Another memorial gathering for Al Sheppard at 5pm, Bay and Bloor. Wednesday. Riding to Avenue Rd and Bloor for laying down of bikes and 5 minutes of silence.
I'm disappointed that the time makes it virtually impossible for anyone with a 9-5 job to make it unless they're working in the area. I'm up by Sunnybrook today so there's no way I can make it in time. I really like Anthony's suggestion in another thread to have cyclists line the sidewalks on both sides of the road - if someone decides to organize that, I hope it will be a bit later - 5:30 at the earliest.
I was walking home from work - I work at the Eaton Centre, and live at Wellesley and Yonge, and made it home just in time for the bike ride to disappear on the horizon. It really would have been appreciated if people who work until five had the opportunity to do this.
(I think the same happens with Critical Mass, but that's besides the point here)
****Hi there, does anyone have any photos of him up close at all? I worked in the downtown core for a long time receving parcels, and if it is who I think it is there was not a mean bone in his body he was kind and gental and maybe a little emotionally unsettled from all the hardship in his life but not someone who would attack someone else.
Ok I got to see a couple of distant ones from the photo gallery its not who i was thinking but i've seen him before n he seemed extremely nice.
Its sad that anyone has to die for no reason like that. I send wishes out to his family.
Ok. Where are these people coming from? Darcy got what he deserved? Yup, it's true. We live in a city where civility has 'left the building'. No common sense, no common courtesy and lack of civility were it's now condoned to mete out justice to the point of murder on our city streets. it's okay now. Go back to what you were doing. Murder is now okay. No matter the reason or the consequence.
If it had have been the man and his wife dying from hitting a phone pole or such, the story would have read something along the lines of "man and his wife die while trying to evade a drunk crazed cyclist". I'm all for cyclists on the road but this has nothing to do with that. Accidents have happened and will happen whether it's pedestrian or cyclist with car. When it comes to some spiked colored hair dude attacking my car while I'm in there with my wife and not letting go, I'm doing whatever I have to do to get him off.
So what you're saying is if Darcy had a nice 'high and tight' brush cut and didn't colour his hair, it would be ok with you for him to have tried to stop the driver after being struck the by that driver's car who tried to flee? Is that what you're saying? Sounds like from where I am.
No what, scratch that. You sound like a complete and utter moron.
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 towards a car soon brings 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.
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.
Absolutey, he did. Especially as former Attorney General for Onatario, he damned well should have knwon better. He set laws that we must all abide by. If "safety" was his prime concern, where was that concern for his wife (the pasenger) when he went off on his tear down the oncoming lanes of Bloor St.?
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 towards a car soon brings criticism if not action from passers-by as well as other motorists.
It's that sick love of an inanimate object that is the car and that is the North American experience. Started in the US, we've followed suit.
Mr. Bryant is free without bail.
THAT would NOT be happening if it were you or I that did this.
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.
There were conditions set for his release, but the police, at Tuesday's press conference, did not say what those "conditions" were.
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.
Especially considering who it is. Bryant was supposed to lead by example. If there were the potential for harm, and Bryant felt that there was, his wife (the passenger) should have been immediately calling 911 as she is now known to have a cell phone in her possession that night. OR, Bryant should have shut down the vehicle, left it and the two of them could have entered (ran to) one of the many shops, hotels or restaurants that are in the area and were still open at 10 at Bay and Bloor. They could have gone inside, phoned police or asked police to be called and then await their assistance. We know what Bryant did instead.
I don't see people recognizing or acknowledging what a weapon a car can be. Sure, I understand that Al was possibly irate and very scary at that point - which would deter anyone from wanting to get out of their car and get in an altercation.
But a car vs. a single man on a bicycle is equivalent to shaking a crying baby or toddler. To stabbing someone 17 times versus once to get away. How many tonnes of steal make up a car? I'm not sure but I know my bike only weights 20-something pounds. In every situation you have options.
I have a friend who is a courier and he's told me, especially in that particular neighbourhood people have tried to curb him many times - squeeze him out of the way, in ways that can only be interpreted as deliberate. Does the driver think beyond feeling annoyed in that situation to think through what the consequences of that would be? you would most likely fall in the middle of traffic. AND DIE. I can only call that murder.
Would people see this any differently if Michael Bryant had pulled a gun and shot the cyclist, with a defence of "I didn't intend to shoot to kill, I just wanted to scare him off and maybe hurt him a little." What bothers me with the charges is that they don't capture intent. Negligence suggests carelessness whereas the actions were deliberate.
The courts will decide if Bryant acted within reason when he drove a man into a mail box and killed him. There are a lot of details that are yet to be validated, I just hope that justice is served.
The charges laid yesterday are no different from someone charged in a fatal street racing accident; I don't see this as an accident, it is, at the very least, an excessive use of force than took a life; and perhaps more simplly, it was a violent and deliberate attack on a cyclist using a car.
**** News coverage of government officials interests me as a voter because in a sense it is also a story about me. Most of the time, remote detachment pretty well describes the way I read about power or fame. For some reason, a guy riding a bicycle is dead and it has something to do one of the many who populate our judiciary. Very soon, we along with those experienced as a defendant in our judiciary will gather a sense of the integrity our police forces and courts.
From now on, stories about this tragedy will be very carefully written, because journalists know this is also about the reader – each word scrutinized. For instance, the word bicyclist in 1955 described an unfortunate at risk of being forced off the road because he couldn't afford a car. The word bicyclist now, includes meaning about physical fitness and even eco-fashion consciousness. Words have color and journalists know the game.
We know cell phones are buzzing in: Queen's Park, police cruisers and court houses as the ambitious who owe or are owed favors are working on professional strategies their smiles will immediately betray at cocktail parties.
