Morning Brew: Cyclist Killed, GO Train Riders Snubbed, Dundas-Sherbourne Flagged for Violence, City of Toronto Museum Plans Changed

Sherboure and Dundas and around are completely dodgy. Wish the politicians who cut back on mental health and addiction services in the 90s had to live here. That would be some real accountability!

Someone on the news said that he was in the back seat and not in the driver seat. Regardless, why was the biker hanging on to the car? Maybe he figured the driver was going to flee but that might not have been the best solution.

I don't know who is to blame in this situation but in general I think a licensing and enforcement for bicycles should happen as well as for cars.

How about waiting for the investigation to finish before deciding you know what heppened, who's guilty, and what the punishment should be??

If I'm driving the down the street and a cyclist grabs on to my car (regardless of what I may/may not have done wrong), I'm definitely not going to be swerving from side to side trying to shake him off.

"The witnesses said it appeared as though the driver was attempting to knock the cyclist off by brushing against trees and mailboxes on Bloor Street, approaching Avenue Road"

Inexcusable.

what "sane" person jumps on to the hood of a car and then hangs on to the driver's side? I think the fact that it was a convertible may play into this case. The driver would be more exposed.

Bottom line: regrettable decisions all around.

Are you suggesting a high-speed drive-by blackmailing? *This* I gotta see.

I think everyone should cool down about the cyclist/bryant ordeal. Mountains of information is not known right now, and what we do know is way too little to be useful and just enough to be dangerous.

I think the maximum that can be agreed upon right now is that both people made choices that probably led up to the event, and both share some responsibility, what that share is, I'm not sure, but some share surely belongs to both.

I am suggesting maybe he knows the cyclist... and I have a feeling maybe the cyclist is a hooker...

Abstracting away from the identities of driver and cyclist, and whatever may have led up to the incident, I would love to hear a feasible scenario in which crossing two lanes of traffic and hitting anyone against a tree and a mailbox is an acceptable outcome.

And I'd love to find out why it's acceptable to be holding on to someone's car. Again, too much is unknown, you'd be so foolish to start taking anyone's side right now. I can think of several reasons why that scenario might be feasible, but it doesn't mean I'm any closer to knowing what happened.

and why did he end up parking his car at a hotel?

Let's hope this incident highlights the mutually aggressive attitude of both cyclists and automobile drivers on Toronto's streets. As a car owner and a city cyclist, I have seen this attitude on both sides. The cyclists often do as they please and disregard road rules, and often the rushing cars are blatantly oblivious to the fact that they are sharing the roads with other modes of transportation (never mind the way they treat each other).

The solution? Either a massive public education campaign or the construction of REAL bike lanes(instead of painting the frequently-ignored line on the street). One thing I know for sure - the car always wins.

First, it's easy to sit at a chair on your computer and criticizing actions that were made at an intense moment, I think its fair to give everyone involved the benefit of realizing that in moments like that the ability to be completely rational is ridiculously difficult.

Second, If I was in my car with my wife and someone came up to mug me or carjack me, and I took off and they held onto my car, I can see myself trying to get them off by those means. I'm not saying that's what happened, we all have no clue yet. I'm not sure who is the ultimate guilty party yet, I'm just wish more people wouldn't get on this bandwagon of everyone against the guy driving the car, because he couldn't possibly be innocent.

Also, if I was on that stretch of Bloor and involved in an altercation with someone who I thought had the intent to maybe injure me, the Hyatt's front parking lot is one of the closest places to park safely out of the way, and I hope you're not suggesting that was his getaway point, a hotel literally within a couple hundred feet in the main entrance. Not exactly the best place to "hideout".

And as we all know, carjackings using bicycles as approach vehicles are frighteningly common on Bloor in Yorkville on Monday nights.

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

Short of a gun or maybe a butcher knife, there /is/ no good reason to smash people into mailboxes on Bloor at 10 pm on a Monday night. Perhaps I was too general in my original question; I apologize if I mislead someone into thinking I was talking about smashing people into mailboxes in general as opposed to in the particular instance under discussion.

