Cyclist killed at Bloor and Bay: former Attorney General arrested
Monday night former Attorney General, Michael Bryant, was arrested after a bizzare incident that left a cyclist dead:
Toronto - A cyclist was killed and the driver of a Saab convertible has been arrested after a serious crash on Bloor Street near Avenue Road on Monday night.
Police sources told 680News the driver of the Saab has been identified as Michael Bryant, the province's former attorney general and economic development minister.
Witnesses told police the driver and the 33-year-old cyclist got into an argument at Bay and Bloor streets and then there was contact between the bicycle and the car.
Police said the cyclist grabbed onto the car and was then dragged about 150 metres along Bloor Street to east of Avenue Road --- he was hanging onto the driver's-side headrest.
The driver pulled into the Hyatt hotel and called police.
The cyclist was rushed to hospital and pronounced dead.
Bryant, 43, will appear in court Tuesday morning for a bail hearing.
Bloor Street is shut down between Bay Street and Avenue Road, and it's expected to remain closed into the morning rush hour.
Bryant recently left provincial politics to work for a city agency. He is the chief executive officer with Invest Toronto, the newly formed City of Toronto agency designed to attract business to the city.
Prior to that, he was a rising star in the McGuinty government, serving as attorney general, and recently, the economic development minister during the auto restructuring talks at Chrysler and General Motors. He was also previously minister of aboriginal affairs.
He also presided over the province's ban on pitbulls and Ontario's crackdown on street racing and drunk driving.
Interesting that the person who grabbed onto the victim's car was labelled as a "cyclist", rather than "an unknown person". I don't like this label of "cyclist" in this case, because this paints a very poor picture of cyclists in toronto - the report might as well have said "homeless person" or "immigrant", the way it marginalizes a certain population.
If this truly was a cyclist, we should learn from this example to NEVER mix it up with an automobile driver, and simply avoid conflict. If this cyclist truly "grabbed onto the car's headrest", this is the cyclist's fault, and the injuries are his own creation.
This case is a prime example of why automobile drivers should not automatically be held at fault for bicycle-automobile collisions. If a driver commits an error against you on a bike, let it go! It is not up to cyclists to mete out justice!
cheers,
Brian
Are you serious? You really think the CYCLIST DESERVED TO DIE for what he did?
What about the driver? You think he is not at fault? Are you implying drivers have the right to use their vehicles as lethal weapons? To drive at high speed on the wrong side of the road on the one of the busiest streets in Toronto? To go up onto the curb?
It appears to me that the driver was trying to flee the scene after a relatively minor collision (against the law) and the cyclist attempted to stop him, although he tried to do so in rash way.
If this is the case, the driver should be charged with First degree Murder, because in the commission of a crime (fleeing the scene of an accident) he killed someone. At the very least, he should be changed with manslaughter.
640 is reporting that the bike hit the car.. I don't get it. If I hit a car with my bike, I wouldn't be trying to hang on to the car.. if the car wants to drive away, fine with me.. I don't have to pay for any damages.
And while I agree that it was the cyclist's own fault for hanging on to the car, that doesn't really excuse running someone over.
And to Brian, I think they call him cyclist to specify who it was holding on to the car.. had they said "unnamed man", there would have been confusion - was it some random stranger that witnessed the incident that wanted all involved parties to stay there (as unlikely as that is)? Was there a third person involved in the initial altercation? I don't think the word cyclist is being used in a derogatory way, just so that people know who did what. They called Bryant "the driver".. same thing.
When I say it was the cyclists own fault, I don't mean to imply that he deserved to get kill.. I mean that that was an irrational action, and while I'm sure he didn't know he would be killed, he had to know there was great potential for injury.
But again, either way, it doesn't excuse running someone over.
Nice way to blame the victim. The drive made the choice to keep driving, the driver made the choice to go in the wrong lane of traffic in an effort to hit the cyclist on the left side of the car against trees and light posts on the sidewalk. Seems like murder.
I guess a it's like rape, 'she was asking for it" is a famous line.
Grabbing the car was not the best thing to do, he didn't know there is a murderer in the driver seat.
As for the term cyclist, it makes as much sense as the term driver. So yeah it's relevant.
REDRUM
Here, here... arguments seem to imply that if a cyclist or pedestrian dare approach a motorist, dire consequences are the risk. Unfortunately this is exactly my experience. Ask a car to please exit the diamond lane reserved for cabs, buses and bikes - and they'll swerve at you in self defense of their asphalt empire.
Now someone has died. Could so easily have been you or me.
RIP
Witness accounts are saying that the Saab being driven by Bryant struck the cyclist and when an altercation between the two escalated, Bryant drove off with the man hanging on "for dear life".
Bryant meant to induce great harm upon this individual as he was reported speeding in the oncoming lanes of Bloor Street with this man hanging onto his car while screaming at him. It wasn't until Bryant hit a mailbox did the cyclist "let go". Bryant then ran over the man as he laid on the pavement, left the scene and this man for dead. Literally.
I care not this waste of skin is a former Attorney General. Bryant broke out into a rage, dragged a man that he hit with his car, who was reportedly screaming at the cyclist while the cyclist hung on for his life. Bryant knew what he was doing, and what he did was kill another human being through that rage. There was no impediment to Bryant. He could have stopped. For that matter, he did not need to start. He raced that damn car down the wrong side of Bloor Street with intent to harm that man. People last night witnessed that rage.
If the cyclist were that great of a problem, Bryant could have gotten out of his car and yelled for help. Apparently there were a number of people around who saw this incident and could have helped or called police. Bryant could have simply walked away. But he didn't. He flew into a rage and killed a man.
I'm surprised that this murderer (IMO) hasn't been charged with anything yet. But they're "holding" him.
As for Brian who dumbfoundedly stated....
"If this cyclist truly "grabbed onto the car's headrest", this is the cyclist's fault, and the injuries are his own creation."
Speaking of grasping. Has your mind grasped at the idea as to why he might have been hanging onto the headrest (of a convertible with the top down - that was speeding along Bloor Street in the oncoming lanes)? Put all that together. I'd deduct that the cyclist was hanging on to said 'headrest' for fear of dying.
"This case is a prime example of why automobile drivers should not automatically be held at fault for bicycle-automobile collisions."
No one is holding anyone at fault in those situations UNTIL an investigation is done. The two parties are to remain at the scene until police arrive. Bryant did not do this.
"If a driver commits an error against you on a bike, let it go!"
Not under the HTA, which is law, Brian. Both are vehicles under the HTA and a collision doesn't mean you let it go. Especially if damage and worse, if injuries are involved.
"It is not up to cyclists to mete out justice!"
It's not up to drivers like Bryant either. As a matter of fact, it's up to no one except the courts.
Now, here is the latest in this link, and please watch ALL the video in this link. Especially note the damage to the driver's side and the white paint from the bike just behind the driver's door.
For that damage to be there suggests that Bryant attempted and failed at left turn (ran the light?) and struck the cyclist.
http://tinyurl.com/lq9la4
Former Ontario AG under arrest (September 1, 2009)
snippet:
"The car apparently swerved to the oncoming lane of traffic along Bloor, very close to the sidewalk that the cyclist hung over. “He started going (driving) onto the sidewalk,” said Manuel Machado, a construction worker standing on the street as it unfolded.
“I heard the tires screech,” said Ryan Brazeau, another worker. “He (the cyclist) was right literally at the front windshield, almost holding on to the driver.”
The driver was now going west in the eastbound curb lane, leaving the cyclist clinging to the curbside door of the car. The cyclist, clinging to the car as it sped away, then struck trees and a grey mailbox like a “human battering ram,” Mr. Brazeau said.
“You could hear hitting, something, bam, bam, bam,” a third worker said.
The cyclist fell off the car when he struck the mailbox, and collapsed in a heap of blood on the sidewalk in front of Sephora. The driver kept going, hanging a right at Avenue Road.
“He was going fast enough that we couldn't recognize the car or the license plate,” Mr. Brazeau said."
full article:
http://tinyurl.com/nbvagx
Was Bryant drinking?
"He also presided over the province's ban on pitbulls and Ontario's crackdown on street racing and drunk driving."
"This case is a prime example of why automobile drivers should not automatically be held at fault for bicycle-automobile collisions."
Please take it back!
90% of car and bicycle incidents in Toronto are on the fault of the driver of the car.
I don't want to sound like a broken record to motorists
Get of your cell phones-
and use your directionals-
Flashback - Bryant welcomes switch to city job (May 25, 2009)
snippet:
"Michael Bryant, who quits his position Monday as Ontario Minister of Economic Development, says he is excited to begin a new job promoting Toronto and attracting business to the city.
The outspoken 43-year-old politician is expected to formally announce, along with Mayor David Miller, that he will become president of Invest Toronto, a new economic development agency, just three days after he told Premier Dalton McGuinty that he was leaving politics."
Reading all of this, he was made to sound like your typical boyscout. Expect him to 'get off' where he'll make a public apology and continue promoting Toronto after he "escaped" being labelled a "murderer".
Full article:
http://tinyurl.com/nwxa9h
Here is Bryant's publicly published email address as obtained from the Invest Toronto website where he is (let's hope 'was') President and CEO. Tell him he's doing a 'bang up job' at promoting this city. Bloomberg and other int'l news outlets have picked up on his lunacy last night.
mbryant@InvestToronto.ca
Invest Toronto website:
http://www.investtoronto.ca/
According to the Globe and Mail (Sept. 1, 2009):
• 9:25 a.m.: Police source tells The Globe and Mail's Timothy Appleby that Mr. Bryant will face charges of criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death. Those charges will keep the file in the hands of Traffic Services.
• 9:36 a.m.: Mayor David Miller, whose city-run Invest Toronto is led by Mr. Bryant, releases a brief statement but doesn't name names.
http://tinyurl.com/n9x3k4
Another nail in David Millers coffin.
I guess Bryant's promoting of our city would not include it being bike friendly!
I feel like this could have been avoided if the city would just put some paint down and make it safer for EVERYBODY.
This sucks.
I think before anything else is said, we can all agree that the outcome of this incident is a tragic one.
Most of all for the person who lost their life; though while not equating the outcomes, one can safely say Mr. Bryant will not have come out of this without damage of a form, the only question there is what form and how serious.
So far as I know, none of the posters, myself included, was there last night, and so we shouldn't portend certainty of the chain of events.
But it is very difficult to envision any excuse for Mr. Bryant's behavior.
The cyclist most certainly did not deserve his fate.
Though in no way mitigating that tragic outcome, one should say that he did make a mistake in reaching into Mr. Bryant's car. Not because he was or was not in the legal or moral right, but simply because it was an unnecessary risk is the circumstances, and obviously led to a terrible outcome.
No matter how this thing started, it needs to be said, even in an accident or confrontation that involves 2 motorists, you should never take the risk of violent confrontation or sticking your body in someone else's car. The risks far outweigh any benefit. Take a license plate number, make and model, have a civil conversation, if there is one to be had, elsewise call police.
That in no way justifies the results we saw; and I extend my sympathies to the cyclist and his family and friends.
How ironic that the man who came up with the street racing law is meeting his own fate as he may be charged with; criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death.