The coming Michael Bryant stories will also be about me. The Star will cover how our institutions handled the situation. If I figure my neighbor or I would have been dealt with the same way, I will continue to be proud of the society I live in. I don't want to read stories about how Michael Bryant feels or his state of contrition and humiliation or losses he will suffer professionally when his peers paddle him. If four hours after this ends in a courtroom on a Friday he's sucking back beers on his buddy's deck in Muskoka, it confirms the notion that our media is no longer a critic but a once trusted and now privileged co-conspirator as we move another inch closer to a neo-feudal society.
I understand part of what you're saying, but you should be careful not to infer that if this happened in 1995 that it would have been less of an issue because cyclists were considered second class citizens("an unfortunate at risk of being forced off the road because he couldn't afford a car"). A life was lost, and that's what matters in court, not whether one life was of more value than another.
Moving on:
If it is in fact true that Bryant intentionally made contact between Allan's bicycle and his SAAB, the fault lies with Bryant as the instigator of an incident between a cyclist, then pedestrian, and a motor vehicle.
Perhaps someone with legal background can inform us what kind of assault pushing someone with your car constitutes? Is it really criminal negligence, or is it deliberate provocation or assault?
without knowing the full story ie. - what was the verbal exchange between the driver and the cyclist, what was the alcohol level of the cyclist, why the cyclist was hanging on the car and would not let go (he could have simply written down the licence plate), was the cyclist on drugs, etc - too many unanswered questions to come to any conclusion. And I agree with Seymore BIkes - this is up to the court to decide once all the facts are in
No, you don't agree with Seymore Bikes. You're stating the opposite in your opening. I suggest your re-read the second paragraph of what Seymore was saying as it conflcits with your comment. And most of what you did state is just absurd.
Apparently, you do very little reading as evident by your series of inane questions.
Some whacked out bike courier slams into your car with his bike, then chases after you yelling obscenities, grabs onto your car trying to get in - I am doing anything to get him the off my car. The driver should have simply slammed on the brakes - that would have gotten him off real quick. This situation reminds me of Bonfire of the Vanities
First question, why are you in a biking forum if you're here to state that you not only condone the murder of Mr. Sheppard, but state that you would do the same? Troll?
Some whacked out bike courier slams into your car with his bike, then chases after you yelling obscenities, grabs onto your car trying to get in - I am doing anything to get him the off my car.
Sharp drop in IQ there. Umm, according to stats, 90% of bike-car incidents are the fault of the car driver. I'd bet heavily that Bryant hit Sheppard. Sheppard gave chase and caught up with Bryant because, I'd bet again, that Bryant failed to remain. Police, at a press conference yesterday afternoon upon releasing Bryant from custody. NEVER stated that Sheppard tried to enter the car.
How does thi remind you of Bonfire of The Vanities? That story was about ambition, racism, social class, politics, and greed. The four main characters in it were WASP bond trader Sherman McCoy, Jewish Assistant District Attorney Larry Kramer, British expatriate journalist Peter Fallow and black activist Reverend Reginald Bacon.
You know what anything you have said here reminds me of? Shit, ignorance and stupidity.
I'd really like to know where Bryant and his wife were coming from (and going to) that night.
I've heard, and haven't been able to confirm, that they were coming from a dinner party. What made Bryant so aggressive? Had HE been drinking? Has Bryant that attitude that he can do whatever he wants as he's 'above the law' as an elite, and even if he were caught, the charges of drinking and driving would not be pressed anyway? Has he done it before? We'll never know.
What I find funny (and suspicious) is how quickly the police discredit any notion that Bryant had been drinking Monnday night. While on Wednesday, the media spin was all about Darcy's checkered past meant to discredit him and garner support and sympathy for Bryant. Citing that, the timing was also curiously suspicious at how quickly, that same day, that Bryant was claiming his "innoncence" in the matter.
Amazing what a team of 'Micheal Claytons' and a 'communication firm' hired by Bryant's lawyer can do. Spin, spin, spin. And I don't mean of bike tires either.
yeah - thats what couriers do - they just randomly slam in to cars and try to attack drivers. Couriers bike for a living - they know how to ride in ridiculously unclear bike/car boundaries -especially in Toronto. I'm pretty sure that it would actually take a lot for a courier to get that crazy at a driver, even if he was an angry dude - because they put up with little frustrating driver ignorance all day. - Having his lively hood: his ride smashed up by someone who probably didn't even check to see if he was coming when they pulled out into the road and then just try to drive off would probably evoke some rage in most people. I don't know if thats exactly what happened anymore than your fictional construction.
I don't ride for a living but bike pretty much everyday and I am close to being doored or hit by someone who doesn't check before pulling out at least once every time I ride on a city street.
This is absolutely disgusting. The Globe and Mail is, IMO, trying it's level best to discredit a dead man, and in my mind, is justifiying the murder of Mr. Sheppard as though Bryant served justice upon him.
Bike victim had a police past (Sept. 2, 2009)
snippets:
The scheme involved three steps: Steal cheques, make them out to yourself and forge a signature, go to a Money Mart and cash them.
While living in Edmonton around 2002, this was allegedly how Darcy Allan Sheppard, the cyclist killed in an accident involving former Ontario attorney-general Michael Bryant, padded his pockets. Edmonton police say Mr. Sheppard, 33, stole, forged and cashed about 17 cheques.
Six years later, two provinces away, Mr. Sheppard's next encounter with the law was something of a role reversal. What allegedly began as a minor collision between a bicycle and a convertible left the bike courier dead and Mr. Bryant facing criminal charges.
Nothing disgusting about it. When you're in the news, it's standard for papers to profile you. It's not the papers fault if you have a shady background - victim or no victim, dead or alive, your history is your history.
I have agreed with some of your opinions (about enforcement) but this one about "dead or alive, your history is your history" is nonsence.
How much mention has there been of the Chappaquidick incident since Ted Kennedy died? None that I have heard and that is not really inappropriate. But dredging up shady dealings from a deceased persons past (particularly one who has died as the result of a community 'leaders' actions), is singularly gauche. Shame on you and the G&M.