1. Small cyclist/motorist collision or near collision
2. Heated words exchanged. Cyclist very pissed off.
3. Driver doesn't want to face cyclist. He floors the Saab as cyclist grabs on.
4. Mayhem ensues. Screaming driver. Screaming cyclist. Screaming female passenger. Adrenaline takes over.

Shit-disturb much? While I'm not condoning Mr. Bryant's actions, it's hard to say what one would do unless you're faced with the same situation.

Me? I would've stepped out of the car and given the cyclist a beatdown. But I'm a former bouncer so that wouldn't be much of a problem.

remember, while the bike is less lethal than a car, this cyclist was able to get right up into the driver's face. that alone will scare the shit out of most people.

and don't take me for a car apologist, I had two wrist operations after being hit by a car a few years ago. that whole situation is scary.

since neither one of us was there, I can say that all comments here, including my own, are merely speculation.

It's always amazing how many omniscient individuals there are on the internet. Kinda negates the need for a court appearance.

>what we do know is way too little to be useful and just enough to be dangerous.

Sounds very karma-tic for Mr. Bryant. I hope he burns in hell.

There isn't enough info to know exactly how this started. A TStar article suggested that the cyclist may have jumped onto the car, sometime after a minor altercation took place.

http://thestar.com/news/gta/article/689220

How about a bike lane on Bloor now Mr. Mayor?

As for the PanAm thing - a locomotive pulling 10 carriages for 20 people. Jesus. Way to go whatever fool at GO Transit agreed to this. Can we stop bidding for this mickey mouse thing now and maybe go in for something people have heard of like the Olympics?

I wonder if Bryant has already been on the horn to Sitrick & Company. I'd be willing to bet on it.

Yes, yes, lively discussion, but, is there any way we can blame the Zionists for all this?

>what we do know is way too little to be useful and just enough to be dangerous

Is in reference to his disposing of any dog that shows characteristics of a pit bull.

Remarkably foolish? His decision was, yes. He can burn in hell. I hope he gets what he deserves one way or the other.

Lock Bryant up and throw away the key.

That's if the dude jumped on the hood of my car or was trying to reach in. random cursing? I've heard worse from the best, I can take that. encroaching on my physical space? all bets are off.

What terrible writing - was the driver the former attorney general?

Time for all cyclists of Toronto to reek havoc on the drivers of Toronto. This means war and payback is a bizzle.

"Reek" havoc? You mean stop showering?

How about cyclists (and I'm one) start taking some responsibility for themselves first? Honestly, the things I see when I'm on my two-wheeler make me wonder if half of my fellow riders are suicidal. Drivers aren't any better, but it would be nice to see us riders lead by example rather than be mere thugs.

@Ratpick

I agree completely... on both accounts. Cyclists seem to think the fact that they're on a bike means they can do/act however they want because "it's one less car!"

Leading by example is the right idea.

Gear down there SuperCycle.

Wow, still using "RIP", three letters which have come to describe anything macabre. It's the ultimate flippant remark to a persons death. I'm so glad these posting boards encourage everyone to participate, everyone just brings so much to this discussion. Does anybody else want to blame this on Karma for Bryant banning pitbulls, I mean personally, it just makes so much sense.

Clever lawyers are on the Bryant case already, you can tell by the way they've shut down news coverage significantly, and lowered the charge to 'negligence' even though the car driver reportedly used his car as a weapon to hit the bike rider repeatedly and intentionally. Maybe it takes more than a minute for such a tragedy to unfold, and the court case will provide some of the details. But I'm just saying, lawyers like Bryant and partners can also quelch the court case. Why talk about capital punishment? We're just trying to let the bigwigs face any justice at all!

Cyclist grabs on to steering wheel and pulls car out of control to the left. How's that?

The average blood alcohol content at 9:45 pm downtown is pretty close to maximum, better to be stay VERY SAFE especially if you have kids. If you have anger problems, take a anger mgmt course now. If you're a driver, try defensive driving? There's no room for everyone to be king of the road.

Here here mjb.to

I couldn't believe the lack of coverage and info on this story througout the day today.