From what I remember, after he is charged, shouldn't his car be crushed as those are the same charges that are weighed against those charged with street racing.
From CBC, June 15, 2006 - Street Racing: Too fast, too furious
*If convicted of the most serious charge, criminal negligence causing death, racers can face life in prison. But, Taylor said that almost never happens. "To my knowledge, there isn't (a convicted street racer) who has served more than five months in jail," he said. In November 2000, street racers in Vancouver killed 51-year-old Irene Thorpe, a pedestrian, and were convicted of criminal negligence causing death The two teens involved, Sukvir Singh Khosa and Bahadur Singh Bhalru, were given conditional sentences of two years less a day and placed under house arrest — a sentence that provoked outrage in most of the country. That outrage still didn't change the penalties much. At a news conference shortly after his son Jimmy was killed in 2002, Chris Ng, father of the slain Vancouver RCMP officer, said, "We want the judicial system to put a little heavier penalty, to do something about this criminal driving behaviour." *
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/crime/street-racing.html
All hail the Urban Repair Squad!
Don't email Bryant, or harass his employer. The man acted like a psycopath, it's obvious, there's no need for any more emphasis. Follow Militant MTBer and you will help the media show how "both sides are to blame".
If you really want this tragedy to bring about positive cycling advocacy outcomes, pick some flowers and bring them down to the south side of Bloor, just east of Avenue. And do something positive - come ride with the ARC crew next week, join the Bike Union, pressure your city councilor.
I think before anything else is said, we can all agree that the outcome of this incident is a tragic one.
Agreed!
Most of all for the person who lost their life; though while not equating the outcomes, one can safely say Mr. Bryant will not have come out of this without damage of a form, the only question there is what form and how serious.
Probably not as serious as we would like to see considering Bryant has been a legislator of what the 'rest of us' must now follow as the rule of law.
So far as I know, none of the posters, myself included, was there last night, and so we shouldn't portend certainty of the chain of events.
Opinions only. And specualtion as well as witness accounts. That's all I have. I'm going more on the latter and on personal experience when those who have tried to run me off of the road when I pointed out their "errors". I have noted make/model/plate number and driver description. You know what the driver gets? A letter from police pointing out their ways and that they should "improve" upon their behaviours. Does that mean that I should take matters into my own hands in the future? No. But it does tell me that until I or someone else does get hurt or seriously injured, nothing will come of it except a slap-on-the-wrist to the driver. It's why we need our own lane(s).
But it is very difficult to envision any excuse for Mr. Bryant's behavior.
There is no excuse when you're performing capital punishment upon another on public streets in front of the public.
The cyclist most certainly did not deserve his fate.
Of course not. When would they?
*Though in no way mitigating that tragic outcome, one should say that he did make a mistake in reaching into Mr. Bryant's car. Not because he was or was not in the legal or moral right, but simply because it was an unnecessary risk is the circumstances, and obviously led to a terrible outcome.
No matter how this thing started, it needs to be said, even in an accident or confrontation that involves 2 motorists, you should never take the risk of violent confrontation or sticking your body in someone else's car. The risks far outweigh any benefit. Take a license plate number, make and model, have a civil conversation, if there is one to be had, elsewise call police.*
I detected a slight tone of blame upon the cyclist in that. By stating what you did, you are somewhat contradicting yourself as you have now 'portended certainty of the chain of events'.
I will agree with that latter portion of what you said, and seeing as Bryant has now clearly killed a man; if he thought that his life and/or safety were in question, he could have done the same (except for the plate and model part of it). For that matter, at that hour of the night, lots of places are open at Ave. Rd. and Bloor (hotels/shops/restaurants).
Bryant, if he feared for his safety, could have left his car and ran into one and asked for police assistance. After he killed that young man, he drove away and parked at the Hyatt. There was no thought process involved by Bryant except to do harm to the young man. That point is now tragically obvious.
That in no way justifies the results we saw; and I extend my sympathies to the cyclist and his family and friends.
It is a horrible way to die, even at such a young age, and it angers me that Bryant, who is supposed to be the example, let ALL of us down in many ways when he snuffed out that young man's life. There was no need.
It matters not, and is a moot point, when the subject of this young man reaching into the car is brought up (if that happened at all). How and why is that the rationale for Bryant's subsequent actions?
"Reaching in" doesn't mean you're meant to die through a process of using a death grip while hanging onto the side of a car while it's driver mounts curbs, sidewalks and bashes you against light standards and other objects to shake you loose. It was meant and done to harm and/or kill. Bryant was successful in that venture. There is no debate.
My Heart goes out to the Family and Friends of the cyclist that paid the ultimate price last night on Bloor Street.
Im shocked at how this escalated to the death of a cyclist, but I can't help thinking that the accused, Bryant has yet to be charged with murder, I really hope that this isn't a case of our police department playing games to protect one of their own. Clearly Bryant's actions displayed that he felt that he could take the law into his own hands and punish the cyclist for what ever the altercation between the two of them were.
If there's any reason that cyclists in this city have ever needed to come together peacefully to make it heard that justice is a necessity, it's now.
Michael Bryant is a fearful man, and whatever he feared he killed. First Pitbulls, now people. The man should get life.
Disgusting.
To those in City Hall: the bells on Bloor now toll...
Bryant needs to spend at least 10 years in jail.
Don't email Bryant, or harass his employer.
How do I harass, um, myself or you, for that matter? WE are Bryant's employer. Invest Toronto is city run and Bryant is Prez and CEO for that organization that is responsible for attracting business to this city. Should he still hold that position in light of what has happened? Should we also not petition Miller on this matter as well? Or would that also be deemed as harassment?
The man acted like a psycopath, it's obvious, there's no need for any more emphasis. Follow Militant MTBer and you will help the media show how "both sides are to blame".
I'll agree on the psycopath part. Also note that nobody "follows" me. I expect people to think on their own. I have faith in them in that regard. But emailing a public official and pointing out the errs in their ways (putting it VERY mildly) would hardly illustrate to anyone that "both sides are to blame". Not sure how you've come to that conclusion. Besides, I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek about it. Especially when I said that one should let him know of his 'bang-up job' and that he's getting attention alright. Especially from the int'l media that is reporting on his stupidity from last night.
I did state that his email is in public view on a website that is owned and operated by the city. I didn't release anything that was private. Do as you will. Or don't.
If you really want this tragedy to bring about positive cycling advocacy outcomes, pick some flowers and bring them down to the south side of Bloor, just east of Avenue.
I plan on doing that very thing today.
And do something positive - come ride with the ARC crew next week....
Okay.
"....join the Bike Union...."
I'm not 100% convinced of the Bike Union's efficacy.
"....pressure your city councilor...."
Done that many times. I get back lame-o form responses of the wonderful amount of bike lanes that 'they' have "given" us to date. I keep trying.
Dear All,
Firstly, my condolences to the family and friends of the person who lost their life thru this dramatic, tragic sequence of events.
Secondly, my apologies to anyone I may have offended either thru my choice of words, or the interpretation of their meaning.
Third, I am astonished at the prejudice that so many purportedly "fellow" cyclists jump to. The case is still under investigation, none of us were there to witness the events, and yet so many make the assumption that they KNOW what happened. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree, because I wasn't there, I don't know the facts either. So we're equal.
I, as one, do not agree with or share such militant, aggressive attitudes or approaches to cycling, with all due respect for those who choose to. If you who are so quick to condemn with harsh judgement in absence of the facts call yourselves "fellow" cyclists, I cannot support you or share our roads with you in good conscience, and I feel impelled to do what I can to help you correct this misbehaviour. Our community and roads are built and based on common courtesy, consideration, and communication. Any weakness in this establishment causes erosion and degredation, and is not sustainable to the common good.
I know I work on not prejudging as often as I can, one has to, as a well-rounded, cooperative cyclist in this city. I would urge others to do the same.
We don't know the facts, we weren't there; let's not judge or post false accusations until the facts are presented. And again I apologise for offending or upsetting anyone.
Sincerely,
Brian
Another nail indeed. Apparently Miller is driving that very nail even deeper.
Toronto mayor refuses comment on Bryant (Sept. 1, 2009)
snippet:
*Toronto Mayor David Miller had little to say on Tuesday about the legal predicament facing his new head of Invest Toronto, Michael Bryant.
On Tuesday morning Miller's office released a brief statement expressing his "sincere condolences to the family and friends of the cyclist who died [Monday] night following an incident in the Yorkville area."
The statement went on to say that since "this is an active police investigation, I will not be making any further comment on this tragedy today."*
What, not even to say that Bryant will no longer hold the position of President and CEO of Invest Toronto until said investigation is done? So you're going to keep him on the payroll, huh? You gotta give us something, Dave!
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/01/miller-b...
At this point, we don't know enough details to even guess what brought the confrontation about. How can we pass judgment and still claim the high moral ground?
To me the question is whether the truth will be passed to the public - after all, the driver is a man of power and connections. On the other hand, there were witnesses that will talk and testify if there is a trial. I'll sit back and watch, for now...
...as it gives the description of the altercation by an eye witness:
Kevin says: "Third, I am astonished at the prejudice that so many purportedly "fellow" cyclists jump to. The case is still under investigation, none of us were there to witness the events, and yet so many make the assumption that they KNOW what happened. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree, because I wasn't there, I don't know the facts either. So we're equal."
Agreed.
It's a sad, sad story, but other than the fact that the victim was on a bike, I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with cycling.
Perhaps that will become clearer as the investigation continues. But, from what I've read so far, it sounds like it had a lot more to do with overactive testosterone than any other factor.
Assuming the two men didn't know each other before the altercation, we have something happening in traffic ... and argument of some kind ... then a battle on a busy downtown street that ends with the horrific death of one of the men.
It's horrible, truly horrible. But, to me, it goes far beyond cyling and touches on a what sometimes seems like a growing lack of civility in this city. Civility is what keeps cities working -- it's what binds us together.
Put another way -- I don't like living in a city where people feel justified killing each other over a traffic incident.
Moreover, all the bike lanes in the world won't protect any of us on bike in a city where civility in on the decline
Drunk? Probably not, it's hard to believe that the cops wouldn't have checked him. Another theory that might account for the panicked violence: who was the 'young woman' in the car? Bryant is married...
At this point, we don't know enough details to even guess what brought the confrontation about.
Why does that matter? A man is now dead. DEAD. It makes no difference how it started. What matters is how it ended! And how it did end was unconscionable and the process of which was disgusting!
Bryant wasn't acting in some sort of self-defense mode or did he have a gun pointed at his head. The witness accounts are stating that the man, who was killed by Bryant, was "hanging on for dear life" and that "the driver appeared to be out of his mind". Bryant was also heard by witnesses to be screaming and yelling at the now deceased man while pummelling him into stationery objects with the car that the man was hanging onto.
NONE of that sounds like self-defense in anyone's mind. It's an aggressive rage. It's psychotic!
How can we pass judgment and still claim the high moral ground?
PFFFT! You're kidding right? What reality is this? I love this "we weren't there" nonsense. Imagine if the police had that attitude? "I wasn't there. Investigation done. You're free to go Mr. Bryant."