Man, you guys are so irate you're not thinking straight. My point was simply that when people are involved in a story that becomes news, one of the first questions in journalism, and rightly so, is to find out who are these people. That's just one of the ways these are researched. Before you can see what's relevant and what's not, you research the whole person to investigate. That's basic journalism. And inevitably these bios get printed, often as side pieces. Now how this information is used is something you definitely can debate. Personally, I could care less about this cyclist's childhood, problems out West, or whatever. However, the fact that he was apparently an alcoholic who fell off the wagon, got drunk, got upset at his ex-girlfriend's place, resulting in police having to be called and sending him away - well those bits clearly would be relevant and aren't gossip. As for this being a working class versus white collar thing, that's all nonsense and people here spouting are sheep in their own way for parroting it. If the cyclist Sheppard had been driving and had an altercation with say Bryant out for a walk, that resulted in Bryant getting angry, walking around and hanging on to the side of the car in a threatening manner, then I'd be just as quick to condemn Bryant. To my mind this isn't about class, it isn't about cyclist vs driver, it is about two individuals getting into an altercation and how they each chose to respond to it. And people quickly jumping to the cyclist's defence in tirades against Bryant as a driver, a white-collar worker or whatever, or wrong-headed and should try to look at things a bit more objectively.
And one more thing. There are are a lot of presumably cyclists on this board making assumptions about people they don't agree with, dismissing them as ignorant drivers that just wouldn't understand. This is ignorance in itself. Most drivers probably have been cyclists at one point in their life and many still would be. I for one was an avid cyclists well into my college years and have spent many times driving in downtown, busy conditions and over long city distances, so I can be completely sympathetic with the concerns of cyclists. What I can't condone those is irate, aggressive, threatening and/or violent behaviour. Call me a pacifist, but to my mind these behaviours only lead to things spiralling out of control and to sad endings. And it seems that there is enough reasonable doubt in this instance that the cyclist either initiated or dangerously escalated the aggressiveness in this situation and if so therefore must bear his share of the blame for the outcome. Now the facts will be judged in court, but at this point I think people should at least be giving as much benefit of the doubt to the driver and not be absolving the cyclist as if he's some innocent, when he actually may have been the instigator. Objectivity requires all people to try be objective, whether they are cyclists, drivers or both.
Those facts DO NOT INCLUDE
- the deceased's lifestyle, childhood, career choices nor what (non-criminal) activities he may have engaged in earlier in the evening. What Bryant did (for example whaether or not he had been arguing with his spouse) earlier in the evening is also moot. There is little mention of what kind of evening Bryant was having. That is as appropriate for Bryant as it is for Sheppard.
Those facts DO INCLUDE
- who controlled the forward movement of the car and
- one person is dead as a result of the forward movement of that car
There can be no doubt that Mr. Sheppard has borne more than 'his share of (responsibility) for the outcome'.
the courts will work out what happened, and we should let them.
But a lot of the comments of Mr. Sheppard boil down to smears for which we have, as yet, no significant evidence. The courts will get full reports on Mr. Sheppard's blood alcohol concentration and any other relevant toxicological data. At that point, the =Crown and the police will use the information they have to decide if they can sustain the charges against Mr. Bryant. We will learn their decision soon enough. In the meantime, I make no apology for mourning another person who has gone down on Toronto's bloody streets.
Bryant should be hailed as a hero for removing bad check writing scum from this earth.
barf
That whole character assassination piece was placed right beside Bryant's "rising star tarnished" piece which can find no flaw in his character and listed Bryant's virtuous qualities.
They didn't add to the list that he killed a man for holding up his trip to the hotel with his ex-girlfriend.
Always remember that Bryant hired Navigator Ltd. to handle his public relations. Among their services are leverage on sympathetic newspaper columnists, etc. They charge a lot of money.
I have tried my best not to comment on this story. I think a memorial for someone who was killed in a violent way on the streets is a fine and justified thing. I just have trouble seeing it as cyclist/driver issue, despite the fact that I am an avid cyclist, and write and read about it all the time. This is way beyond the frames of reference for any normal debate about cyclists and cars.
I can't help but see the bike and the car as incidental to a more ugly, primal conflict between two people that ended tragically. As others have said, evidence will be collected, people charged and hopefully what justice can be done will be done. A person was killed, in a horrible way that is repugnant to cyclists in particular. I get that. Making it part of the cycling advocacy debate, however, does not compute for me.
If you want to have a memorial to remember a dead friend, then by all means, that's a nice thing to do. But if you want to take a situation where the cyclist appears to have been drunk, aggressive and initiated a dangerous situation, and turn that into some cyclist vs driver cause, then that's wrong. How about showing a little sympathy for Bryant - how would you like to be driving along with your wife on your wedding anniversary and suddenly come face to face with this. And now he has to deal with the after effects on his life, I feel bad for him. Maybe drivers should go have a candlelight vigil outside Bryant's home to show support. It's the same logic as cyclists turning this into a rally for their own cause. In the end, this story will probably have more to do with an altercation between individuals than any biker's rights story.
But if you want to take a situation where the cyclist appears to have been drunk, aggressive and initiated a dangerous situation, and turn that into some cyclist vs driver cause, then that's wrong.
How about backing up your accusations with fact, doofus. This is the second attempt at stating that Darcy was drunk or high. Same guy using two pseudonyms?
How about showing a little sympathy for Bryant - how would you like to be driving along with your wife on your wedding anniversary and suddenly come face to face with this.
Okay everybody. Here is what Jabalong is saying.... Note this: If it's your wedding anniversary (no other personal celebrations need apply) then it's perfecty ok to hit someone on a bicycle with your car at 9:45 at night (hmm, WHO might have been drinking now?) and attempt to flee after doing so. When the aforementioned cyclist chases after you and catches up to you to ask as to why you're fleeing after you hit them, you are now supposed to break out into a rage, shout obscenties so that workers (witnesses) in a nearby construction site hear it, drag that cyclist who is clinging onto the side of car and attempt to kill him by racing in the oncoming lanes of traffic, mount curbs, sidewalks and pummel the cyclist against light standards and other stationery objects until the lifeless body falls to the pavement. Oh, and then you're supposed to have your rear wheel run that person over as you drive away, leaving that person for dead and head for the nearest Hyatt to call 911 to let the police know that you just killed someone using your car as a weapon.