I posted on another media outlet's website about comments being closed on globeandmail.com for legal reasons.

I mean that's incredible. Comments on one of our national newspapers websites being shut down. CNN begs people to tweet info to them and discuss the days events and here some high powered lawyers simply threaten one of our national newspapers and they agree.

Lets hope more one more thing didn't die on this tragic day, Canadian's willingness to use the net to inform and question each other.

Nevermind, I'm not going to disucss a topic with someone that just won't get it, it's like running on a treadmill trying to get somewhere. CFRB devoted the entire day Yesterday to covering the incident, all papers ran it as the major story, the problem with the story is that it so little is known factually in the matter. The language used to describe the incident can be incredible biased. First, it was reported that the driver dragged the man and then tried to knock him off using misc. barriers on the south side of Bloor, now it's known that the man wasn't necessarily "dragged", but he might've held on. Major difference. Also, there is speculation that the man might've been grabbing at the steering wheel, also a major difference. So story that started out being told the one way which everybody just presumed could be wrong, and since there hasn't been any hard facts come out yet, no one in the news wants to jump back out there with news that isn't true. This is called the world of rationality and common sense, maybe you're not from here, but that's how things work here.

>.the colloquial name "pit bull" is the common name you idiot, lets not get into semantics unnecessarily..it is such common knowledge that it's a dangerous animal that im not even going to discuss this with you....Guns are dangerous, especially in the hands of 100% of the criminals...people with gun fascinations are usually military enthusiasts or sociopaths, a small percentage of sane people use them for sportor hunting ( which some could also argue is sociopathic).

Are you for real? You rely on the Toronto Star for <em>factual</em> coverage of everything don't you?

">.the colloquial name "pit bull" is the common name you idiot, lets not get into semantics unnecessarily" Actually, you are the idiot clearly. You deride a whole group of different dogs and then cry about getting into "semantics unneccessarily". I think it is necessary to actually be correct when making statements, obviously you just like to spout ignorance loudly and not be called on it, believing the truth and reality is "unneccessary".
It is not common knowledge that these dogs are dangerous. You have merely anecdotal evidence from people unqualified to make the determination as to the breed of dog who were in panic situations. many times the dog in the attack was misidentified and the later correction is not as publicized as it does not sell newspapers like a dreaded "pit-bull" attack does.
In fact, the literature from studies shows that you are more likely to be bit by a labrador retreiver than a so-called "pit-bull", especially if you are a child.
And finally, I rarely, if ever read the Star. Your point about other people not being omniscient doesn't apply to you as well? Seems not in your mind.
But of course you won't debate it with me as you say, people with no facts to back up their absurd accusations never do engage in reasoned debate.

It didn't take long for the attack to come on Sheppard. That's textbook 101, blame the victim's past for his present day actions. Bullshit!! & nice piece of work for the girlfriend mouthing off to the Sun. Keep your mouth shut bitch because more evidence for Eddie Greenspan to use.

Yeah, sorry keven. I clicked on you because you had quoted him and I mistook your reply for his. I was calling ddt an idiot in response to his calling me one. But no vein popping, just head-shaking at ddt's ignoramus take on so-called "pit-bulls"
I think we might actually agree on some these points I made.

Prior bad acts are only admissible if they have substantial probative value. The fact that Sheppard may or may not have cashed bad cheques bears no consequence on this matter unless somehow he wrote Bryant a bounced cheque and the "altercation" was over this.
The fact that he may have gotten drunk and throw loud parties similarly has no weight as a lot of people do this and it does not make them worthy of death or mean they assault people.
To suggest ominously, as they do in some news reports, that Sheppard had a "dark side" paints him as a reprobate. Then it turns out his neighbour says she complained about parties and that he had 61 warrants but no convictions. He did jump bail which suggests guilt though. Doesn't sound like he is a boy scout but doesn't suggest he would normally accost someone and try to kill them out of hand.
Sheppard had been hit by a car before so he may have been testy and aggressive if there was a collision or near miss with Bryant. But still everything is all speculation. Even if someone had a history of doing something or acting a certain way it is not a guarantee that they haven't changed or act that way all the time.
That aside, there is video apparently so I hope we can have it figured out and explained because details change hourly. First they say Sheppard was holding on to the car, then that he grabbed the steering wheel, then it became him leaping into the car. What is next? He and Bryant were flying through the air and shooting at each other John Woo style?