Plenty WERE there! How is that you and others are missing that part? There were witnesses! Read of or watch their accounts. They're easy to find. I've posted links to some of them here.
By your logic, let's just sit back like sheep and be complacent, apathetic and wait for what the outcome without demanding answers when the answers are obvious.
You should be mad and mad as hell. Anytime that a cyclist is killed on Toronto streets the politicos always wash their hands of it. What will your tone be when this politico, who murdered a fellow citizen on your streets, walks?
What was Bryant's blood alcohol level? I would very much like to know.
It's a sad, sad story, but other than the fact that the victim was on a bike, I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with cycling.
Umm, the now deceased man was on a bike(?) when the altercation started.
Perhaps that will become clearer as the investigation continues. But, from what I've read so far, it sounds like it had a lot more to do with overactive testosterone than any other factor.
Or how about this to add to that? The cyclist, after being hit, wants the driver to make restitution, comes around to the driver's side of the car to get him to pay up. He slams his backpack on the hood of the car to get him to stop (I've kicked cars that have hit me). The driver says, "screw-you" and takes off. The cyclist hangs onto the door, expecting that anyone noticing him clinging there would stop. But the driver doesn't stop, instead the driver tries to wipe the cyclist out by bashing him into light standards and mailboxes.
This is my clue that the driver is the perp here. Even in the heat of an argument, if you try to drive off, and the cyclist clings to your door, you yield, stop, and try using discussion to solve the situation--not murdering another using your vehicle as the end solution.
But we'll never know. Bryant can only dispute witness accounts. He killed the other man that could have told us as to what happened.
It's horrible, truly horrible. But, to me, it goes far beyond cyling and touches on a what sometimes seems like a growing lack of civility in this city. Civility is what keeps cities working -- it's what binds us together.
Put another way -- I don't like living in a city where people feel justified killing each other over a traffic incident.
Moreover, all the bike lanes in the world won't protect any of us on bike in a city where civility in on the decline.
You're right. Lanes will not protect us from the animals on the road. I have noticed that civility, common sense and common courtesy have gone out the window in this city.
Memorial gathering for Al tomorrow(Wednesday) at 5 pm. Meet at bay and bloor ride to avenue and bloor. Lay down bikes. 5 minutes of silence.
Another cyclist wiped off our streets. This time it's too big a perp to ignore.
Watching CP24. A press conference is being set up. I'm disgusted as it's speculated that Bryant will be going home and that charges are still not going to be laid! They're also saying that his wife was in the car(?). I haven't read anything from witnessess about a passenger. CP24 is great at speculation and not much more.
If that were you and I, that would not be happening. We wouldn't be going home. You know the "janitors" are in there, a la 'Micheal Clayton', taking care of the media spin and the political damage. I'd bet all that I'm worth that Bryant was drinking. But we'll never be told that.
Forces greater than us will bury 33 year old Darcy Allen Sheppard's death. Who was a bike courier.
I'm most curious about this - *Police said several 911 calls were made during the incident. One call came from the driver of the vehicle. *
Timing please. Was the call made after Bryant killed the man and sat at the Hyatt?
What the cops are saying.....
*“From that point in time (9:45 pm), the driver attempted to maneuver his car around the bicycle that was lying in the middle of the road,” said Sgt. Tim Burrows of the traffic services unit.
“The victim ended up literally jumping on the side of the car. The car travelled about 100 metres down Bloor Street westbound. During that time the cyclist...fell off the side of the car and received some fairly significant injuries which led to his death*.”
This is pure and blatant murder! Fleeing the scene, driving on the wrong side, damaging the bike initially and then driving away. MURDER people! If Bryant isn't charged, we have no justice in this society.
Press Conference is starting.....
Michael Bryant is talking...
Offers deepest condolences. Thanks his supporters. Asks media to respect his and his family's privacy. (10 seconds and leaves)
Cops now....
Saying the cyclist grabbed hold of the vehicle (NOT the driver). Bryant IS charged with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death.
(I missed the court date info). He is being released with conditions. Cops not saying what conditions are. They are saying he was not under the influence of alcohol 'whatsoever'.
Back to CP24 talking head....
We just heard from Const. blah, blah and an emotional(?) Micheal Bryant.
Emotional, eh? If Bryant's appearance on TV was emotional, Hannibal Lechter is a Sunday School teacher.
Bryant's appearance was orchestrated by a "communications firm" that has already handed out a hard copy of Bryant's 10 second statement. So there is already 'spin control' in effect.
I'll be there! I hope that the crowd of cyclists will be massive enough to choke the area. 'Al's' death seems to be getting the whitewash from the media. He's barely being mentioned, if at all.
Here is a pic of Darcy Allen Sheppard, who is NOT being talked about and only being referred to as the 'cyclist'. Putting a face to the nameless changes everything. Too bad I never met this guy.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Darcy-Allan-Sheppard/130774...
Bryant's been charged, but the true test of justice is when and if those charges stick and we get a conviction and Bryant does some serious time.
3 hurdles.
I'm hoping that he is convicted. But as far as doing time. Not so sure. The bastard will probably be under house arrest or get probation.
From what I've read, it sounds like this mess started with a relatively minor collision, and escalated after the fact. That guy who lost a leg last year was in a similar predicament. The problem is that we are constantly put into conflict with drivers, because we are not accomodated in public space. And when we're hit, blame is all too often assigned to the cyclist, not to aggressive drivers or to shitty road design. Even cyclists like some of the posters here would like to believe that this is the victim's fault, and that they, with their wonderfully mannered pedaling, are immune to this kind of thing. It's not true - streets like Bloor are extremely dangerous for us.
Please God let this lead to some kind of improved infrastructure for bikes so we don't have to deal with public spaces that endanger us. We deserve more from our city.
Isn't it high-time to push the city to install bike lanes on Bloor?
Yes! And don't use paint! I want a goddamn cement barrier!
just heard about this today and it has me in a bad mood.
i've seen a few news accounts of what happened and am very disappointed in the way the story is being framed. After reading the first account i was somewhat inclined to side with those sympathetic to both parties involved. The story that comes out is that a cyclist was involved in an altercation with a motorist, the motorist attempted to the leave the scene with with only the intent on getting away from the confrontation, but in an attempt to bring retribution the cyclist clung onto the the automobile which unfortunately led to the tragic accident which was equally caused by both the car driving away and the cyclist choosing to hold onto the car. truly there two victims to this sad story.
unfortunately this isn't consistent with what eyewitnesses reported. No, i wasn't there but going from eyewitness accounts the story given by the press is omitting some key details.
there was some kind of collision between the cyclist and motorist before the crazy stuff took place. both parties are required to stay on the scene. what we know is that the cyclist moved to the driver's side of the car and had his hand on the seat. a question to ask here is was this an act of aggression or was it just an attempt to prevent the motorist from fleeing the scene (either way, it's worth noting, it no way excuses what followed). i'm inclined to guess it was probably the latter. if i were going to hit someone i wouldn't be holding the seat. i can't say for sure but it seems most plausible that the cyclist was depending on the sanity of the motorist to not want to escalate the the situation into a hit and run or endangerment and wait on the scene to sort out the first collision.
according the eyewitnesses what happened next was the car sped off on the wrong side of the road (thus turning into the cyclist) at speeds that were guessed to be at around 90km/h. the car swerved onto the sidewalk in an attempt to run the cyclist into a mailbox and other objects all the while the motorist screaming at the cyclist. After a short while the motorist does succeed in losing the cyclist and pulls into a nearby hotel to call 911.
it will be said the the cyclist putting his hand on the driver's seat is what provoked the the incident. it probably wasn't a good idea but in no way did it excuse what followed. even if it was seen as aggressive behavior (which i'm not convinced it was) there was no need for the motorist to assault the cyclist with his vehicle. all he had to do to prevent any kind of violent consequences is roll away slowly (again, this is assuming he was threatened by the cyclist, which seems unlikely) and phoning police to resolve the incident. a cyclist is no threat to a motorist moving at any speed so to claim that the motorist did what he did out of self-defense is absolute non-sense. what we have instead is a motorist who at speeds estimated at 90km/h tries to run a cyclist, who eyewitnesses claim was hanging on for dear life, along the wrong side of the road and into objects on the sidewalk.
That's murder. There's no other way to see it. Unfortunately in cases with public figures like this public opinion can play a role in the discourse that follows. this is why it's so disturbing to see the media playing the 'two victims' story.
while i'm purging my worthless opinions i could also point out that i'm a little disappointed with the CP24 interview. The ARC does a lot of great work for cyclists in Toronto and i respect the work they do. However, when tragic events like this give a brief window to be heard in the mainstream media it's an opportunity to assert the rights of cyclists. the fact the the interview was little more than an replay of the 'two victims' story already put forth with the advice for preventing situations like this in the future that everyone should drink less coffee and have calming tea instead, i just saw it as a wasted opportunity to vehemently advocate for the rights of cyclists.
i'll try to make the memorial ride.
Look, cyclists need to be accomodated, laws written to protect them need to be enforced. The more cyclists behave like anarchists the longer it is going to take to have societal norms abhor their mistreatment by drivers armed with cars.
I am a law-breaker. I am so as a pedestrian, as a driver and as a cyclist. I am not (even close to being) alone as a law-breaker. Militancy by cyclists is unlikely to acheive as much for us as reason and our numbers.
There will be a lot of people who feel cyclists deserve endangerment if some cyclists call for inconveniencing and harassment of motorized vehicles. Our safety is as just a cause as any. Militancy tends to cheapen it.
...and now that I think of it even further. Install the barriers or paint lines, if you will, and reduce Bloor to one lane in either direction from Jarvis to Christie. There is a subway right underneath it. There are far more pedestrians and bikes than cars anyway. So there can't be any grief from business owners along that stretch about lost business. We're years behind European cities anyway when it comes to prioritizing bike and pedestrians over cars. Time for us to play 'catch up'. Oh, and can I please get the same thing in my neighbourhood on Queens Quay from Spadina to Yonge?! It's brutal down here.
what we know is that the cyclist moved to the driver's side of the car and had his hand on the seat. a question to ask here is was this an act of aggression or was it just an attempt to prevent the motorist from fleeing the scene (either way, it's worth noting, it no way excuses what followed). i'm inclined to guess it was probably the latter. if i were going to hit someone i wouldn't be holding the seat.
Whoa. Wait a sec. First you stated that he had his hand on the seat, then you imply that he was holding it. Which is it? Also know that the convertible top was down on the car last night, making it quite easy to place a hand (to rest oneself) on if you had to do so.
Besides, during this afternoon press conference, there was no mention by police that any part of Darcy's body was inside of the car.
I don't know why this discussion is surrounding touching seats or headrests. That's B.S. and is in no way any reason to kill someone (which you did state).
what we have instead is a motorist who at speeds estimated at 90km/h tries to run a cyclist, who eyewitnesses claim was hanging on for dear life, along the wrong side of the road and into objects on the sidewalk.
That's murder. There's no other way to see it. Unfortunately in cases with public figures like this public opinion can play a role in the discourse that follows. this is why it's so disturbing to see the media playing the 'two victims' story.