And now he has to deal with the after effects on his life, I feel bad for him.
The after effects on Bryants life? You are clearly devoid of thought. Bryant is alive. Sheppard isn't. Bryant will get to see his fmaily grow - Sheppard won't. He had two kids. Bryant will get to go on vacations, have fun, grow old. Sheppard? None of that. But we're suppsoed to think, "Oh, poor Michael. How will he ever survive this ordeal?" Idiotic! Bryant. Killed. Another. Human. Being!
Maybe drivers should go have a candlelight vigil outside Bryant's home to show support.
Clearly, you're fucked and need medical attention. I do believe that you are either drunk or high yourself.
It's the same logic as cyclists turning this into a rally for their own cause. In the end, this story will probably have more to do with an altercation between individuals than any biker's rights story.
For both parties. There is no telling how you would react if a crazed biker ATTACKED you in your car. He got what he deserved in my opinion. When you attack / assault someone, that can trigger a primal response where rational thought is thrown out, exactly what happened in this case. I'd like to know, was the biker on drugs/alcohol, or was he just crazy? No pity from me.
Well-said, Biker! It's enough with cyclists being hostile and aggressive on city streets; nobody's impressed that they are 'eco-friendly'. They're arrogant and dangerous, and need to understand that they are the vulnerable ones; I'd also like to point out that bicycle couriers only have jobs because the rest of us drive to work every day and employ them. My heart goes out to Michael Bryant and his family; this could have happened to any of us.
That's a pretty broad brush you are using to label cyclists as hostile and aggressive. Maybe you should try riding the streets of Toronto and you might see things from a cyclists perspective.
There are bad drivers, bad pedestrians and yes bad cyclists - but I would never stoop so low as to label cyclists or drivers in such a narrow minded way, it stinks of prejudice.
By the way, Bike couriers have jobs because our streets are clogged with single occupant autos; not that you were totally incorrect, just a little mixed up in your reasoning.
for anyone who hasn't noticed, you are posting in a Canadian forum. The "Toronto" refers to Toronto Canada, not Toronto Ohio. And in Canada, we have laws about commenting on matters before the courts. If you say, in relation to a pending case, that "X" obviously did it and should go to jail, or that "X" obviously didn't do it and the police should release him/her with an apology, you have committed a criminal code offence.
I plan to go and mourn the death of a fellow human being and a fellow cyclist. I plan to let the courts, which have access to all of the evidence, decide who if anyone committed a culpable act in his death. I suggest that others do the same.
Sheppard was not only a mean drunk, but had a criminal record a mile long, plus he was using marijuana, had schizophrenic episodes, and had been bitten by a zombie. If some zombie was crawling into my car to eat my wife's brains I know what I'd do. No pity from me.
Comments
tino
Memorial Today
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 09:29Another memorial gathering for Al Sheppard at 5pm, Bay and Bloor. Wednesday. Riding to Avenue Rd and Bloor for laying down of bikes and 5 minutes of silence.
Philosopher King (not verified)
Never mind the steering wheel, who's controlling the gas pedal?
Thu, 09/03/2009 - 14:09Jesus grab the brakes?
AnnieD
Why 5pm?
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 09:39I'm disappointed that the time makes it virtually impossible for anyone with a 9-5 job to make it unless they're working in the area. I'm up by Sunnybrook today so there's no way I can make it in time. I really like Anthony's suggestion in another thread to have cyclists line the sidewalks on both sides of the road - if someone decides to organize that, I hope it will be a bit later - 5:30 at the earliest.
Steve (not verified)
I agree.
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 17:35I was walking home from work - I work at the Eaton Centre, and live at Wellesley and Yonge, and made it home just in time for the bike ride to disappear on the horizon. It really would have been appreciated if people who work until five had the opportunity to do this.
(I think the same happens with Critical Mass, but that's besides the point here)
Why? (not verified)
Why?
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 09:55Why a memorial for someone who obviously died trying to attack and assault an innocent driver!!! He got what he deserved.
boo (not verified)
RE: Why?
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 10:24To: Why?
No one ever deserves to die. You're a moron. A young man just died...show some damn respect.
And btw, Mr. Bryant is FAR from being an "innocent driver". Better think next time, before you type.
Jennifer Miller (not verified)
Pictures of Allan
Thu, 09/03/2009 - 08:52****Hi there, does anyone have any photos of him up close at all? I worked in the downtown core for a long time receving parcels, and if it is who I think it is there was not a mean bone in his body he was kind and gental and maybe a little emotionally unsettled from all the hardship in his life but not someone who would attack someone else.
Jennifer Miller (not verified)
GENTLE not GENTAL..... its
Thu, 09/03/2009 - 08:53GENTLE not GENTAL..... its too early lol
Jennifer Miller (not verified)
Ok I got to see a couple of
Thu, 09/03/2009 - 08:56Ok I got to see a couple of distant ones from the photo gallery its not who i was thinking but i've seen him before n he seemed extremely nice.
Its sad that anyone has to die for no reason like that. I send wishes out to his family.
Militant MTBer (not verified)
*Hi there, does anyone have
Thu, 09/03/2009 - 08:56*Hi there, does anyone have any photos of him up close at all? *
There are a couple of him in this forum (scroll down half the page to see them).
http://bikingtoronto.com/forum/topic.php?id=258
Militant MTBer (not verified)
To add.... He did have a
Thu, 09/03/2009 - 09:01To add....
