Road Rage much?

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: mb

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: rh71
again - bikers are either incredibly brave or that other thing. You have all kinds out there on the road and bikers choose to ride on the streets with virtually no protection from tons of metal zooming about. IMO, if you have to ride, find some small streets or a bike path. Don't be surprised if you do get hit by idiots on the road though.

Must be nice to sit there behind your computer and paint all cyclists with the same narrowminded little brush all the time.:roll:

It's easy to do when all cyclists act like they own the road and pick and choose which traffic laws apply to them.

They don't though. Again, you're painting ALL cyclists as the same. We aren't.

It's funny, I went out for a ride Saturday and came up to a 4 way stop and there was quite a bit of traffic actually. I stopped and unclipped because there were cars that stopped before I got there. Then one of them motioned for me to go so I did. I'm not sure if they expected me to run the stop sign or they were just being courteous. If there were no cars there I would not have stopped though. That is about the only traffic rule that I will violate on a bicycle. I will slow down and make sure that it's safe to proceed but I generally don't come to a complete stop at a stop sign unless there is motor vehicle traffic with the right of way. I don't see anything wrong with this either.

 

[Baked]

It's never the bicyclist's fault, everybody knows this. In some bicyclists' mind, they can ride their overpriced man powered "vehicle" on the freeway.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: SandEagle

Originally posted by: rh71
again - bikers are either incredibly brave or that other thing. You have all kinds out there on the road and bikers choose to ride on the streets with virtually no protection from tons of metal zooming about. IMO, if you have to ride, find some small streets or a bike path. Don't be surprised if you do get hit by idiots on the road though.

to be fair,this happened in toronto, canada where drivers have more respect for cyclists. canadian streets are 100x safer for bikers than their american counterparts.

i have been to that intersection many times. its always hella busy day and nite....but cyclists always manage. def. some type of road rage here

I live here and I don't share your optimism. Maybe has to do with me not having been to too many US Cities.


Drivers suck in Toronto. I would say a quarter is nice and competent, 50% are incompetents and the other 25% are asses.

Cyclists I would say 30% are nice, 30% are incompetent and 40% are asses. The 40% is probably all couriers.

 

[PingSpike]

Not really much info on this one, although it sounds like its out there. Although if some guy came after me and I drove off, and he ended up hanging on my car I could see myself panicing and flooring it. I kind of laugh at the idea I would just sit there and "maybe get punched in the face" instead though. As skace said, the worst thing that could happen is you'd die, not "take a couple shots". Fuck, for all we know he came at him with a pipe or something. And why would he stop punching me after a couple shots? Am I really suppose to just sit in my stopped car getting punched in the face going "Huuuurrr" in this situation?

I have to assume some kind of rage started the altercation though. Either the driver went apeshit for some reason and ran into the guy and kept driving while he was sitting on the windshield or the cyclist was pissed for some reason and went after him while stopped and ended up clinging to the side of his car while he panic floored it. The cyclist would probably be apeshit pissed in that situation, leading him to stupidly cling to the car instead of letting go while it got up to high speeds.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: yllus

Mr. Bryant had two options when the guy (allegedly) attached himself to his car - stop and possibly get into a violent altercation, or flee. Obviously, he fled.

I think it's understandable that Mr. Bryant may have panicked and as a result driven rather wildly. The idea that he was thinking, "I'm going to scrape this guy off of the side of my car like in the movies by nailing him with a mailbox" is a little too unrealistic for me to consider seriously.

The cyclist (allegedly) continuing to hold on to the car instead of letting go when the speed picked up a little is where I place the most blame for this: He's in a steel box that weighs a couple of tons, you're on a flimsy bike. Your self-preservation alarm isn't going off like crazy when he floors it? Let go!

That is what I get out of this as well. T

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: yllus
The cyclist (allegedly) continuing to hold on to the car instead of letting go when the speed picked up a little is where I place the most blame for this: He's in a steel box that weighs a couple of tons, you're on a flimsy bike. Your self-preservation alarm isn't going off like crazy when he floors it? Let go!

I don't believe you're thinking this through thoroughly enough: Cyclist is hanging on, driver suddenly floors it. By the time the cyclist can react to this, the car is already at 30-40mph and accelerating fast. The hard, hard pavement is whipping by, and the cyclist is not a prepared and protected stunt man in a Hollywood movie, so his very first survival instinct is to hold the fuck on.

Speed increases, all this in a matter of seconds (even a relatively slow car can get to 60 in under 10 seconds) et voila, the cyclist no longer has a good choice to make.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: Perknose
I don't believe you're thinking this through thoroughly enough: Cyclist is hanging on, driver suddenly floors it. By the time the cyclist can react to this, the car is already at 30-40mph and accelerating fast. The hard, hard pavement is whipping by, and the cyclist is not a prepared and protected stunt man in a Hollywood movie, so his very first survival instinct is to hold the fuck on.

Speed increases, all this in a matter of seconds (even a relatively slow car can get to 60 in under 10 seconds) et voila, the cyclist no longer has a good choice to make.