And so many are swallowing that pablum and are regurgitating that rhetoric. There was only one victim in this and it was Darcy. As far as what you are seeing on CP24, that is the media spin that is being generated and is meant to propagandize and brainwash the masses to feel sorry for Bryant, as though he were the victim. Michael had a 'bad day' and made a 'bad decision' and now he has to live with it. BULLS**T!
CP24 keeps rolling Bryant's statement with the added tag, "An obviously emotional Michael Bryant....." LOL. What a crock. He was looking mighty composed for a somone who just killed someone.
Look, cyclists need to be accomodated, laws written to protect them need to be enforced.
And that process is moving at a glacial pace. Billions would rather be given to now bankrupt automakers than have a few lousy lines painted on asphalt.
The more cyclists behave like anarchists the longer it is going to take to have societal norms abhor their mistreatment by drivers armed with cars.
And the last I checked, Darcy's murderer used one to kill him with it. Societal norms? People would sell their children if it meant they could keep their cable TV or cellphone. As long as the space around them is a car, you can't invade the space around that. Drivers are 'militant' to other drivers on that very same aspect. It's why you see them cut each other off when one wants to get into a lane. Bikes, to those people, are like gnats and they only want to swat us. They were like that before and they won't change now.
There will be a lot of people who feel cyclists deserve endangerment if some cyclists call for inconveniencing and harassment of motorized vehicles.
And the police and the laws will deal with them when they (continue) to step out of line. Also, when did motorized vehicles become so far more important than all else that those objects cannot be inconvenienced or harrassed?
Our safety is as just a cause as any. Militancy tends to cheapen it.
Really? Don't tell that to labour unions, women's right movements, human rights movements, et al.
Sometimes when processes are too slow and when we do become targets, then it is time to act.
*I am a law-breaker. I am so as a pedestrian, as a driver and as a cyclist. I am not (even close to being) alone as a law-breaker. *
You're right. I too, am an admitted breaker of draconian laws.
Militancy by cyclists is unlikely to acheive as much for us as reason and our numbers.
We do that now. And they still ignore us. This time that ignorance was met with blatant murder. I'm very tired of pacifism. it's time to act.
C(rappy) P(ap) 24 reported that the passenger in the car WAS his wife. You're only the second source I've heard surrounding a passenger being in the car.
From what I can gather he was having words with the driver for some reason we may never really be clear on. Then all hell broke loose. It simply does not matter what brought us to the point the driver started to try to 'shake' the cyclist off the car. The fact Bryant trains as a boxer and could have oh-so-easily popped this guy off the car with next to no effort but he did what he chose to do say alot. More drivers need to be brought to task regarding what they do behind the wheels of their killing machines.
As a former messenger myself I have been party to motorized attempts on my life as well. Drivers REALLY hate it when you point their actions that came close to wiping someone out. I'm suspicious this is type of conversation they were having before B lost his nut and killed Darcy. It's not like Bryant isn't classic a classic alpha dog. Although, it took him turning the corner at Avenue, heading towards home before he realized he was a human being and called it in.
Go see how long it is between Bay and Avenue, then try to picture Darcy's last moments, at the whim of this sociopath.
See you at the memorial.
Can't make it one sided. I'm a full time bike commuter and I see as many idiots on 4 wheels as i see on two wheels. Every day i see cyclists on major roads going the wrong way, frequently talking on cell phones.
It's not exactly the commuter demographic, but they are still cyclists.
There's tons of room for all of us out there.
Being able to share the existing space is the solution.
You can't just build a bike lane wherever, at some point you need to share the lane.
25+ plus years of doing it almost 365 days a year, never been hit. BUT I also don't the way 'they' tell you. Stick to the right, hide and cower. BS, I ride like I own the damned road, just like these wankers drive, and you know what...it works..
It's quite possible that the reported young lady in the Car is a reason he didn't want to stay at the small accident scene and escalated it. IT was certainly after work hours and as mentioned he is a married man. No conclusions can be drawn from this, but it's a plausible motive.
A car banged a bike on a roadway in Central Park, the hit put the cyclist on the hood of the car and the driver was so pissed about it all he sped away for blocks with the cyclist clinging for dear life to the car. Who knows what happened here, but it's not clear to me why people are blaming the victim for hanging onto the car - it may well have been involuntary, or the only reasonable alternative.
http://gawker.com/5340130/the-victim-of-the-fox-news-centr...
I just moved here from NYC and man, compared to NYC, TO sucks for bikes. Once I get up the nerve I'll be commuting to Markham, straight up an avenue that has no shoulder and no option for a car except to wait for an opening in the left lane to pass me. I'm guessing that will make some people unhappy.
Claiming the lane works surprisingly well.
*Our safety is as just a cause as any. Militancy tends to cheapen it.
Really? Don't tell that to labour unions, women's right movements, human rights movements, et al.*
Actually, the movements have tended to acheive more by highlighting what is right and just than by acting out. My examples would include actions supported by Ghandi, ML King, TC Douglas et al. The Winnipeg strike didn't force in universal healthcare, diplomacy did.
The recent backlash against (what I consider to be just) Tamil demostrations underscore that alienating the public is easy. In the same way that a plane crash does, this criminal action taken by Mr. Bryant (and it's tragic outcome) presents an opportunity to raise driver awareness of the rights of cyclists.
Clenching fists and blocking streets will TEND to squander that opportunity.
"I have noticed that civility, common sense and common courtesy have gone out the window in this city."
Say that again twice while maintaining your militant rhetoric.
Most of us are very careful when it comes to cyclists. As drivers and pedestrians. We all have to share the road and must make efforts to do so.
Unfortunately, this doesn't happen all the time. We have cars in confrontation with cyclists, cyclists in confrontation with pedestrians. And we also have cars in confrontations with pedestrians.
I should have a motivation to see Bryant thrown under the bus as I am a die-hard conservative and hate all things Liberal or NDP. But even I will refrain from throwing the book at him as he should be going before the courts. The law must take its course and even Bryant is granted, as a citizen of our city, the right to a trial. We should not prejudge him, nor should we prejudge Sheppard as well.
I'll close this off with one note: a woman was killed last month in a collision with a cyclist. The cyclist was not charged in her death, even though he was riding his bike on the sidewalk (yes, he was technically breaking the law). Why are there no howls for this guy to face the chopper anyway? Simply because he is a cyclist? Is it because of the pedestrian's fault?
In any case, like all cases, let us not prejudge so quickly.
You say we should follow the teaching of Ghandi, but that is exactly what we are doing.
If you think blocking a road is militant what exactly would you call the Salt March? Thousands of people blocking a 500km road for nearly a month? I don't think they had a permit.
We need to utilize this momentum and have bike lanes installed on Bloor!
hood ornament.
http://sockpuppet.ca/xray
*“From that point in time (9:45 pm), the driver attempted to maneuver his car around the bicycle that was lying in the middle of the road,” said Sgt. Tim Burrows of the traffic services unit.
“The victim ended up literally jumping on the side of the car. The car travelled about 100 metres down Bloor Street westbound. During that time the cyclist...fell off the side of the car and received some fairly significant injuries which led to his death*.”
From a source who talked to a construction worker that was witness, this is washing out the details.
I will be interested to see what the media will be allowed to say in the following days.
tolerating sociopaths like the former AG on OUR roads is a problem. Privilege is not a defense to commit murder. Contrary to what some legal "experts" (hello Patrick Brown) may tell you, you do not have an obligation to die quietly under the wheels of a homicidal maniac.
you could do the same on Queen West considering there is a 4 lane one way in each direction just south of Queen.
.......... and why does TO not have a no car street?
About the accident: Michael Bryant car speeding on the left side curb with Darcy Allen Sheppard being dragged on the driver side. What else do you want to know? Why was Bryant driving on the left curb brushing on trees? To kill Darcy Allen Sheppard.
Now the idiots riding bikes are calling for the bike lanes on every street no matter that they are empty 80%of the time in summer and 99% of the time in the winter. Other idiots driving cars are saying that cyclists should not be on the road unless on a bike lane.
Welcome to Toronto.
I ride a bike 300+km a week mostly on the street. From the drivers I expect only that they pass me from a safe distance. And yes I ride in a middle of a traffic lane if there is not enough room for me to ride safely and a car to pass me. Otherwise somebody is going to try to sneak his 2 tons SUV 3 cm from my left elbow.
Jane Creba, handgun.
Darcy Allen Sheppard, automobile.
Both slaughtered infront of hundreds of Torontonians downtown in our "safest" and supposedly most pleasant areas.
Toronto Police, you need to serve justice in this case or you will become a complete mockery in the eyes of cyclists.
Toronto City Council, stop dithering and step-up placing bike-lanes on the dangerous streets(bloor), how many more incidents are you going to allow your shitty street designs to precipitate?
We need your help - don't let the minority road users be abused.
I see too many cyclists getting in the way of other road users and the natural flow of traffic. Many are not working in sync with motorized vehicles. Where's the eye contact? Where are the shoulder checks? Let's try our best to respect motorized vehicles, and then maybe we'd get more respect in return. Most car drivers respect me as a cyclist... because I make eye contact and signal.
The Ontario Highway Traffic Act is the problem. If it gave cyclists more protection when attempting to take the lane and started ticketing cars who follow cyclists too close and refuse to change lanes to pass, then situations like this would rarely happen because the cyclist has his metre width of space around him like is "envisioned" and "recommended" by the MTO. Try that now and you will be honked at, tailgated dangerously, and "pushed" off to the side by taxis who think it is funny to cut off cyclists.
I'm not a messenger, and I don't know messenger culture. But if it were me that had been run down, I would want my mourners to seize the brief opportunity presented by this tragedy, use the fleeting 15 minutes of fame to show the city (and country) something symbolic and sympathetic.
Laying your bikes down across the streetc is symbolic, but it doesn't evoke sympathy in non-cyclists and it gets only a pedestrian audience (since as usual drivers see only the bumper of the car in front of them).
If it were me, I'd want my mourners lining the curb lanes on either side, shoulder to shoulder, spending 5 minutes of silence staring down the rush-hour drivers as they creep through in shame.
That would be an image for the ages.
But, I'm not a messenger, and it's not my business.
Bryant's public relations firm will be quite happy to be free to push the 'crazy messengers want to attack you' angle un-hindered.
The cyclist was a teenager, and the wheels of his bike were small enough to be legal to ride on the sidewalk in Toronto. Technicalities, but a rhetorical question deserves a serious answer.
