paulista which used to be like Jarvis was 100 years ago) to rectify the problem. Jane Jacobs or not, I can forsee the day when streets like Kingston Rd., for example, will have to be expropriated and bulldozed to alleviate what is only going to become a catastrophe over the next 20 years.
Bicycles are not the answer. If you want to cycle every day, and take your chances, that is certainly your perogative, but do not drag the city down to your level to meet your 'demands.' This country is going bankrupt with trying to appease every little interest group out there.
BTW, for the thrill of parking in a bicycle lane, the fine is double over blocking regular traffic - that is how whacked our city is. If I park on Sherbourne, north of Bloor to dash into the bank, I pay double, but if I block an entire lane on Bloor (which I would not do because common sense dictates that my 5 minutes in the bank will inconvenience 100 cars, versus 5 bicycles) the ticket is actually half. Good grief!
And you have conveniently ignored my points about what kind of bicycle volume we are speaking of. Again, I can see both Sherbourne and Wellesley from my balcony and the dirty secret is the bicycle lanes are empty. This is September.
The tail is wagging the dog in this city - and that has to stop.
Try again:
www.emagazine.com/view/?2418
www.stlbikefed.org/Advocacy/Cyclistspaytaxestoo/tabid/150/Default.aspx
www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf
>On my bike ride to work I saw the following:
>11 stop sign violators
>3 red light runners
>6 ipod wearers
>6 adults with no helmet
>4 people riding on the sidewalk
>...out of a total of 58 cyclists I saw.
Assuming none of these 30 activities (iPods and adults not wearing helmets are legal) were committed by the same cyclist, that's at best 51.72% of cyclists observed riding unsafely during your ride to work. You must be an excellent multitasker, keep track of all while focusing on riding your own bike safely and legally, but 51.72% is barely a majority, let alone a vast majority.
Do you think any less than 51% of drivers:
-come to a FULL stop at every stop sign?
-stop at every red light with their front bumper (not the front wheels) behind the white line?
-drive at or under the posted speed limit at all times?
-never enter an intersection unless there is already enough space on the other side to exit it, avoiding the chance of being stuck in the middle when the light changes?
-never enter an intersection if a pedestrian is crossing, even on the opposite side of an 8 lane road?
All of these are illegal, yet happen all the time. The fact is, most people don't want to put anybody's life in danger, but they will do what they can get away with to save some time.
The obvious argument could be made that cyclists are only endangering themselves when they do these things. Why, then, would these violations anger drivers so much?
Are they jealous that they can't get away with that in a car?
Are they worried about overtaxing the health system? If they are, they should be just as angry whenever they see a person smoking or eating a Double Big Mac Value Meal.
On a bike, it's easier to go through a red light or stop sign at a speed that allows ample time to stop if there's any real danger.
Not that this makes it OK; I'm not condoning it by any means.
I clearly differentiated between "unsafe" and "illegal" in my last post. Pfft said that the vast majority of cyclists disobeyed the rules of the road. I assumed "rules of the road" meant "laws". Correct me if I'm wrong.
My point was that cyclists want to avoid eating windshield or snuffing a baby just as much as drivers do, and statistics indicate they're doing a fairly good job of it.
From the StatsCan website, in the year 2005 (the latest data available):
# of pedestrian deaths caused by a motor vehicle: 197
# of pedestrian deaths caused by a bicycle: 0
One pedestrian was killed this year by a cyclist.
How many have been killed by cars? Probably more than one.
From the Metro yesterday:
13% of bicycle/car collisions were found to be the cyclists fault. 30% were found to be the motorist's fault.
Also, I'm not sure, but my guess is that there are a lot of unreported incidents when a cyclist might hit a pedestrian or hit a car, but it's not in the same light as a car hitting a cyclist and it doesn't go through to being reported, I think that is probably likely.
I think that there are jerk drivers and there are jerk cyclists, I just think everyone needs to stop defending everyone in cycling, or everyone in driving, and also vilifying every cyclist or driver.