He did have a Facebook account under his full name Darcy Allen Sheppard. Link below:
http://tiny.cc/Y2ITF
Also on Facebook, there is now a memorial page that has been set up that, currently, has 467 members. Link below:
http://tinyurl.com/nb255d
Militant MTBer (not verified)
Ok. Where are these people
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 13:21Ok. Where are these people coming from? Darcy got what he deserved? Yup, it's true. We live in a city where civility has 'left the building'. No common sense, no common courtesy and lack of civility were it's now condoned to mete out justice to the point of murder on our city streets. it's okay now. Go back to what you were doing. Murder is now okay. No matter the reason or the consequence.
Chris Williams (not verified)
Reverse the Outcome
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 10:49If it had have been the man and his wife dying from hitting a phone pole or such, the story would have read something along the lines of "man and his wife die while trying to evade a drunk crazed cyclist". I'm all for cyclists on the road but this has nothing to do with that. Accidents have happened and will happen whether it's pedestrian or cyclist with car. When it comes to some spiked colored hair dude attacking my car while I'm in there with my wife and not letting go, I'm doing whatever I have to do to get him off.
Militant MTBer (not verified)
So what you're saying is if
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 13:25So what you're saying is if Darcy had a nice 'high and tight' brush cut and didn't colour his hair, it would be ok with you for him to have tried to stop the driver after being struck the by that driver's car who tried to flee? Is that what you're saying? Sounds like from where I am.
No what, scratch that. You sound like a complete and utter moron.
Mark Atyeo (not verified)
Let us be clear. The driver's actions caused death.
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 17:50I repeat myself from another thread:
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 towards a car soon brings 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.
Militant MTBer (not verified)
Both parties have
Thu, 09/03/2009 - 08:21Both parties have responsibility in this sad story but let's not lose sight of the fact that both (Mr. Bryant included) had many alternatives.
Absolutey, he did. Especially as former Attorney General for Onatario, he damned well should have knwon better. He set laws that we must all abide by. If "safety" was his prime concern, where was that concern for his wife (the pasenger) when he went off on his tear down the oncoming lanes of Bloor St.?
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 towards a car soon brings criticism if not action from passers-by as well as other motorists.
It's that sick love of an inanimate object that is the car and that is the North American experience. Started in the US, we've followed suit.
Mr. Bryant is free without bail.
THAT would NOT be happening if it were you or I that did this.
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.
There were conditions set for his release, but the police, at Tuesday's press conference, did not say what those "conditions" were.
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.
Especially considering who it is. Bryant was supposed to lead by example. If there were the potential for harm, and Bryant felt that there was, his wife (the passenger) should have been immediately calling 911 as she is now known to have a cell phone in her possession that night. OR, Bryant should have shut down the vehicle, left it and the two of them could have entered (ran to) one of the many shops, hotels or restaurants that are in the area and were still open at 10 at Bay and Bloor. They could have gone inside, phoned police or asked police to be called and then await their assistance. We know what Bryant did instead.
Lives are at risk.
And hot-head Bryant is still out there.
Danielle (not verified)
RE: reverse the outcome
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 21:06I don't see people recognizing or acknowledging what a weapon a car can be. Sure, I understand that Al was possibly irate and very scary at that point - which would deter anyone from wanting to get out of their car and get in an altercation.
But a car vs. a single man on a bicycle is equivalent to shaking a crying baby or toddler. To stabbing someone 17 times versus once to get away. How many tonnes of steal make up a car? I'm not sure but I know my bike only weights 20-something pounds. In every situation you have options.
I have a friend who is a courier and he's told me, especially in that particular neighbourhood people have tried to curb him many times - squeeze him out of the way, in ways that can only be interpreted as deliberate. Does the driver think beyond feeling annoyed in that situation to think through what the consequences of that would be? you would most likely fall in the middle of traffic. AND DIE. I can only call that murder.
AnnieD
Would people see this any
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 11:15Would people see this any differently if Michael Bryant had pulled a gun and shot the cyclist, with a defence of "I didn't intend to shoot to kill, I just wanted to scare him off and maybe hurt him a little." What bothers me with the charges is that they don't capture intent. Negligence suggests carelessness whereas the actions were deliberate.
Danielle (not verified)
I agree with you - what
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 21:11I agree with you - what happened was involuntary manslaughter: a willful disregard for life. It was not just negligence.
Seymore Bikes
Reason
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 15:33The courts will decide if Bryant acted within reason when he drove a man into a mail box and killed him. There are a lot of details that are yet to be validated, I just hope that justice is served.
The charges laid yesterday are no different from someone charged in a fatal street racing accident; I don't see this as an accident, it is, at the very least, an excessive use of force than took a life; and perhaps more simplly, it was a violent and deliberate attack on a cyclist using a car.
Don Anderson (not verified)
Words Carry Fashionable Currents of Meaning
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 12:12**** News coverage of government officials interests me as a voter because in a sense it is also a story about me. Most of the time, remote detachment pretty well describes the way I read about power or fame. For some reason, a guy riding a bicycle is dead and it has something to do one of the many who populate our judiciary. Very soon, we along with those experienced as a defendant in our judiciary will gather a sense of the integrity our police forces and courts.
From now on, stories about this tragedy will be very carefully written, because journalists know this is also about the reader – each word scrutinized. For instance, the word bicyclist in 1955 described an unfortunate at risk of being forced off the road because he couldn't afford a car. The word bicyclist now, includes meaning about physical fitness and even eco-fashion consciousness. Words have color and journalists know the game.
We know cell phones are buzzing in: Queen's Park, police cruisers and court houses as the ambitious who owe or are owed favors are working on professional strategies their smiles will immediately betray at cocktail parties.
The coming Michael Bryant stories will also be about me. The Star will cover how our institutions handled the situation. If I figure my neighbor or I would have been dealt with the same way, I will continue to be proud of the society I live in. I don't want to read stories about how Michael Bryant feels or his state of contrition and humiliation or losses he will suffer professionally when his peers paddle him. If four hours after this ends in a courtroom on a Friday he's sucking back beers on his buddy's deck in Muskoka, it confirms the notion that our media is no longer a critic but a once trusted and now privileged co-conspirator as we move another inch closer to a neo-feudal society.
Greg Perkins (not verified)
Fasionable Words?