Personally I'd rather wait until all the facts become clear over time (as in at the trial) to pass definitive judgement. But I'm bothered by the kneejerk reaction of the cycling community to describe this as a case of homicidal driver rage with no second thoughts about the action of the cyclist. There is more than enough reason here to have reasonable doubts about the actions of both driver and cyclist. To those who say the cyclist was hanging on for dear life, end of story. Well why was he hanging on to the side of the car in the first place? Who does that? From my experience on the roads, bicycle couriers are an angry, in-your-face lot, so it's not hard to imagine a situation where angered by what was initially a minor collision, the cyclist aggressively came along side hanging on the side of the car to tell off the driver. Now if I'm an average non-physical joe sitting exposed in a convertible of all things with my wife beside me and an irate, intimidating courier suddenly in my face hanging on to my car, I'm the one who's going to be feeling afraid for my safety and the safety of my wife. Why did the driver start driving and not just get out of the car? Getting out the car would be the last thing I'd want to do with an angry guy who's liable to get physical! Sure there were plenty of people around, but who helps anyone these days is the sad reality all too often. So maybe he started driving a bit to scare the cyclist into letting go. Stopping at this point, it seems to me a case of two wrongs, with the cyclist possibly getting aggressive (instead of just taking the car's licence number down as a sensible person would do) and the driver getting probably a combination of fear and rage and driving away, when he ought to have just not moved the vehicle despite the potential threat from the angry cyclist. And by that point it probably all deteriorated into an emotional, adrenaline-fuelled response. But frankly at this point, I can empathize with the driver, as there are too many nuts out there and when someone's making an aggressive move (holding on to the side of your car for god sakes!), my first instinct would be to just try to get myself and my wife away from that dangerous situation. I'll wait and see how the facts play out to really pass judgement, but at this point unless the cyclist was physically stuck to the car due to the initial collision, then he had no business aggressively grabbing on to the car and ought to carry ultimate responsibility for initiating this unfortunate escalation of the situation, regardless of who was at fault for the initial collision, which may very well have been the cyclist's fault as well, who knows. Let's see what the facts are. As for bike courriers, yes we get, it's hard to ride a bike on Toronto's streets and that's a travesty, but reckless aggressiveness towards drivers isn't the solution either.
let me start off by saying that 'we' (cyclist) ARE TRAFFIC TOO! yes i agree for there are some cyclist that do not follow all the rules of the road... but as a avid cyclist i try. and in that i will say that the safest way to travel as a cyclist is to take a lane. For morning rush hour in which i travel monday thru fri, i take a lane! it is safer to do so then to hug the curb. the horns are getting lesser as i have had words with several who have tried to run me off the road.
but in this case as i often find myself saying there is NO REASON what so ever for a car/truck/suv of any size to push someone around on a bicycle! there is just no common sense in that!!! at all...
yes i agree about respect. but however you must dish it to receive it... and p.s. i am a car driver as well... so i know both sides, but really look at the sizes of vehicles and how fast they travel. people are in too much of a hurry these days( motor vehicles) and we (cyclist) need tougher laws to protect us. i know for a fact that some drivers behind the wheel think they own the road, and well i hate to burst their bubbles, but i have a family to feed and to come home to and a job as well. and i don't think that a lot of car drivers think that about those who have made a conscious decision to ride to work instead of commuting.
so lets start off by educating one another both as cyclist and as car drivers.
oh!
and p.s.s. whistles work way better then bells...
cheers
About the accident: Michael Bryant car speeding on the left side curb with Darcy Allen Sheppard being dragged on the driver side. What else do you want to know? Why was Bryant driving on the left curb brushing on trees? To kill Darcy Allen Sheppard.
Now the idiots riding bikes are calling for the bike lanes on every street no matter that they are empty 80%of the time in summer and 99% of the time in the winter. Other idiots driving cars are saying that cyclists should not be on the road unless on a bike lane.
Welcome to Toronto.
I ride a bike 300+km a week mostly on the street. From the drivers I expect only that they pass me from a safe distance. And yes I ride in a middle of a traffic lane if there is not enough room for me to ride safely and a car to pass me. Otherwise somebody is going to try to sneak his 2 tons SUV 3 cm from my left elbow.
Crazy, drunk, girlfriend beating bike messenger. Cited here in the first paragraph
To what extent does this play into the incident? None so far... but that doesn't stop Globe and Mail.
An all too familiar motorist behavior in Canada.
Author doesn't bother describe the look or emotion in Darcy's face as he lay dying in the street where Bryant let him.
There are shades of dehumanizing the victim here, for one he was possibly abusive to his girlfriend and had drank alcohol earlier, he is only described as a dying object in the streets and is alluded to as crazy.
Sooo unfair for Bryant's political career and persecuted motorists everywhere... barf
He should go to jail.
Or be required to be leashed and muzzled at all times when in public.
That's exactly my point.
It was indeed a technicality that meant that the teen was not charged. In fact, it was one of those type of bikes that kids use in stunt biking.
But no one else (other than the family of the victim) is asking for the teen's head on a platter.
The law hath spoken in that case. Which is why I want to wait for the law to speak in this case before we go throwing Mr. Bryant under the bus. Let us figure out what happened first before judging.
Society's reaction to this will either help us or hinder us. Let it not be the latter.
The HTA already gives you the right to take the lane for safety and requires drivers to pass safely. The issue here is enforcement, not the law itself (though a mandatory 3' passing law might not be a bad addition - IF it actually is enforced at least occasionally).
Yes, in a perfect world you report that a driver has hit you while riding your bike and the police deal with it as two vehicles colliding under the HTA but that is NOT the case. As a former daily cycle commuter in the CIty of SMOG (Toronto) and have numerous examples of how the City of TO Police are just not willing to bother filling out a report at the scene. It is left up to the cyclist to suck up the fact that they have been hit or partially run-over (minor stuff here but that is not the point) and get themselves over to 52 division in order to fill out a report. I did this twice because the officers in the immediate area where the collisions occured didn't deem it worthy of thier time to fill out a report. You can guess how I reacted in future minor collisions.
This cyclist most likely had similar experiences and probably felt that the only justice he was going to get was there and then. It is left up to cyclists to inform drivers when they have over-stepped or invaded a cyclists safety/comfort zone. I understand this cyclist's frustration and am horrified at the result. I hope this driver doesn't walk.
One of the video news clips linked to somewhere here/above mentions that police were at Darcy's home a few hours before the murder... that Darcy was reported as "drinking"... or "drunk"... Anybody else catch that? No excuse for the homicide by auto but it'll come up in the trial I suspect...
With what has been reported so far, a few things strike me.
First -- it sounds like each party had several opportunities to either walk away ... or at least not escalate this situation. Both seem to have chosen to up the ante.
Second -- If this really started over a failure to move, a honked horn and some shouting -- I am even more revolted than I already was.
Third -- this is turning into yet another car vs. bike story. But, it really was a person vs. person story. It could have just as easily been two motorists, or a pedestrian and a cyclist (there was a viral video of just such an altercation that didn't end in death, but was pretty unsettling -- the cyclist ended up pounding an irate and somewhat agressive pedestrian with a U-lock).
Two people chose to engage in a bloody battle over something that can't possibly have been worth fighting -- and dying - for.
For sure -- improve cycling infrastructure. But, if we as road users choose to act like animals, the results will almost always been this sad ... and this sickening.
This cyclist brought upon himself. I feel more sympathy for Michael Bryant then this bike courier. These couriers are a menace who never follow the traffic laws and think they can do whatever they want. He attacked Bryant and I would have done the same thing to try to get away from that lunatic.
All the best to Michael Bryant and his family.
only (since I respect the obligation not to comment on a specific matter before the courts), I cannot allow the argument that someone felt "intimidated" by a person they hit to prevail. If we allow that argument, then we might as well repeal outright the laws on hit and run. If you hit someone with your car, you have an obligation to stick around and make sure nobody has suffered an injury. And that duty applies in all circumstances, because even people other than "bike couriers" have an emotional reaction to getting hit with a two-tonne bomb. Good drivers avoid hitting cyclists, pedestrians, and other motorists, and they stick around if they do. If we allow citizens to plead fear as an excuse to shirk their responsibilities, we might as well not have laws in the first place.
John G. Spragge
Mariner, cyclist, pilot
To: InSupportofBryant
"I would have done the same thing to try to get away from that lunatic"
I sincerely hope that you are never permitted to drive a car or carry any sort of weapon.
We will only ever hear one side of this story because the victim is dead. From what we can piece together, there was a collision of some sort. It escalated. Darcy attached himself to Bryant's car. There is no indication that Darcy had any sort of a weapon. Bryant had no sanctuary as it was a convertible. He may have been trapped, I will agree with that. But he did have boxing training (i.e is not a fragile little old lady) and a cell phone to call 911. And a companion with a cell phone to call 911.
By agreeing with his actions you are suggesting is that is is OK to use DEADLY force to protect yourself from someone threatening you with a fist. A car is a weapon every bit as much as a gun is. If he had pulled a gun from under the seat and shot Darcy would you feel the same? If so, perhaps you should move to live in violent harmony with our neighbours to the south. (NB and Darcy would much more likely have survived a gunshot wound than the pummeling he got from the car)
I would never blame the victim in this case. Certainly he showed poor judgment, but showing poor judgment in no way justifies homicide. Bryant also showed poor judgment. But he is not dead or physically injured. And it seems unlikely he would have been dead at the end of a physical altercation with Darcy. But instead of meeting fist with fist (or fleeing on foot) he chose to use a weapon. A car.
We do not know what the original altercation was. We cannot assign blame for it to Darcy simply because he was a cycle courier any more than we can assign blame to Bryant because he was driving a car. That is unfair to both of them.
This is a cycling advocacy issue, not because of the original collision, but simply because people take cars so for granted as transportation that they fail to perceive them as dangerous. And revving the engine to get me out of the way or pulling out in front of me when I'm on my bike because I'm more vulnerable and will give way, is every bit as much a threat as if you'd waved a gun at me. Drivers need to realize that.
My heart goes out to Darcy's friends and family.
If Mr. Bryant had done to Mr. Sheppard the exact same thing under the exact same circumstances using a baseball bat or gun instead of a car he would be charged with murder. Yes cars can be, and are, used as weapons. How many motorists use their vehicle to intimidate pedestrians every day? I do not believe that motorists are really being held accountable.
Sunnyside1 says "This is a cycling advocacy issue, not because of the original collision, but simply because people take cars so for granted as transportation that they fail to perceive them as dangerous. And revving the engine to get me out of the way or pulling out in front of me when I'm on my bike because I'm more vulnerable and will give way, is every bit as much a threat as if you'd waved a gun at me. Drivers need to realize that."
Earlier I posted that I saw this as more of an issue of civility than cycling -- part of a wider issue -- but I do think Sunnyside1 raises a valid point ... something I've experienced many times first hand.
As a cyclist, I've experienced my own 'reptilian brain' response to having my life threatened by something a big and heavy as a car or truck. I don't think non-cyclists realize what that feels like and how critical that our often big response (yelling, screaming, angry) is to grabbing a motorist's attention in the few nanoseconds before they actually run into you.
I'm sure from their perspective, it seems unreasonable. A minutes inattention and suddenly some dude in tights is yelling and swearing at you.
Almost every other mode of transporation has vehicles of vastly different sizes sharing space -- sailboats and supertankers; Cessna's and 747s. The cardinal rule there seems to be that the smaller vehicle has the right of way or the two-sized vehicles are prohibited from getting anywhere near each other.
We already do the latter -- I can't ride my bike on 400-series highways. Perhaps it is high time that the we recognize -- and practice -- the former principle on our city streets.