And, if 13% of bike/car collisions are the cyclists fault, and 30% was the drivers fault, what about that other 57%?
Still doesn't refute the statement that non-drivers subsidize drivers.
About the parking issue though, breathing is a human right, parking isn't. Come on Mike, I disagree with you but I don't think you are dumb by any stretch, for you to use that counter argument is kind of lame though.
Space that is given away to something whose output is less than socially optimal is providing a public subsidy.
Now, we all know there is increasingly less free parking in this city but my point was an overall one - that driving is a subsidized activity. I don't hate cars, I just don't like the "bikes don't pay for the road" argument. Pedestrians get that attitude from drivers* even worse should they dare step on to the road.
* I should have noted this long ago but the term motorists or drivers is meant in a general sense. There are some damn fine drivers out there so it's not fair to paint that group with a broad stroke - cyclists either for that matter.
I didn't conveniently ignore your point, I was at work and trying to post quickly. I don't agree with where all the bike-lanes are or will be. Some of them are so dangerous I don't doubt they are largely empty. If you look at Sherbourne, the condition of the road is crap and the shoulders tend to be the worst. On 2 wheels, crappy roads are that much worse. I agree with you, the city has blown it big time with the lack of planning however the OMB may have a share of the blame as they tend to override municipalities' master plan in favour of cry-baby developers.
But to your point of the volume, I can show you streets in Scarborough that see very, very little traffic. By your argument the people on that street shouldn't have it since it serves the few.
I don't think as a taxpayer, as cyclist's are, that I am a special interest group or "dragging the city down" because I ask for a share of the road I help pay for (even if you read the study and still disagree with me as to subsidies, I am a motorist as well). I don't see how, on streets wide enough to accommodate it, that it is a hardship to cut out a 1.5 metre strip. Some streets weren't meant for the volume they see, like side streets where people rode bikes which are now used by rush hour commuters to avoid main thoroughfares. You can't now say that it is scarce road space and nothing but cars can use it. That is the epitome of taking from one group and giving to another to appease them. What gives motorists rights over cyclists? If you agree that it is about people not cars or bikes then to stick with your point is to say some people deserve more than others - is that fair? If you want to make it a "majority rules" issue then you open the door to people who don't drive saying "why am I paying for the road then?", it's only fair that the users pay no?
If you want to use the argument that motorists pay more because of the things you listed and so have more rights you are treading on dangerous territory. A person who is rich pays more tax than you, with your reasoning you should get out of their way when on the road since he pays more and has more rights. Roads are not paid for by gas tax, insurance costs, parking fines or violations, they are paid from income taxes.
I agree with everything you said.
The Metro article didn't say anything about the other 57%, and I was wondering the same thing myself.
I am a cyclist and former bike courier in Toronto, but before I moved here I spent alot of time behind the wheel of a car.
Your Dupont St. incident reminds me of a time I was doing at least 30 down a wet Lower Sherbourne St with no cars nearby and a pedestrian suddenly ran onto the road from the sidewalk about 6 feet in front of me. If I slammed on the brakes, I would've barely slowed down before hitting her. I swerved hard and avoided her, but my front tire lost grip and I hit the pavement and skidded to a stop on my hands and knees. She probably assumed it was safe to cross because she didn't hear traffic behind her, but she must have heard my bike and I crashing into the road. She didn't stop running to see if I was OK. Like you said, I was in the heavier vehicle, so I had the most responsibility regardless of fault. I wasn't hurt as badly as both of us would've been if I'd hit her.
Everyone needs to be aware and respectful of anyone using any mode of transportation, regardless of their own opinion about particular ones, and cities should be designed in a way that accommodates this.
I wonder if all cyclists fully know what it's like to spend a day driving through the city, they might, I'm not sure.
Also this was said in response to a post I made about driving and stress:
"David:
Isn't it good and proper that drivers should be "stressed out".
I don't mean that vindicitively.
I mean that any decent person would be stressed out when the lives of innocent bystanders depend on how I drive.
