Michael Bryant: ALL CHARGES DROPPED

somehow, i am not surprised. no one that well-connected will ever face justice.

I assume this video wasn't admissible in court? Because I think you could show any jury that tape and get a conviction.

Especially enlightening to compare the youtube video against Bryant's version of events:

"Sheppard cycled past Bryant’s vehicle along the driver’s side and then cut in front, stopping his bike directly in front of the convertible Saab and blocking its way. When Bryant hit his brakes, he said the vehicle stalled."

Bryant didn't hit the brakes, because Bryant was stopped already.

"[Bryant] said he was trying to get away and attempted to get his car started when it stalled again, causing it to lurch forward. That was when “Mr Bryant’s vehicle came close to or in contact with the rear wheel of Mr. Sheppard’s bike,”

Creative explanation for the "bluff charge"?

"When Bryant got the car re-started and lurched forward, Sheppard landed on the hood. Bryant hit the brakes and the cyclist fell, but did not appear at that point to be seriously injured.

Nice word choice. Next time I "lurch" someone onto my hood and 15' forward, throwing them into the middle of an intersection, I'll be sure to assume they're not injured.

Bryant reversed and then tried to drive forward around the bicycle.

Otherwise known as "fleeing the scene of the crime.

Well folks, that's it, I am giving up on my bike, I will roller blade in the summer on the sidewalk and in the winter the TTC. For a father with kids it is simply too dangerous to ride here. The law is not on your side and murder is permitted if you are rich and powerful. I will pray that gas prices and insurance go up and up and up for drivers.

I have seen the police ticketing bikes while taxis and and SUV's break the rules left right and center.

Canada is not at a European level of civilization yet.

I could be wrong if there is a big outcry and people demand change but.......

A VERY VERY SAD DAY

Don't be the typical polite Canadian and Give up cycling...Thats what they want you to do.Ride Twice as much and encourage your friends to ride with you....Take a lane and keep it...Slow the traffic down.Don't Give up now.

The outcome of this whole case is sickening!

If Bryant has a tendency to 'panic' while in a protected motor vehicle in such a way as to drive dangerously enough to KILL a man, then the least we can do is strip him of his license forever, driving is not for him! Criminal negligence resulting in death, no matter what the circumstances, is not a casual issue. All that glitters is not gold, and Bryant has proven that. Even politics is too low a career choice for scum like him. He and his Peck-er have legally spun themselves from trial but you have failed in the eyes of humanity. It takes more than shallow success to be successful, it takes heart and humility. Niether of which Bryant has proven, both of which we (the public) have noticed.

I fully believe that anyone who kills someone driving, accident or not, should have their license stripped for a decade for starters; injury, five years. Imagine how safely we'd all drive...

Anthill's points are good but Bryant did move forward briefly (maybe a foot) and then brake just around the time Sheppard pulled in front, so it's possible the car did stall out at this point. The Crown's vague description seems to imply Sheppard pulled in front of the vehicle as it was moving, but this conclusion is patently false as anthill points out. Bryant's apparent inability to start the car again without ramming Sheppard (his excuse) was nobody's fault but his own, and the notion that he was in a "panic" at this point makes no sense unless he has a much better reason than he's given already.

Hrr fr Brynt, rn mr f ths rngds vr myb thn th cn ndrstnd shrng nd nt wnng rds tht wr pd b txs frm th mtrng pblc!!!!

[Editors: disemvoweled due to being offensive and suggesting violence. Moderation policy.]

Are you just trolling or are you actually advocating homicide as a solution to urban planning issues?

Also, with respect to "paid by taxes from the motoring public", see

http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf


Amongst other points they calculate a 5.6c/mi draw on general tax revenue for cars and 0.2c/mi for bicycles in the USA. Since local roads (not highways) are funded mostly by general tax revenue (not user fees like gas tax), that means urban cyclists and pedestrians subsidize motorized traffic in their own neighbourhoods!

If anyone has similar numbers for Canada I would be very interested to see them.

In the mean time, I'll just assume the preceding commenter ("R.O.B.") is a nasty troll just stirring up muck and not an actually sociopath advocating murder.

Please do us all a favour and toddle away from the terminal and back under your bridge.

Since this is a pro bike sight, there is no point in me expressing my views to this bunch of tree hugging snobs. If you think that by building more bike lanes and letting more law disobeying renegades ride their bikes in traffic will help the environment then you are so wrong. Everytime a bike lane is added, a car lane is eliminated causing more traffic jams and excessive idling. I think you guys will think twice about riding your bikes if you had to pay a licensing fee and be subjected to fines like motorist are. If you take a poll from the general public now I would say that there would be more anti bike people then pro bike people. Keep your bikes on the trails that this government had invested so much in and maybe there would be less frustration in this city. Oh yea mr. Editor, you can blow me for editing my post. See you on facebook- there is a perfectly good trail beside the road you stupid cyclist.

...as we hear more from you, it is getting funnier by the minute.

Do you realize that you are crying all the way to the bank? For one, you missed that folks tell you that cyclists and pedestrians have been subsidizing the road users like you all those years. They are now finally seeing some value for the money they are paying. That went over your head, so it's worth repeating for your benefit.

Next, as a number of drivers are leaving their cars at home (just look at the hundreds of bikes parked around downtown office buildings), there'll actually be more room on the road reducing the congestion that the excessive use of the car has brought onto all of us. Man, you are getting off cheap!