Michael Bryant fell into such a rage driving 90 km/hr down the opposite side of the road to dislodge the cyclist. He could have had a head on collision and potentially endangered nearby pedestrians. Sparks could be seen flying off the shoes of the cyclist as he was dragged down the street. Bryant drove over the backs of the cyclists legs after flinging him off his car, he was so enraged and out of control. I can't believe he was released from custody. What kind of justice is this.
I would never blame the victim in this case
Seriously?
If you jump on to a moving car, and it is relevant that it is a convertible, as the driver will feel threatened, you take your chances. end of story.
Why have all of you neglected to address the witness statement, his friend and roommate, that he was drunk.
Blame must be laid at the feet of someone who runs down a moving car, and jumps onto the window, grabbing at the headrest or driver's neck.
A man and his wife were out and someone jumps into his convertible car hanging on the side of
Stop and look at this objectively.
Regardless of who started what (and your own witness say Bryant did not hit the bike, rather the bike was blocking him and he yelled at him to move, which enraged the drunk cyclist, who was just thrown out of his friend's apartment and too drunk to be let back (eye witness account).
It is so easy to blame the driver and the car, but the drunk upset cyclest attacked here, not the car.
I know it is easy to jump to conclusions, but your friend the cyclest is not an innocent victim of road rage.
I know this will not be popular, but ask yourselves this:
if some pedestrian that was angry with you jumped you will riding your bike.......would you feel threatened or not, would you push him off or just stop to call 911.
Be honest.
This is a horrible tragedy. My deepest condolences to Al's family and friends.
I hope justice is served (i.e. Bryant gets double digits in jail)...I fear, however, that it will not. The media is already spinning the story as some "lowlife" attacking a harvard-educated public servant with a brilliant record. Bryant's connections will take care of the criminal courts and the media has taken it upon themselves to take care of the court of public opinion. A killer is being painted as the victim. Disgusting.
If Bryant gets off easy our government will, yet again, fail us all and Canada will lose any credibility in its moralizing on the world stage. First they show that as citizens we can not count on their protection and aid abroad (the recent Kenya case) and now they are about to make it obvious that the same goes for when we are on our own soil. One tragedy is about to be followed up by another one.
We're all living in an Animal Farm.
Nice objectivity................Animal Farm, what happened to Innocent until proven guilty.
Media is not spinning.
Fact is a drunk bicylclist jumped on a moving car attacking the driver. Your criticism is how the driver responded when someone was on him and his wife in an open car.
By the way, don't lose sight of the spin that he did not flee the scene, he pulled over 100 meters away and called 911
Animal farm is how you have convicted him.
How would you respond if I was drunk and angry and jumped you while you were on your bike because I was angry at how you were riding.
Be honest with your response, would you simply stop and call 911 and wait until the police came
To: Fact Checker
Yes, it was a convertible. Yes, no sanctuary. I agree.
I do not know (nor do you) if Bryant was even touched by Darcy.
But he was on the car so clearly there was a physical assault against Bryant/his vehicle threatened or in progress.
Perhaps I mis-phrased "I would never blame the victim". What I meant was that I would NEVER say the victim got what he deserved. Are you suggesting we introduce a death penalty for assault. Or destruction of property?
Nothing that Darcy did (as far as the facts available to the public) justifies LETHAL force.
Stop and look at this objectively.
Driving at high speed with someone dangling off the car, and deliberately hitting them onto street furniture is in no way a JUSTIFIABLE response to a threatened physical assault.
If Bryant had SHOT Darcy, I think your opinion would be very, very different.
Mine wouldn't.
I'm reminded of former Quebec premier Rene Levesque. While driving drunk, he ran over and killed a man. Did he go to jail for a long time? No!
Mr. Bryant isn't even in jail right now. Unlike Igor Kenk, who didn't actually kill anyone, but is still in jail before his trial.
We are all at risk of Mr. Bryant killing someone else before his trial. I believe that the decision to grant bail to him was very, very wrong.
I see that Mr. Bryant has already hired a PR firm. Why do I see this whole thing being whitewashed? Just like Mr. Levesque, he will have killed a man without consequences.
Here we go again. I really hope that we are not going to see more of a devide between cyclist and motorists, we don't need a war we need the city to fix our streets and motorists to see us and have respect for us.
This following article was about an incident only yesterday, same area, except no witnesses and the article says nothing about the truck remaining at the scene.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2...
You may choose to ignore the facts, but here is the quote from his friend:
On Monday night, he showed up at the rundown building near Jarvis and Gerrard Sts. After eight days of sobriety, he had been drinking. Police said they were called. When officers arrived shortly after 9 p.m., they told Sheppard, 33, to leave and not come back.
"He had a relapse," said Jordana Maxwell, who also lives at the apartment. "He came to us, because we're his family. I said, 'Let him come back upstairs.' The officer said, 'No, he needs to go home.'* I said, 'He can't make it home, he's intoxicated. He cannot ride a bike.'
*
Don't run down and jump onto a moving car threatening the driver and be surpised the driver will respond by being scared. If I chased you down, you too would be scared and then jumped onto you.
He is the author of his own misfortune. NO one wishes it happened, but he is no innocent victim. He could have called the police and reported the incident.
No, he was drunk and ran down the car and jumped on it.
Intoxication affects judgement. His got him killed.
No one expects Bryant to stop the car and call 911 while some crazy is running and jumping onto an open convertible.
Be objective and sad, but don't convict someone first. By the way, negligent driving causing death, is manslaughter, Look it up before you criticise the system.
Exactly. In that situation, your first thought is to get yourself out of harm's way - ie, away from the lunatic who's jumped on to the side of your car. As for the cyclist, if he's the one that put himself in harm's way then that changes just how much of a victim he is, regardless of the ultimate outcome.
Anyway, this is all conjecture, but clearly the cyclist is not innocent in all of this - unless the initial collision left him physically stuck to the side of the car. Anything else and he dangerously escalated it. One wonders if he would have been charged had he survived.
Well said.
Comparing it to a gun or bat is nonsensical..
Thank you. I've seen the hostility some bike courriers show towards drivers and it's already scary, then throw in that it's an alcoholic who's fallen off the wagon, that's it's nightime, that he's hanging off the side of your car and you're in a convertible. Who wouldn't be scared out of their mind by this? All I'd be thinking would be trying to get this guy off my car so I can get to safety. While stopping the car would be logical in a normal situation, that doesn't work here when you're trying to get away from a potential maniac - sure, stop the car, get out, so he can assault you and your wife. No way. From what we know so far, i can easily empathize with Bryant for losing it, I'd have been scared out of my mind too. The cyclist did not deserve to die, but if he initiated the aggression and escalated the collision into a confrontation, then he has to bear the consequences of that - and in this case that led to his death, sadly.
Here's a detailed account apparently of what happened:
How can anyone jump to the cyclist's defence after reading this?
HE's drunk. HE hits the car. HE slams his bag down on the hood. HE chases the car when the driver is just trying to get away from a confrontation. HE grabs on to the side of a moving car, which is madness and threatening.
After reading that, it's the cyclist who was doing the assaulting and the driver who's trying to get away. And once the cyclist is holding on to the car, who knows what's happening - he's distracting the driver to say the least, for all we know he's interfering with the wheel and/or the driver's ability to control the car. Witnesses thought the driver was trying to hit objects to dislodge the cyclist - but maybe that's not how it was, and even if it was, who can blame the driver by that state of affairs.
When you're attacked, you defend yourself, adrenalin kicks in and you fight on instinct. That's probably what happened here. If you attack someone and then get hurt or killed in the aftermath, how is that the fault of the person that you attacked? It shouldn't be.
The driver was celebrating his wedding anniversary and riding with his wife - he surely wasn't looking to get into an altercation, unlike a seemingly drunk cyclist who's just left his ex-girlfriend probably in a bad mood after already having a run-in with the police.
I just feel bad for the driver for having the misfortune of crossing paths with that guy.
My post seems to have lost the link to the story, trying again:
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/689771
You are right on point Jabalong
No one and we mean no one wishes this on anyone.
But to all the cyclists out there, why would you ever think it appropriate in any situation to run after a man and woman in a convertible and jump on their car. What can be more threatening then some angry drunk man apparently trying to get in your car and, according to witnesses, hanging on to the headrest.
If a cyclist is wronged, or even feels he may have been wronged, get the license plate and report it. If you do not like the police's responce, sue the driver civilly.
But to leave the bike, chase down the car in the middle of Bloor street, and attack a car, while intoxicated, jump on it and hang on, cannot cause the driver to stop to discuss. The driver was being attacked.
I cannot imagine anyone not feeling threatened, sitting strapped into a car with someone trying to get in
Bryant did not cause this man to jump on the car and no reasonable person would expect him to stop once being chased and attacked.
Since we have have some people that know he was drunk, because they are working on the autopsy - some pychologists that suggest mounting a curb is reasonable response to someone grabbing onto your open air convertible, and the forensics to determine that a man in a car was within right to do what he felt was right.
Ok - Bryant was charged - responsible by police.
Bryant was an idiot - he escalated this the minute he accelerated instead of reacting like a rationale human.
Sheppard - acted as an idiot - but sufferred at the hands of a calculated man, unjustly.
Bryant didn't want this to go down this way - he knows right from wrong. It was criminal in intention. What about people on the street, other pedestrians?
So my suggestion: there are unreasonable responses from 2 people in an incident here. Bryant had the oppurtunity to significant reaction. He choose this. Risked his life, his wife's, and others around him, aside from Sheppard. He lost. Sheppard lost his life, but Bryant killed his own life - and still has to live it down. In either case, no justice will return this to normal - but to all those saying he was right in action to respond to a crazed cyclist. Yes, he is right. Unfortunately, he choose a bad response. Why not slam the brakes - put top up - but mount curbs and this crap - its criminal - and he cannot undo it. Justice is already on Bryants plate. He lost his future.
A car is a two-tonne bomb, a battering ram capable of punching through most buildings, and a blunt instrument capable of killing or massively injuring a human being. Like a bow and arrow or a hunting rifle, a car may provide an important tool, in some cases a very valuable tool, but if you point it at another human being, you turn it into weapon.
John G. Spragge
Mariner, cyclist, pilot
I wonder if factchecker is a paid hack of this firm.
Michael Bryant has tried tricky things like this before, with his No Gun No Funeral campaign. It is tragic that he has caused a funeral with his car and according to his principles he must never drive a vehicle again.
The police could have charge Bryant with murder instead they took 14 hours to charge him with negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death.
Nothing in the description of the events sounds like mere negligence, the way the victim Darcy Sheppard was killed sounds like culpable homicide. The police made a mistake in not charging him with murder. Sheppard's family, friends, and the few people who are bicycle messengers hopefully will point this out strenuously to the crown prosecutor (brought in from another province) so that the appropriate charge of murder can also be laid against the Michael Bryant.
As well Michael Bryant should have been suspended from his high profile position as head of Toronto's Invest Toronto on Tuesday September 2. Instead David Miller chose to merely offer condolence (as did Bryant) to Darcy Sheppard's family.
Something happened up the road we don't know about.