This was a long time ago, but I remember reading a study which says the most stressful and unpleasant roads and intersections are the ones with the fewest traffic fatalities, because drivers were paying attention.
Separately, my mother (from out of town) is "stressed out" by driving downtown too. She solved the problem by taking the subway instead."
Just so it's out there, drivers should not be stressed out, stressed out drivers make mistakes, they don't have the best judgement, etc. I don't care about a study from a while ago, the most stress-free roads are country roads, and they don't have many pedestrian deaths. So, not every decent person should be stressed out while driving. I don't want a stressed out airplane pilot, do you?
"we are flying at an altitude of 2500 feet, and just so you know, Captain Kolowski and I are freaked out at how big this plane is, and the fact that all your lives are in our hands."
btw. "Most helmets provide no protection against rotational injury and may make it worse. "The major discovery is that the skull plays an important role in protecting against rotational acceleration," says Phillips. He says almost all head injuries involve not just a direct blow to the skull but also damage to blood vessels caused by the brain rotating within the skull.
In mechanical terms, the head is an elliptical spheroid with a single universal joint, the neck. It is therefore almost impossible to hit it without causing it to rotate. The head tries to dampen these forces using a combination of built-in defences: the scalp, the hard skull and the cerebrospinal fluid beneath it. During an impact, the scalp acts as rotational shock absorber by both compressing and sliding over the skull. This absorbs energy from the impact."
and im a courier and wear a helmet everyday, you cleary are uninformed about the issue.... i guess bryants pr friends really have done a number on you.
now let me say with this tragedy i really hope we can make it possitive.
r.i.p Al jr
http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2009/09/04/10756021.html
85 - Cyclists watched at 1 intersection
21 - used Pedestrian crossings
5 - didn't stop at a red light
4 - On the sidewalk
1 - Almost hit a woman because she was on her cell phone
for a total of 31 of 85 cyclists broke the law
that's 36.5%
If 36.5% of cars broke the law at an intersection, there'd be hell to pay.
The numbers prove the point. While not most, more then one third of all cyclists break the law on a regular basis.
At first, the events surrounding former Ontario minister Michael Bryant’s accident seem absurd. But while reading what unfolded, I had a déjâ vu of a hit-and-run accident I was involved in years ago. Applying the similarities from my flashback, this is what transpires:
A rising political star is out for supper with his wife celebrating an anniversary. He has at least two glasses of wine and is therefore over the legally permitted alcohol consumption limit for driving. While driving home, he is involved in a collision with a cyclist. The cyclist suspects the driver has been drinking and is eager for the police to arrive and put the driver to a Breathalyzer test. The driver fears not only the legal consequences of drinking and driving, but realizes his promising political career will go up in smoke. The driver decides his best option is to leave the scene of the accident. The cyclist tries to prevent the driver from escaping by clinging onto him as the convertible races away. The cyclist fails in his attempt and ends up being fatally injured.
The driver then presents himself to police stating he was involved in the accident. Given his notoriety, the police do not subject him to a Breathalyzer test, even though someone has been killed. To make it look like they have done their job, the police lay charges of criminal negligence against the driver, knowing that the subsequent legal ramblings will give the accused leeway to avoid being found guilty. They even let him free without going through a normally required bail hearing.
The driver immediately hires a communication consultancy to advise him on reputation management and he goes public declaring his innocence. The spineless media opts for political correctness and portrays the influential political figure as a victim of road rage.
How do you know that? Do you have any evidence pointing to that? Stop making up facts!
"The driver fears not only the legal consequences of drinking and driving, but realizes his promising political career will go up in smoke."
How do you know that? How do you know what the drivers motives were? You don't so don't present it as fact.
"The driver decides his best option is to leave the scene of the accident."
How do you know that? In your title you suggest he could have been fleeing from the cyclists anger. Don't present this side as fact.
"The cyclist tries to prevent the driver from escaping by clinging onto him as the convertible races away."
How do you know what the cyclists motives were? You don't so don't present it as fact.