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 14:23I understand part of what you're saying, but you should be careful not to infer that if this happened in 1995 that it would have been less of an issue because cyclists were considered second class citizens("an unfortunate at risk of being forced off the road because he couldn't afford a car"). A life was lost, and that's what matters in court, not whether one life was of more value than another.
Moving on:
If it is in fact true that Bryant intentionally made contact between Allan's bicycle and his SAAB, the fault lies with Bryant as the instigator of an incident between a cyclist, then pedestrian, and a motor vehicle.
Perhaps someone with legal background can inform us what kind of assault pushing someone with your car constitutes? Is it really criminal negligence, or is it deliberate provocation or assault?
Greg Perkins (not verified)
Sorry, that should read
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 14:27Sorry, that should read Sheppard, not Allan.
meme (not verified)
without knowing the full
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 12:45without knowing the full story ie. - what was the verbal exchange between the driver and the cyclist, what was the alcohol level of the cyclist, why the cyclist was hanging on the car and would not let go (he could have simply written down the licence plate), was the cyclist on drugs, etc - too many unanswered questions to come to any conclusion. And I agree with Seymore BIkes - this is up to the court to decide once all the facts are in
Militant MTBer (not verified)
No, you don't agree with
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 13:09No, you don't agree with Seymore Bikes. You're stating the opposite in your opening. I suggest your re-read the second paragraph of what Seymore was saying as it conflcits with your comment. And most of what you did state is just absurd.
Apparently, you do very little reading as evident by your series of inane questions.
jamie wright (not verified)
Some whacked out bike courier
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 12:55Some whacked out bike courier slams into your car with his bike, then chases after you yelling obscenities, grabs onto your car trying to get in - I am doing anything to get him the off my car. The driver should have simply slammed on the brakes - that would have gotten him off real quick. This situation reminds me of Bonfire of the Vanities
Militant MTBer (not verified)
First question, why are you
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 13:16First question, why are you in a biking forum if you're here to state that you not only condone the murder of Mr. Sheppard, but state that you would do the same? Troll?
Some whacked out bike courier slams into your car with his bike, then chases after you yelling obscenities, grabs onto your car trying to get in - I am doing anything to get him the off my car.
Sharp drop in IQ there. Umm, according to stats, 90% of bike-car incidents are the fault of the car driver. I'd bet heavily that Bryant hit Sheppard. Sheppard gave chase and caught up with Bryant because, I'd bet again, that Bryant failed to remain. Police, at a press conference yesterday afternoon upon releasing Bryant from custody. NEVER stated that Sheppard tried to enter the car.
How does thi remind you of Bonfire of The Vanities? That story was about ambition, racism, social class, politics, and greed. The four main characters in it were WASP bond trader Sherman McCoy, Jewish Assistant District Attorney Larry Kramer, British expatriate journalist Peter Fallow and black activist Reverend Reginald Bacon.
You know what anything you have said here reminds me of? Shit, ignorance and stupidity.
electric
Witness reported that Darcy was hit from behind by Bryant
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 20:43As i've heard:
Witness accounts report Bryant honked his horn and told Darcy to "hurry up".
Bryant then edged his car and bumped into the back of Darcy's bicycle.
Darcy then tossed his bag on Bryant's hood and walked over to the side of Bryant's car.
The confrontation continued and ended up with Darcy somehow being dragged to his death
Bryant's passenger called 911 from her phone afterwards.
Militant MTBer (not verified)
I'd really like to know where
Thu, 09/03/2009 - 08:37I'd really like to know where Bryant and his wife were coming from (and going to) that night.
I've heard, and haven't been able to confirm, that they were coming from a dinner party. What made Bryant so aggressive? Had HE been drinking? Has Bryant that attitude that he can do whatever he wants as he's 'above the law' as an elite, and even if he were caught, the charges of drinking and driving would not be pressed anyway? Has he done it before? We'll never know.
What I find funny (and suspicious) is how quickly the police discredit any notion that Bryant had been drinking Monnday night. While on Wednesday, the media spin was all about Darcy's checkered past meant to discredit him and garner support and sympathy for Bryant. Citing that, the timing was also curiously suspicious at how quickly, that same day, that Bryant was claiming his "innoncence" in the matter.
Amazing what a team of 'Micheal Claytons' and a 'communication firm' hired by Bryant's lawyer can do. Spin, spin, spin. And I don't mean of bike tires either.
Danielle (not verified)
yeah - thats what couriers do
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 21:26yeah - thats what couriers do - they just randomly slam in to cars and try to attack drivers. Couriers bike for a living - they know how to ride in ridiculously unclear bike/car boundaries -especially in Toronto. I'm pretty sure that it would actually take a lot for a courier to get that crazy at a driver, even if he was an angry dude - because they put up with little frustrating driver ignorance all day. - Having his lively hood: his ride smashed up by someone who probably didn't even check to see if he was coming when they pulled out into the road and then just try to drive off would probably evoke some rage in most people. I don't know if thats exactly what happened anymore than your fictional construction.
I don't ride for a living but bike pretty much everyday and I am close to being doored or hit by someone who doesn't check before pulling out at least once every time I ride on a city street.
Militant MTBer (not verified)
This is absolutely
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 13:03This is absolutely disgusting. The Globe and Mail is, IMO, trying it's level best to discredit a dead man, and in my mind, is justifiying the murder of Mr. Sheppard as though Bryant served justice upon him.
Bike victim had a police past (Sept. 2, 2009)
snippets:
The scheme involved three steps: Steal cheques, make them out to yourself and forge a signature, go to a Money Mart and cash them.
While living in Edmonton around 2002, this was allegedly how Darcy Allan Sheppard, the cyclist killed in an accident involving former Ontario attorney-general Michael Bryant, padded his pockets. Edmonton police say Mr. Sheppard, 33, stole, forged and cashed about 17 cheques.