Ever been turned onto? Ever been parked on? Ever been THAT close to being wiped off the road by some motorist? As former messenger and daily commuter I can say I have, and by the messenger crowd, who ride without fear of cars by virtue of riding with them all day, the response is to get in the drivers' faces as it's the ONLY response that you know will get through to them. The whole slamming the bag on the guy's hood and getting in his face says.. Dude WTF are doing driving like that? THAT is a classic adrenaline/fear response..... and was killed for it. Calling a license in?... please, the officer on the phone won't even write down the number.
Yes he acted like a complete over the top dipshit, does he deserve to be killed? No.
I'll still contend Bryant shoulda/coulda just popped him one. He does train as a boxer after all.
I do indeed feel badly for the children of both these men.
From The Star:
After slamming his bag down on the car, and jawing at each other
According to witnesses, Bryant cut the argument short by pulling away. As he headed westbound on Bloor St.,
*Sheppard chased the car on foot. He grabbed hold of the vehicle on the driver's side. It's not clear if he was trying to get into the car, get at the driver or merely prevent him from leaving...
a witness recalled seeing sparks flying from Sheppard's cycling shoes as he skidded on the road alongside the car
*
Sheppard did not need to chase. It is what got him killed
Both parties have responsibility in this sad story but let's not lose sight of the fact that both (Mr. Bryant included) had many alternatives.
The car did not need to move and experience has demonstrated to me that even a justifiably upset cyclist (I am not saying Mr. Sheppard was justified here) who behaves aggressively invites criticism if not action from passers-by as well as other motorists.
Mr. Bryant is free without bail. That is understandable in that he is highly unlikely to be a flight risk but I hope that there are some restrictions on his freedom to drive at least. While it is understandable (perhaps) that he attempted to flee in his car away from potential danger, the message of enforcement needs to be strong in this case.
Lives are at risk.
The driver did not need to continue dragging him and scrape him off with a tree and a post box. It's what got the cyclist killed.
This is just a rehash of the "she was asking for it" defense.
Put the top up? Honestly, you have no clue as to how long that would take.
I don't want to blame the victim but Sheppard's actions through all of this (from what we know) leaves him little sympathy.
What is the severely distressing with how this case is being handled is the media spin. Mr. Sheppard is reported as drunk with no evidence and yet Mr. Bryant who was out celebrating a wedding anniversary with his wife (a lawyer) and was apparently not even tested for sobriety ... does his actions in any way suggest he was actually sober?
Listen to the witnesses at:
Witnesses describe what they saw
I, for one, think it is disgusting that the kid wasn't punished.
If you injure someone through negligence you should be punished - driver, cyclist, pedestrian - no exception. Too many people skate thanks to the great Canadian Injustice System.
Bryant will most likely receive a slap on the wrist - suspended sentence, house arrest and a fine. Seems life is cheap to people on the road and the courts do what they can to compound that perception. I was hit by a car while walking on the sidewalk. Surgery and lifelong pain for me, suspended fine, a smile and a skip out of court for the driver.
Sure, we don't have ALL the facts yer but I can't imagine a scenario where Bryant's actions can be considered acceptable given what we do know and I have a good imagination. If his feeling threatened is excuse enough then where are we headed? I can club a driver to death with my U-lock because he got out of his car and threatened to beat me during a traffic dust-up? The next lady who sees a teenager on a bike coming at her on the sidewalk can smash the kid's face in? Another driver can drag one of us on our bikes because we yelled at his open driver's side window that we should kick his ass for squeezing us against the curb? All in the name of being "afraid". No, people have to be held to a higher standard, especially one who went around trying to foist higher standards on everyone else.
Please, what did you expect from Christie Blatchford? Unbiased reporting? Not bloody likely.
EXCELLENT POINT! I forgot Bryant used to box. And you say he still trains? He should have felt more empowered to protect himself physically. I hope the prosectuion highlights this.
If that had been the situation. I don't see anything that says he jumped onto a moving vehicle or any of the other claims.
Obviously the police feel different and they have more facts than we.
My dog who looks "substantially like a pit-bull" was asking me that very question a few years ago. I wish Mr. Bryant could answer that one with a straight face.
Sorry, what happened until innocent until proven guilty? You were just asking that a few posts ago and now you have condemned Sheppard without trial or true facts.
You might want to change you name to Fact Fabricator.
Dude it doesn't matter who was right and who was wrong ...
one of us is gone. and none of us ever want that ..
it just thunder stormed in Vancouver for the first time in-ever .i wonder why ???
thanks man
Knee cap Crash
I suggest watching this CTV report at the GlobeandMail's website:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/girlf...
It explains why Bryant crossed over towards the other side of the road - there was construction in his lane. It also suggests quite coherently that Sheppard was probably hanging on to the wheel, which would explain Bryant's difficulty in controlling the car and how it would veer off to the sidewalk. Does anyone really believe Bryant was trying to knock Sheppard off by ramming against objects? If so, you've been watching too many movies. The reporting also mentions reports that Sheppard was too drunk to be riding home and that he hit Bryant's car several times with a bike lock. At best, Sheppard was not an innocent party here and at worst he was the aggressor. Frankly I'm surprised the police ended up charging Bryant, apparently they were considering not doing so. I wouldn't be surprised if he's acquitted, which at this point would sound quite reasonable. Let's see how it turns out when all the facts are aired down the road.
All the fact have been aired. Anything that is said now that the spin doctors are out in force is highly suspect considering bryant's friends in high places and the obvious bias in reporting this event in all mainstream media outlets.
ROFL - holding on to the wheel (was he stepping on the gas too?), construction (i thought Sheppard was at the wheel? i guess even with his own life in danger he was more mindfull of others than bryant could ever be), etc, etc...wait a few days and they'll say bryant wasn't even in the car...ridiculous. I just hope most people have more brains than you, jab-along.
And it's really nice to know that the guy who's going to be prosecuting bryant is a defense attorney - i.e. best at making excuses and casting shadows of doubt - not at making an airtight case and putting people who belong in jail behind bars.
this is a tragedy and an appalling mockery of justice.
I take it more as a growing dis-civility between all walks of life, from pedestrians, to car drivers, to bike riders, to even transit riders. Just look at the fire that was started on the TTC bus a few days earlier.
New bike infrastructure will NEVER solve this simple problem of people and their lack of common sense and civility. In fact it is likely to get worse. I've read about an article about dedicated Bike Lanes in Montreal (I've been there and it DOES look impressive) and that the problems they create, mostly about cyclists who now think they are invincible and higher than anyone else. Have you ever seen street racing on bikes? I nearly was involved in one and was what you would call "an innocent bystander". I'm not calling for this, but it almost seems that we need to license all adult cyclists. Biking, like driving, comes with courtesy attached, and is not necessarily a right as it is a privilege.
New bike infrastructure should also be NEW and not come at the cost of car drivers or pedestrians. Evidence the removal of lanes on Eastern Avenue (now a bottleneck) and the proposal to remove lanes from Jarvis. There are many ways to put in bike lanes, but don't inconvenience the drivers while doing so.
I'm not trying to knock cyclists. Let's get some lessons on Civility and common sense first. Then we can have the bike infrastructure. That way, pedestrians, cyclists, AND drivers can get along and get around the city.
While I respect the bike movement for wanting more bike lanes, this should not be at the expense of other people using the roads, whether it be car drivers or pedestrians. Like it or not, there will always be people who want to drive to get around the city. If you want to put in a bike lane, do it so that it does not restrict the other parties using the road. If you need to do that, then you need to find a way to absorb all the traffic bottleneck that results. People want to get around the city effectively.
And don't talk about using TTC. I am a transit advocate (even if I am a card carrying conservative) and I note that our transit infrastructure is MILES behind other cities, especially European ones. It is more of a hassle to take the TTC these days than it is to drive.
Why can't the folks in The Beaches take the street car, bike, walk to work. Seriously it's only about a 45 min. walk to Yonge St.
Car drivers of today are like the cigarette smokers of yesterday. Tomorrow they will be dismissed for their folly.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
While I respect the car movement for wanting to keep all their car lanes, this should not be at the expense of other people using the roads, whether it be cyclists or pedestrians. Like it or not, there will always be people who want to bike to get around the city. If you want to keep the car lane, do it so that it does not restrict the other parties using the road.
"Lawyer Joseph Neuberger, who handles many motor vehicle cases, said he did not find Bryant's treatment unreasonable, although it may have been unusual considering there was a death in the case.
On his release from a police station, he said, "No doubt, who he is and what position he had in the community played a factor. He is a former attorney-general, member of the provincial legislature. He's a lawyer. He's well-respected, a contributing member of the community. I'm sure that was a factor. I don't think that's a bad thing."
Bryant's VIP Treatment
Quoted from the Star article above.
Imagine the reverse scenario, Mr. Sheppard driving the car and Mr. Bryant the bicycle – of course it is not appropriate to treat people special, by the position they hold in the community – Mr. Sheppard would have been cuffed, thrown in jail, charged with murder and leaving the scene, and the first sight of him in public would have been unshaven, in cuffs and a prison uniform appearing before a magistrate as an obvious criminal ... Justice is supposed to be blind for a reason.
Most likely both men were wrong. One is punished already to a maximum possible extent. For the second men the punishment is pending. Obviously, we should look at what he didn’t do but must have done to prevent the tragedy. It started from a minor collision resulted in a damaging the bike. Why not to stop the car at this very moment, say sorry, my fault (the car driver must avoid collisions with bikes) and pay him to compensate repair/buying new bike. It would be probably the half of his dinner bill or less. And it would be the end of the story regardless of the cyclist’s emotional state. Instead, the driver’s ego ruled since then.
If this prominent driver will escape the serious punishment it will be the shame to whole Justice system.
Who's foot was on the accelerator? Sheppard's?
Bryant chose badly and he needs to be held accountable for his actions which caused death.
Awful lot of people are assuming to know what went on in either Sheppard's or Bryant's mind.
It seems absolutely ridiculous to think that Bryant wanted another human being dead.
I've heard and read some witness accounts in the news and then read distortions on various message boards. Let the facts come out before making any judgment.
My first thought - should never have escalated to the point of a violent confrontation and it is absolutely tragic that a man has lost his life.
- I find it offensive that some have chosen to use this sad event to air their grievance over the pitbull ban. Wrong place wrong time.
- While this involves an altercation between a cyclist and a motorist it really boils down to an altercation between 2 people and should not be used to advance anyone's agenda. If you want to change the culture become an activist and work with people to effect change.
Nobody knows all of the facts in this case and until everything is known I can't lay blame in one corner nor the other. Let the courts do what they do and don't presume to know everything.
I have experienced stupidly aggressive behaviour from motorists in that same stretch of Bloor.. I had a driver open his door in front of me and then chase me down bumping my rear wheel because he didn't like my choice of words in expressing my displeasure. I also have a permanently damaged finger from a car door opened in front of me thus ending my career as a musician.
I've also seen a cyclist cut across Yonge St with no regard for traffic and then beat a driver senseless for slamming on the brakes to avoid a collision. The cyclist was as much in the wrong as the driver was in my case.
Respecting the rules of the road and showing civility and respect for all users of our roadways would be a good place to start fostering a better relationship between motorists and cyclists..
I'd love to see cycling become more prevalent in Toronto.