"Given his notoriety, the police do not subject him to a Breathalyzer test, even though someone has been killed"
How do you know what the police's motives were? You don't so don't present it as fact.
...
WE'RE ALL TIRED OF "ASSUMED" or "POSSIBLE" VARIATIONS OF THE STORY BEING PRESENTED AS FACT! IT'S BULLSHIT! STOP MAKING UP BULLSHIT TO SUPPORT YOUR DISLIKE OF THE SITUATION. ALL YOUR DOING IS MAKING YOURSELF LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT!
The cyclist looks around to see an attractive man in a convertable that's he suddenly attracted to. He gets off his bicycle and blocks the car and says let's have sex.
The driver, thinking the cyclist is nuts, backs up and drives away around the cyclist.
The cyclist in a throw of desire and lust jumps on the convertable having on with uncontrolled desire and lust for the driver ... to his own end.
...
yes .. it's bullshit, but it's about as factual as your version so shut up an srtop making up facts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWyf3NzdMI
) Sequence of events: 1) Sheppard overtakes Bryant at a stop light, sits in front of him (rude). Bryant lunges car at Sheppard. Moments later, Bryant rams Sheppard onto hood. 2) New camera angle, from behind. Bryant reverses, dumping Sheppard and his bike on the pavement. Bryant then turns and accelerates away from the scene of the crime. Sheppard runs at the car and holds on. 3) New camera angle. Bryant does not slow down. 4) Who is this brown-haired red-shirted woman with Bryant?
http://www.youtube.com/user/honestedits
http://www.thestar.com/article/691400
What they can't hide and what will come out in court is this. Video shows that Mr. Bryant runs down Sheppard less than 15 seconds after Sheppard pulls up in front of his car and stops for a light and after seeing the video others have linked to it seems deliberate. Bryant rams him and then tries to take off. All of this BEFORE Sheppard touches the car. Drunk, aggressive and looking for trouble? No, they say Bryant was sober but he may very well have been the other two.
So for all those who have prejudged Mr. Sheppard I once again present the assault on Mr. Sheppard by the coward Michael Bryant. Try watching it just to see if you called it right or not. You may be surprised.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFISP_PrhFo
Camera angle 2 --- bryant reverses ... exposing shepprd bike on the road. you don't see the bike move!
STOP MAKING UP BULLSHIT! YOU'RE GIVING EVERY SANE CYCLIST A BAD REP! YOU DON'T REPRESENT ME, BUT ONE IDIOT MAKES US ALL LOOK BAD.
DON'T YOU GET IT YET? YOU'RE OBSESSION WITH PROVING SHEPPARD WAS IN THE RIGHT, WITHOUT PROOF JUST MAKES YOU LOOK OBSESSED AND INSANE!
It does remind me of an incident I experienced while living in Toronto years ago (I have since fled that ant heap for the bush of northern Ontario, a significant improvement). I had parked my car on a relatively quiet section of Dovercourt and innocently opened my car door to exit the vehicle. I had not noticed that a cyclist was right in my path while doing so. The guy verbally lashed me with such ferocity that I thought I was being assaulted. There is this macho culture amongst cyclists which is primtive and repugnant.
I watched the video expecting to see a closure to all this speculation, but didn't.
Drivers would not do such a deplorable thing.
Shouting is for bikers. Barbarians.
Second, even if I did break the rules of the road RECKLESSLY it is ridiculous to equate my recklessness with recklessness on the part of a car or truck driver.
My recklessness poses much less risk to other people's lives!
"I'm dissapointed that your press release left out an entire side of the story; WOMEN who put themselves in danger. A small percentage of WOMEN disobey the rules of common decency and consider themselves above common morals, and that is too many.
How many people have witnessed WOMEN walking flagrantly in front of men while wearing sexually provocative clothing. WOMEN may lose in an encounter with a man by nature of their physical stature but an incredible amount of responsibility lies with EITHER party involved in a sexual assault."