Six years later, two provinces away, Mr. Sheppard's next encounter with the law was something of a role reversal. What allegedly began as a minor collision between a bicycle and a convertible left the bike courier dead and Mr. Bryant facing criminal charges.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/bike-victim-had-a-police-pa...
Jabalong (not verified)
Nothing disgusting about it.
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 13:15Nothing disgusting about it. When you're in the news, it's standard for papers to profile you. It's not the papers fault if you have a shady background - victim or no victim, dead or alive, your history is your history.
Militant MTBer (not verified)
Complacency at it's
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 13:18Complacency at it's finest.
Ask yourself what point is there in digging it up? What purpose does it serve? Who benefits by it?
Those are questions you'll never ponder, you goddamn sheep. The media loves brain farts like you.
Mark Atyeo (not verified)
Jabalong your cred is slipping
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 18:06I have agreed with some of your opinions (about enforcement) but this one about "dead or alive, your history is your history" is nonsence.
How much mention has there been of the Chappaquidick incident since Ted Kennedy died? None that I have heard and that is not really inappropriate. But dredging up shady dealings from a deceased persons past (particularly one who has died as the result of a community 'leaders' actions), is singularly gauche. Shame on you and the G&M.
electric
The only thing disgusting is your apathy
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 20:55The reason such garbage is published is because people like you lick it up so you'll have something to gossip about at the water-cooler.
The fact you find it normal for people to peer through strangers personal lives and make judgments just informs us of your own personal character.
Jabalong (not verified)
Man, you guys are so irate
Thu, 09/03/2009 - 01:14Man, you guys are so irate you're not thinking straight. My point was simply that when people are involved in a story that becomes news, one of the first questions in journalism, and rightly so, is to find out who are these people. That's just one of the ways these are researched. Before you can see what's relevant and what's not, you research the whole person to investigate. That's basic journalism. And inevitably these bios get printed, often as side pieces. Now how this information is used is something you definitely can debate. Personally, I could care less about this cyclist's childhood, problems out West, or whatever. However, the fact that he was apparently an alcoholic who fell off the wagon, got drunk, got upset at his ex-girlfriend's place, resulting in police having to be called and sending him away - well those bits clearly would be relevant and aren't gossip. As for this being a working class versus white collar thing, that's all nonsense and people here spouting are sheep in their own way for parroting it. If the cyclist Sheppard had been driving and had an altercation with say Bryant out for a walk, that resulted in Bryant getting angry, walking around and hanging on to the side of the car in a threatening manner, then I'd be just as quick to condemn Bryant. To my mind this isn't about class, it isn't about cyclist vs driver, it is about two individuals getting into an altercation and how they each chose to respond to it. And people quickly jumping to the cyclist's defence in tirades against Bryant as a driver, a white-collar worker or whatever, or wrong-headed and should try to look at things a bit more objectively.
Jabalong (not verified)
And one more thing
Thu, 09/03/2009 - 01:20And one more thing. There are are a lot of presumably cyclists on this board making assumptions about people they don't agree with, dismissing them as ignorant drivers that just wouldn't understand. This is ignorance in itself. Most drivers probably have been cyclists at one point in their life and many still would be. I for one was an avid cyclists well into my college years and have spent many times driving in downtown, busy conditions and over long city distances, so I can be completely sympathetic with the concerns of cyclists. What I can't condone those is irate, aggressive, threatening and/or violent behaviour. Call me a pacifist, but to my mind these behaviours only lead to things spiralling out of control and to sad endings. And it seems that there is enough reasonable doubt in this instance that the cyclist either initiated or dangerously escalated the aggressiveness in this situation and if so therefore must bear his share of the blame for the outcome. Now the facts will be judged in court, but at this point I think people should at least be giving as much benefit of the doubt to the driver and not be absolving the cyclist as if he's some innocent, when he actually may have been the instigator. Objectivity requires all people to try be objective, whether they are cyclists, drivers or both.
Mark Atyeo (not verified)
Objectivity requires focus on the facts of the episode.
Thu, 09/03/2009 - 16:23Those facts DO NOT INCLUDE
- the deceased's lifestyle, childhood, career choices nor what (non-criminal) activities he may have engaged in earlier in the evening. What Bryant did (for example whaether or not he had been arguing with his spouse) earlier in the evening is also moot. There is little mention of what kind of evening Bryant was having. That is as appropriate for Bryant as it is for Sheppard.
Those facts DO INCLUDE
- who controlled the forward movement of the car and
- one person is dead as a result of the forward movement of that car
There can be no doubt that Mr. Sheppard has borne more than 'his share of (responsibility) for the outcome'.
locutas_of_spragge
Actually...
Thu, 09/03/2009 - 03:41the courts will work out what happened, and we should let them.
But a lot of the comments of Mr. Sheppard boil down to smears for which we have, as yet, no significant evidence. The courts will get full reports on Mr. Sheppard's blood alcohol concentration and any other relevant toxicological data. At that point, the =Crown and the police will use the information they have to decide if they can sustain the charges against Mr. Bryant. We will learn their decision soon enough. In the meantime, I make no apology for mourning another person who has gone down on Toronto's bloody streets.
electric
Yes, deliberate character assasination.
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 20:52Bryant should be hailed as a hero for removing bad check writing scum from this earth.
barf
That whole character assassination piece was placed right beside Bryant's "rising star tarnished" piece which can find no flaw in his character and listed Bryant's virtuous qualities.
They didn't add to the list that he killed a man for holding up his trip to the hotel with his ex-girlfriend.
Antony (not verified)
Always remember that Bryant
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 23:09Always remember that Bryant hired Navigator Ltd. to handle his public relations. Among their services are leverage on sympathetic newspaper columnists, etc. They charge a lot of money.
Rantwick (not verified)
A Crazy, Violent, Thing
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 13:16I have tried my best not to comment on this story. I think a memorial for someone who was killed in a violent way on the streets is a fine and justified thing. I just have trouble seeing it as cyclist/driver issue, despite the fact that I am an avid cyclist, and write and read about it all the time. This is way beyond the frames of reference for any normal debate about cyclists and cars.