Comments like that are the most irresponsible, stupid, inane, comments possible. They show a complete lack of intelligence, composure, restraint, thoughtfulness, compassion, and everything else that is reasonable. You're making a case against net neutrality.

I hear you. There could be some relevance to these things, it would have to be argued out in court though.
I don't think Darcy was refused entry to the residence, I believe he was ordered to leave because his girlfriend and he were in a fight and she wanted him out.
We still haven't seen a toxicology report to verify that he was drunk or even drinking as far as I can tell. I am not sure on the entire legality of it but if he was drunk, the police might be liable for sending him on his way to ride home. They did have a duty to ensure his safety and the safety of others.
Did Bryant blow? Nothing is mentioned that I could find regarding his state of impairment or non-impairment. I would think he would have had some wine at dinner. how come no one is asking about Bryant's immediate past that night? Are there any skeletons in Bryant's closet that can be dragged out to smear him as is being done to the victim? It seems the victim is being put up to a court of public opinion as nothing but anecdote and hearsay is being put forth.
There must be something on those videos if they are charging Bryant.

Yes, I do know what "reporting" is. However, all this digging is not furthering an understanding of the evidence it is selling papers and getting people to the newspaper websites.
Think of it this way, if you were normally a jerk or had a drinking problem but one day were walking down the street and some guy starts a fight with you. you were sober and polite this time but this person forced you to fight. Later on the police charge you with assault and the next thing you know people who knew you were telling reporters about what an ass you were and how much you drank. Does this shine a spotlight and furhter our understanding of what happened to you that night? No, it prejudices us to the type of guy you are. It makes us say, well, I have no doubt he was the aggressor, look at his past that is being dug up. All this type of "news" does is smear you, not expose any empirical evidence or fact.

Re the Star's coverage of Sherbourne and Dundas, I've sent them the following email -

I live in an apartment building at Dundas and Sherbourne, and I object very strongly to the tabloid-style coverage of this downtown intersection in the Star's September 1 issue.

The headline of the article reads "Dundas-Sherbourne ranks No. 1 in violence".

The sub-heading reads " Dundas-Sherbourne corridor ranks No. 1 in city for violent offences, data shows".

The article then starts with "A body is sprawled across the road, but no one stops. And why should they? This is George St., home to Seaton House ..........". So what does this have to do with Dundas and Sherbourne?

The article then refers to "the downtown Dundas and Sherbourne Sts. corridor" and continues thereafter to refer to an area it keeps calling "Dundas and Sherbourne". But the accompanying map refers to "The area south of Allan Gardens", and the article elsewhere describes the area as "South of Gerrard St. E. and north of Queen St.E., and between Jarvis and Sherbourne Sts.". How does this become the "Dundas and Sherbourne St. corridor"?

The intersection of Dundas and Sherbourne is in fact merely a point on the very edge of the accompanying map, on which at least 22 downtown intersections are shown. And not one of the stories in the article relates in any way to the intersection of Dundas and Sherbourne.

The article further identifies the area as housing "three of the city's largest shelters" and even accuses homeless people of "fighting in the streets" and links them to "shootings, stabbings, a person with a knife or gun, and sex attacks". What kind of biased reporting is this?

I have lived at the intersection of Dundas and Sherbourne for over five years, and I love this neighbourhood. I have never had a problem of any kind here nor observed any. Nobody has ever bothered or threatened me, and I never have any hesitation in recommending the intersection to anybody looking for a location to live in the downtown area.

The article is full of bias and prejudice and is totally unfair, in the sensational nature of its reporting, to the peaceful inhabitants of this neighbourhood, based solely on some unspecified "documents obtained by the Star", and a vague reference to a "crime data report".

This one-sided fearmongering article gives a false impression of the neighbourhood as a whole, and is totally unworthy of the Star's standard of reporting.