Think about what you wrote, if you have the mental capacity. You say Sheppard "was attempting to assault the driver of the car that ran him over". The car that ran him over. I think I would be pissed and probably assault the a-hole who ran me over purposely too, I think a lot of people would when someone tries to kill or injure them badly.
Who cares if his brother is in jail? If you get assaulted or killed do you think it right if we pick apart your life and justify your death because you had some skeletons? What you do is blame the victim. When could play that game all day.
You are just making excuses for the killer - Micheal Bryant.
You admonish people to get an education but it seems you don't even have a good one yourself with the garbage that came out of your post.
How does a man who is run down on his bike become an "irate possibly coked out punk ass filth jumped on your car threatening you and your wife with bodily harm"? First of all, you have absolutely NO IDEA what Sheppard may or may not have said to Bryant so you can cut the "threatening" bodily harm shit. Also, I would be "irate" too if some dick RAN ME DOWN with a car. Further, there is no proof Sheppard ever did what they claim he did. The photos they claim do show no face or other identifying marks such as tattoos. Nor have the accounts of the drivers who allege Sheppard accosted them stood up to cross-examination. Perhaps, if these incidents occurred, the drivers themselves may have to admit they were not innocent or without fault. How many people say " I cut some guy off in traffic and then he started swearing at me since I really did endanger his life?" Never, that's when. People rarely admit their own fault or even notice it. Especially if you are oblivious to anyone around you which many drivers/cyclists/pedestrians are. It's called self-absorption and narcissism and many people suffer from it. So, sure, people say " I was attacked through no fault of my own" even when that isn't true.
Also, we still don't know that is was Bryant's wife in the car, since the "blonde" woman reported to be the passenger left the scene before the police arrived and Bryant's wife is a dark-haired brunette.
Don't turn a vehicular assault and possible road-rage incident on Bryant's part into a self-defence scenario. Fact is, if Bryant hadn't accelerated into Sheppard the whole situation would have been a non-event. If you or anyone else believes a BS story about "accidental acceleration" I have some swamp land to sell. A manual transmission cannot be started without the clutch disengaged so therefore the incident as explained is impossible. Also, the lights did not dim which would happen if someone was trying to start their car as purported. The hit on Sheppard was deliberate and unprovoked. You, sir, have absolute shit for brains.
1. The corpse of Sheppard was put to a toxicology test while Bryant was not given a breathalyzer test. One does not have to look drunk to be over .08 alcohol. Most people after a night out celebrating like Bryant would be over .08. If Bryant had been found driving under the influence, this incident would have taken a whole different outlook.
2. It was Bryant who initiated the incident by slamming into the rear of Sheppard's bike and causing Sheppard to land on Bryant's hood. Then Bryant reversed and Sheppard landed on the ground. Bryant's actions were absurd.
3. Even after the above and with Sheppard on the ground, instead of Bryant getting out to check the cyclist, Bryant accelerated forward and around Sheppard, as if Bryant wanted to leave the scene of the accident. Unlike what he maintains, Bryant couldn't have been threatened by Sheppard up to this point since there still had not been direct contact between them. Sheppard latched onto Bryant's car when he realized Bryant was trying to get away.
Anyone in Toronto who cares about the injustice of this incident should continue to pursue justice and not allow Bryant to catch his breath.
Also, we have to wonder about this "blonde woman" that was reported to be in the car with Bryant. His wife is a dark-haired brunette. We must wonder if that blonde woman had anything to do with why Bryant didn't want to stick at the scene. That passenger got out at the Hilton and was not seen again that night. Why is there no eyebrows raised at that? One of the key witnesses to the whole event left the scene and later his wife claims to have been in the car (unsworn as far as I can tell) and gives a statement (much later) that agrees with Bryant's story completely.
It is all the more galling when we consider that Bryant was the "tough-guy" prosecutor out to crush the "bad-guys". He is also the man behind legislation that put a reverse-onus on a defendant even though criminal penalties applied. I must wonder why he didn't demand the same "tough-on-crime" treatment he so willingly sought to dish out to the rest of Ontarian.