I can't help but see the bike and the car as incidental to a more ugly, primal conflict between two people that ended tragically. As others have said, evidence will be collected, people charged and hopefully what justice can be done will be done. A person was killed, in a horrible way that is repugnant to cyclists in particular. I get that. Making it part of the cycling advocacy debate, however, does not compute for me.
Jabalong (not verified)
If you want to have a
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 13:20If you want to have a memorial to remember a dead friend, then by all means, that's a nice thing to do. But if you want to take a situation where the cyclist appears to have been drunk, aggressive and initiated a dangerous situation, and turn that into some cyclist vs driver cause, then that's wrong. How about showing a little sympathy for Bryant - how would you like to be driving along with your wife on your wedding anniversary and suddenly come face to face with this. And now he has to deal with the after effects on his life, I feel bad for him. Maybe drivers should go have a candlelight vigil outside Bryant's home to show support. It's the same logic as cyclists turning this into a rally for their own cause. In the end, this story will probably have more to do with an altercation between individuals than any biker's rights story.
Militant MTBer (not verified)
But if you want to take a
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 13:44But if you want to take a situation where the cyclist appears to have been drunk, aggressive and initiated a dangerous situation, and turn that into some cyclist vs driver cause, then that's wrong.
How about backing up your accusations with fact, doofus. This is the second attempt at stating that Darcy was drunk or high. Same guy using two pseudonyms?
How about showing a little sympathy for Bryant - how would you like to be driving along with your wife on your wedding anniversary and suddenly come face to face with this.
Okay everybody. Here is what Jabalong is saying.... Note this: If it's your wedding anniversary (no other personal celebrations need apply) then it's perfecty ok to hit someone on a bicycle with your car at 9:45 at night (hmm, WHO might have been drinking now?) and attempt to flee after doing so. When the aforementioned cyclist chases after you and catches up to you to ask as to why you're fleeing after you hit them, you are now supposed to break out into a rage, shout obscenties so that workers (witnesses) in a nearby construction site hear it, drag that cyclist who is clinging onto the side of car and attempt to kill him by racing in the oncoming lanes of traffic, mount curbs, sidewalks and pummel the cyclist against light standards and other stationery objects until the lifeless body falls to the pavement. Oh, and then you're supposed to have your rear wheel run that person over as you drive away, leaving that person for dead and head for the nearest Hyatt to call 911 to let the police know that you just killed someone using your car as a weapon.
And now he has to deal with the after effects on his life, I feel bad for him.
The after effects on Bryants life? You are clearly devoid of thought. Bryant is alive. Sheppard isn't. Bryant will get to see his fmaily grow - Sheppard won't. He had two kids. Bryant will get to go on vacations, have fun, grow old. Sheppard? None of that. But we're suppsoed to think, "Oh, poor Michael. How will he ever survive this ordeal?" Idiotic! Bryant. Killed. Another. Human. Being!
Maybe drivers should go have a candlelight vigil outside Bryant's home to show support.
Clearly, you're fucked and need medical attention. I do believe that you are either drunk or high yourself.
It's the same logic as cyclists turning this into a rally for their own cause. In the end, this story will probably have more to do with an altercation between individuals than any biker's rights story.
You know what? Stop using my oxygen. Please.
Biker (not verified)
Tragic
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 13:30For both parties. There is no telling how you would react if a crazed biker ATTACKED you in your car. He got what he deserved in my opinion. When you attack / assault someone, that can trigger a primal response where rational thought is thrown out, exactly what happened in this case. I'd like to know, was the biker on drugs/alcohol, or was he just crazy? No pity from me.
K-Dawg (not verified)
Well-said, Biker! It's
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 13:56Well-said, Biker! It's enough with cyclists being hostile and aggressive on city streets; nobody's impressed that they are 'eco-friendly'. They're arrogant and dangerous, and need to understand that they are the vulnerable ones; I'd also like to point out that bicycle couriers only have jobs because the rest of us drive to work every day and employ them. My heart goes out to Michael Bryant and his family; this could have happened to any of us.
Seymore Bikes
Prejudiced Comment from K-Dawg
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 15:18K-Dawg,
That's a pretty broad brush you are using to label cyclists as hostile and aggressive. Maybe you should try riding the streets of Toronto and you might see things from a cyclists perspective.
There are bad drivers, bad pedestrians and yes bad cyclists - but I would never stoop so low as to label cyclists or drivers in such a narrow minded way, it stinks of prejudice.
By the way, Bike couriers have jobs because our streets are clogged with single occupant autos; not that you were totally incorrect, just a little mixed up in your reasoning.
locutas_of_spragge
Guys...
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 15:23for anyone who hasn't noticed, you are posting in a Canadian forum. The "Toronto" refers to Toronto Canada, not Toronto Ohio. And in Canada, we have laws about commenting on matters before the courts. If you say, in relation to a pending case, that "X" obviously did it and should go to jail, or that "X" obviously didn't do it and the police should release him/her with an apology, you have committed a criminal code offence.
I plan to go and mourn the death of a fellow human being and a fellow cyclist. I plan to let the courts, which have access to all of the evidence, decide who if anyone committed a culpable act in his death. I suggest that others do the same.
Seymore Bikes
Biker Bicker Blame
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 15:09So Biker, the cyclist was Deserving? Guilty? Really?
I'm so impressed with your ability to accurately piece together the sequence of events from Monday night.
You would have made an excellent lynch mob organizer.
So how about a cup of Shut the Fuck Up?
My advice, let the process run its course before we assign guilt. My sense of decency does not allow me to discredit the dead without due course.
Antony (not verified)
Sheppard was not only a mean
Wed, 09/02/2009 - 13:46Sheppard was not only a mean drunk, but had a criminal record a mile long, plus he was using marijuana, had schizophrenic episodes, and had been bitten by a zombie. If some zombie was crawling into my car to eat my wife's brains I know what I'd do. No pity from me.
Pages