I guess free speech doesn't exist on this message board! Comments that do not praise Darcy as some sort of bicycle martyr have been deleted. Shame on you, Stalin would be proud!
Look up chapter 13 of the Canadian human rights act. If you want to spew hatred under the guise of "free speech" like americans do, then I suggest you move there! At the very least, educate yourself as to the laws that you live under.
in the case of the tragic accident (and I consider it tragic), nobody proved negligence. The encounter apparently had witnesses, so if the young man on the bike had ridden with excessive speed or made no effort to avoid the woman pedestrian, the police would have had evidence to charge him. All the witness accounts I have seen so far suggest the opposite: that she moved one way to avoid him, and he steered the opposite way to avoid her, and they collided.
John G. Spragge
Mariner, cyclist, pilot
Yes, Mr. Levesque hit someone with his car. But the guy he hit was drunk and lying in the middle of the road, and ol' Rene had the class and care for his fellow man to stop immediately.
Vive la France!
Sorry... an alcoholic in a rage just isn't something to fear for your life. Get some guts buddy. Bryant's reaction shows deep stigma, and treatment of a human being he felt lived below him.
The cyclist was mad; I've been mad. I've used my bike to block reckless car drivers as I called 911. Yes I've raised my voice, loud. And yes they've responded by trying to shove me with their vehicle (as surveillance video clearly shows), and try to drive off.
Didn't scare me, I stood my ground and reported the license plate to the police. Sheppard was a brave man, and it cost him his life. Bryant is a chicken shit. Anyone who thinks he was scared enough to kill the man is a chicken shit too.
Jesus took the wheel...
But let's not forget that the terrible road environment deliberately created by Toronto's politicians played a role in this, and continues to play a role in every bicycle-auto collision in this city.
Toronto is poorly planned, poorly executed and poorly mannered.
City Hall is not responsible for the deaths but they certainly provide the arena in which drivers and bicyclists feel it's OK to break the road rules -- sometimes because that's the only way to navigate this decrepit and ill-conceived dump of a city.
Have you ever tried walking to Yonge Street from the Beaches? I have, from Queen and Main, and timed it around 2 hours and 45 minutes. Maybe you forgot the 2 hours part.
Get real. Not everyone can cycle, walk, or take transit to work. For some people, say, consultants like myself who need to have a car to visit multiple clients, a car is an absolute necessity.
Bad attitudes of anti-car rhetorics are the ones who are the cigarette smokers of Yesterday. People will eventually see these people as contradictory to society's interests.
ZERO. ZILCH. NADA. What I'd like to know is what Darcy's alcohol level was, it was shown he was DRUNK.
Thank you to whichever editor decided we didn't need racist hatred on this board. It's much appreciated by this reader, anyway. There are plenty of other places where people can spout off that sort of garbage if they need to... like the Toronto Sun for instance.
it WAS his wife...
An angry, pathetic excuse for a man killed a Darcy Allan Sheppard in anger and is doing everything possible that a wealthy, connected, politician/lawyer can do to not be held accountable.
All that I can do is to keep Al alive through positive memories and refuse to acknowledge the existence of the other, weak individual ... No one can escape accountability in this life and focusing on the evil only harms me.
All I will say is...I saw most of what happened. The cyclist jump on to the car because the convertible was trying to flee the scene of the accident. The cyclist was in no way, shape, or form trying to "attack" the convertible as some of you have eloquently stated. In my opinion the cyclist shouldn't of done that but he probably didn't think the convertible would take off with him on it.
Obviously both parties are in the wrong. There is no doubt. However a mans life was taken, so questions need to be answered. The convertible in my opinion was trying to get away with something and once things escalated, made a few too many wrong decisions which cost a man his life. Every action has a consequence.
After slamming his bag down on the car, and jawing at each other
According to witnesses, Bryant cut the argument short by pulling away. As he headed westbound on Bloor St.,
*Sheppard chased the car on foot. He grabbed hold of the vehicle on the driver's side. It's not clear if he was trying to get into the car, get at the driver or merely prevent him from leaving...
a witness recalled seeing sparks flying from Sheppard's cycling shoes as he skidded on the road alongside the car
*
Sheppard did not need to chase. It is what got him killed
I promise you that if you run at me while I am sitting in a small convertible and you jump on the side, I am going to do what Bryant did, it is human nature to try to flee fear of attack.
To ALL BIKERS< GET THE PLATE NUMBER AND CALL THE POLICE, do not chase down cars trying to stop them, you may get killed. Don't run into traffic, you may get killed, don't try stop a moving car, you may get killed. It is you who must not run after trying to take justice into your own hands, call the police they will charge the driver with leaving the scene.
**** It is horrible that someone died, regardless of the circumstance or cause.
It sounds to me like both people are to blame on some level. Both of these men clearly lost their tempers, and this situation escalated to a point that neither were planning.
However. only one of them died... which means the other will have to be held accountable on some level.
Obviously no one would want to be in either of these men's shoes (dead, or under arrest)... and I feel sympathy for all parties involved. Losing a friend or relative is horrible. And I am sure Bryant plays that days events in his head over and over... taking someone's life must weight heavy on anyone’s conscious!
I am an avid cyclist. I moved out of the city about 5 years ago, but I still work right downtown (York and Adelaide)... When I used to live downtown I cycled everywhere. I have had my fair share of close calls, and dealt with a lot of aggression. Drivers in general are idiots and don't understand the rules of the road. But I have also seen a lot of stupid cyclists, and they are usually couriers. I find that couriers in general give cyclists a bad rap!
A lot of couriers hang out at the starbuck's at the bottom of my building, and not a day goes by when I don't see something stupid... like riding on the side walks, riding the wrong way down a one way street, running red lights, weaving in and out of traffic etc... And not to mention a good majority of them ride fixed gear bikes with no brakes!
I am sure I will get all sorts of people telling me I am an idiot for posting that comment... and I know not all couriers are irresponsible on the road. But it can't be denied, some of them ride very irresponsibly.
I think everyone needs to be more considerate and respectful to each other. Cyclists and drivers BOTH need to follow rules of the road.
If anything, hopefully this event will make people open their eyes, pay more attention, be a little more respectful, and think more before they shoot their mouths off, flip the bird, and raise theirs fist's!
I'm telling you right now fact checker...check your facts! the cyclist never and i repeat never chased anyone! How dare you write something that absolutely did not happen.
"Bryant cut the argument short by pulling away"
Yes, the facts and video show that Bryant tried to pull away. In other words he did not do the right thing and stay at the scene when he had just hit/or was hit by Sheppard's bicycle.
Bryant chose instead to use his car recklessly. He is trying to scare Sheppard into shutting up and leaving him and his wife alone.
So why are we so concerned that Bryant was the scared one?
Sheppard is reacting to his fears triggered by being threatened with a killing machine.
We don't know what happened, but one of these things occurred to spur the initial altercation:
1. no collision (but something offended one of the parties by the other)
2. an unintentional collision (either party at fault)
3. bryant hit sheppard intentionally
if 3. happened I do not see how Bryant's supposed defense of self-defense will wash. Can you really claim self-defense if you threw the first punch, no matter how much the party responding to you escalated it?
If 2. happened and Bryant drove off he is guilty of leaving the scene of an accident which in my view also makes him more culpable of the more serious charges. BUT, its possible that the cyclist was angry at being hit and approached Bryant angrily. In this case it may be reasonable that Bryant was fearful and thus left the scene of the original accident.
1) Queen and Main don't actually intersect. I'll assume you mean Queen and Glen Manor Dr.
2) MapQuest sets the distance from Glen Manor to City Hall at 7.6 km. By Naismith's Rule, a reasonably fit individual can walk 5 km/h. which gets you from Glen Manor to City Hall in one and a half hours (the time suggested by Google maps). Even if you set the average human walking speed at 3.6 km/h, it should still take well under two and three quarter hours.
In any case, the "need" for a car involves, in most cases, a circular argument. We design our cities in a way that makes certain kinds of work very inconvenient for people without a personal car, which then induces people to acquire cars and pay for or agitate for expanded facilities (more parking, more roads, etc.) to drive them, which encourages an urban design style that produces an even greater need for the automobile.
To get back to the issue in this discussion: the issue today has nothing to do with whether we can make the choice to drive. It has to do with whether anyone can justify imposing that choice. Obviously, I would answer tat nobody can do so. If nothing else, the documented relationship between an inactive, car-dependant lifestyle and debilitating and life-shortening conditions such as obesity, type II diabetes, depression and heart disease makes it highly unethical to force such a lifestyle on anyone. This means cyclists (and walkers) must have adequate transportation options, period. If that means that if some people who would like to drive cannot do so, then we will have to accept that.
John G. Spragge
Mariner, cyclist, pilot
Al Sheppard was the first to experience fear (and react) - not Bryant. Footage clearly shows Al stopping in front to lecture Bryant, and Bryant lunging his car toward him.
http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/23745/thenational/archive/cyclistss...
1:12 - Sheppard arrives alongside, pulls in front of car.
1:18 - Bryant lunges the car at Sheppard.
I've been there - it ain't fun.
When are the cops going to treat lunging a car as equivalent to aiming a gun? In both cases they may not be used, but the intent to threaten with a lethal instrument is much the same. The freaking AG lunged his car at someone. Nice. Whatever else happened to escalate this, in that short video you see 200lbs of man and bike get in front of two tonnes of car, which lunges. I know which I'd rather be threatened by. The AG couldn't back up?
I don't actually live in the beaches, but in Woodbridge. Like many people in the GTA, I own a car. Unlike most people though, I do not work downtown, but rather travel throughout the GTA to deal with clients. If for some reason said client is downtown, then I will take transit if I have to.
Secondly, even if it were to take 1 1/2 hours to walk to City Hall, one would forget the normal traffic obstacles to every walk: traffic lights, other people, vehicles, etc. So the 2 3/4 hour estimate is quite valid. And yes, I meant Hambly Drive, not Main Street.
Thirdly, even if I do own a car, I do maintain an active lifestyle. I go to the gym three times a week, lifting weights and playing squash. Cars should not be directly related to a sedentary lifestyle. I know just as many overweight people who don't own a vehicle at all.
Finally, people should be allowed to make the choice to either drive, walk, ride the bike, or take public transit. This is only if the choices are actively available, and should never come at the price of another person's preference. If the city wants to create a network of bike lanes, they are well advised to create them in a way that does not impede other traffic, or otherwise allow other traffic an alternative option. Likewise, if the city needs more roads, they are also well advised to create them in a way that does not impede other traffic, or otherwise allow other traffic an alternative option. The problem in our city is that the alternative options available are quite pathetic and only make a bad situation worse. For most car drivers, this means an inadequate transit system serving a population twice the size than it was designed for.
There are a lot of problems with regards to transportation in our city. The recent bike protests are but a symptom of a larger problem and simply giving more bike lanes won't solve it just like that.
Good Point. I bet a pedestrian would also say the same thing to bolster their argument.
Either way, this means that all parties involved need to work together to make sure that any development is to the satisfaction of all. This should not involve mercilessly ripping up roads to simply give to cyclists without regard to the drivers who use it.