How long ya been out of jail for ROB? Looking forward to going back?

Tough guy behind the wheel, but there are a lot tougher behind bars.

do not feed the trolls (disemvowelling does not count as feeding).

You seem to be so poorly informed on the issues around cycling that I am reluctant to even address your post, but I will try.

Cycling has already been proven an effective and broadly beneficial means of getting around in many cities, and Toronto is no different. Road maintenance costs, health care costs, traffic congestion, the environment, green house gases; all of these issues benefit from cycling. Drivers buy gas and cars - that's pretty much where the benefits end, and they are purely economic, but at a heavy cost.

Your assumptions about road congestion resulting from bike lanes are wrong, as is your suggestion that bikes belong on trails. When I drive I choose the most efficient route of travel, why should this change when I bike?

You are right, in an overly obvious sense, that this blog is a pro-cycling forum, but it does provide for reasonable discussion and debate; unfortunately, this is where your argument falls flat.

I suspect that you are only interested in infuriating others with your insults and ignorance. If you really care about the stuff you write (say) then take the time to educate yourself, otherwise people here will just dismiss your points as misguided ramblings.

He's just quoting from Rossi's proposed transportation policy. This is directly quoted from the binder that his campaign manager sent to the press last week. ;)

A driver's licence is also a "License to kill," provided that one only attempts to kill people who aren't cops, or does it whilst drunk.

In 1947, J.S. Dean published his famous report titled "Murder most foul: a study of the road deaths problem" where he documented this behaviour. Things haven't changed since then.

Streetsblog.org has a "weekly carnage" feature on their site, again documenting this problem.

Educationforthedrivingmasses.com documents this phenomenon, daily, here in Canada. Drivers routinely get off for murder with fines in the mere hundreds of dollars, that is if charges are even laid, and if they even get to court.

The situation on our streets is not unique to the Bryant/Sheppard affair. This is only another example of our failed policing and justice systems controlling the abhorrent and murderous behaviour of the drivers we let take to our streets.

Our current Department of Transportation still behaves as though it were the Department of Motor Vehicles. And now that our governments are part owner of the automakers, the cynic in me doesn't see this behaviour changing too soon.

Historically, I'd say it was because we let the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV now the Ministry of Transportation or MoT) re-write the rules of our streets to become "Rules of the Road." Cities didn't have roads until the Department of Motor Vehicles re-defined all of our streets into (using the legal term) "Highways." We used roads only to connect our cities, or else we had rural roads. With the redefinition, the DMV excluded the public from our public spaces, and left us with pathways through our communities for the (near) exclusive use by motor-vehicles. This is part of the reason why so many people confuse the terms "streets" with "roads" these days.

The CAA, truckers organizations, and the Toronto Party are all part of the "Roads" movement. It seems to me like many of our mayoral candidates are as well.

Here in Toronto, cyclists have firmly entrenched themselves into the "Streets" movement. As an example, we are actively participating in the "Complete Streets" movement. This is because "streets" are inclusive environments, that is they are public spaces that have to serve our communities, while also allowing for the movements of people and goods.

The idea behind "Complete Streets" is to find the best compromise between using the space as a corridor (ie as a road) and using the space as street, (ie as a public space, a part of our public realm) while being as inclusive to all as practical.

Now that eighty-some-odd percent of Canadians live in urban environments, perhaps it is time for the DMV (or MoT, or whatever they will call themselves this week) to make two definitions and sets of rules, one for urban streets, and one for rural roads and highways. Then we could all relax a bit, except for the drivers who would have to learn an additional set of rules when taking their motor vehicles into our public realm.

I'm over this whole Bryant/Sheppard thing. I've moved on. It is time to go after the bigger picture issues that allowed the Bryant/Sheppard thing to even happen in the first place. Like getting bike lanes on Bloor, or getting rid of the DMV and it's awful Highway Traffic Act, or turning our city's "roads" back into "streets" again.

As a car driver, I have been told and made to know that if I hit a car or anything else in fromt of me causing any accident that I am at fault by the law. Thus, if I rear end someone or something then I am automatically at fault because it is my responsibility as a driver to keep back some distance and not tailgate in order to be able to stop safely. It appears that a bike was rear ended here and that someone was hit by being rear ended and knocked on the hood of a car and off on to the road by a driver that did not properly control a car safely (accidentally or intentionally) and even tried to drive around a bike to get away from a collision. This caused everything else to happen. Rear ending anyone or anything makes the person doing it guilty no matter what even if one's car has car trouble stopping or even if it was bad weather. Many people have been charged for doing much less such as hitting a tree or post by losing control of one's car accidentally. Am I mistaken in assuming that I am responsible for controlling and maintaining my vehicle as best as possible so that I don't rear end anyone whether accidentally or intentionally?

The CIty of Toronto has failed so dramatically. It has denied cyclists the RIGHT to safe biking conditions - while also saying they promote cycling. The death toll is rising. More and more cyclists are being hit, injured and killed. The police are failing to respond. In fact they are treating cyclists with disrespect and disregard. The court system has repeatedly failed - dismissing charges, dropping cases, and failing to provide justice. Even the TTC hits more and more cyclists ... frequently either fleeing the scene or denying anything happened (while the police support them), our own politicians are KILLING cyclists! And our justice system is ignoring it while in the media spotlight. Its undeniable. Toronto Promotes Cycling In Deadly Conditions! How can we accept this! Don't stop cycling! Take up the entire lane. Speak out. We need ACTION!