But why was he (presumably) holding on in the first place? The driver is certainly not at fault for the cyclist holding onto his vehicle. Your statement would seem to imply that the only option for the driver of the vehicle is to not move, but to be entirely at the mercy of the cyclist. Frigging ridiculous.

 

[zoiks]

The guy pushes cyclist agenda and a cyclist! Double douche.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: zoiks
The guy pushes cyclist agenda and a cyclist! Double douche.

You misread. His boss, the mayor, pushes the cyclist agenda.

 

[sdifox]

sigh, one day I will learn to be patient and not hit stop and submit again.

 

[heymrdj]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Perknose
I don't believe you're thinking this through thoroughly enough: Cyclist is hanging on, driver suddenly floors it. By the time the cyclist can react to this, the car is already at 30-40mph and accelerating fast. The hard, hard pavement is whipping by, and the cyclist is not a prepared and protected stunt man in a Hollywood movie, so his very first survival instinct is to hold the fuck on.

Speed increases, all this in a matter of seconds (even a relatively slow car can get to 60 in under 10 seconds) et voila, the cyclist no longer has a good choice to make.

But why was he (presumably) holding on in the first place? The driver is certainly not at fault for the cyclist holding onto his vehicle. Your statement would seem to imply that the only option for the driver of the vehicle is to not move, but to be entirely at the mercy of the cyclist. Frigging ridiculous.

If somebody floors it you let go. Believe me I've been in the situation before, and my first though was let go. Why the hell would you hold on other than the fact you believe you can cling enough to get another shot in. If his desire was to hit the man, he deserved his dragging.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Perknose
I don't believe you're thinking this through thoroughly enough: Cyclist is hanging on, driver suddenly floors it. By the time the cyclist can react to this, the car is already at 30-40mph and accelerating fast. The hard, hard pavement is whipping by, and the cyclist is not a prepared and protected stunt man in a Hollywood movie, so his very first survival instinct is to hold the fuck on.

Speed increases, all this in a matter of seconds (even a relatively slow car can get to 60 in under 10 seconds) et voila, the cyclist no longer has a good choice to make.

But why was he (presumably) holding on in the first place? The driver is certainly not at fault for the cyclist holding onto his vehicle. Your statement would seem to imply that the only option for the driver of the vehicle is to not move, but to be entirely at the mercy of the cyclist. Frigging ridiculous.

My statement implies no such thing. :roll:

It only addresses why, once the cyclist had a hold of the car and it started to accelerate, it wasn't so easy-peasy for him to "just let go."

I'm placing zero blame here on anyone. Like you and everyone else pontificating in this thread, I don't know the full details of this incident.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: yllus
From what I read I came to the opposite conclusion - that the cyclist's grabbed onto the back of the car causing Mr. Bryant to panic and floor it, and so the death was almost completely the cyclist's own fault. Not to say Mr. Bryant should not possibly be charged with leaving the scene of an accident.

I have absolutely no idea how you came to that conclusion from the article you linked. Was the cyclist assaulting him with a gun or knife? If someone grabs my car, I don't floor it like a maniac and drive into oncoming traffic trying to knock the guy off with trees and mailboxes.[/quote]

what do you do? Stop and tell him "Please good sir, unhand my boot it could be dangerous for you"

Someone grabs my car and is attempting to get in or get to me will be peeled off the side if I have nothing to beat him off with.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

How does anything in that article lead you to the conclusion that the cyclist is at fault?

did the AG dude somehow have superglue covering his vehicle? Cyclist choose to latch on to it.

Not saying either was right though...both were wrong, but the cyclist chose his path.

 

[KMFJD]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: yllus
The cyclist (allegedly) continuing to hold on to the car instead of letting go when the speed picked up a little is where I place the most blame for this: He's in a steel box that weighs a couple of tons, you're on a flimsy bike. Your self-preservation alarm isn't going off like crazy when he floors it? Let go!

I don't believe you're thinking this through thoroughly enough: Cyclist is hanging on, driver suddenly floors it. By the time the cyclist can react to this, the car is already at 30-40mph and accelerating fast. The hard, hard pavement is whipping by, and the cyclist is not a prepared and protected stunt man in a Hollywood movie, so his very first survival instinct is to hold the fuck on.

Speed increases, all this in a matter of seconds (even a relatively slow car can get to 60 in under 10 seconds) et voila, the cyclist no longer has a good choice to make.

Natural Instinct is to hang on? I'd say it's more to let go...

 

[xanis]

If only the cyclist was carrying...

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

How does anything in that article lead you to the conclusion that the cyclist is at fault?

did the AG dude somehow have superglue covering his vehicle? Cyclist choose to latch on to it.

Not saying either was right though...both were wrong, but the cyclist chose his path.

Maybe he got caught up on something and couldn't get loose from the vehicle? My point is the guy driving the car was actively trying to dislodge this guy by driving around, up on the curb, into oncoming traffic, etc. How could anyone justify that kind of behavior?

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: KMFJD

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: yllus
The cyclist (allegedly) continuing to hold on to the car instead of letting go when the speed picked up a little is where I place the most blame for this: He's in a steel box that weighs a couple of tons, you're on a flimsy bike. Your self-preservation alarm isn't going off like crazy when he floors it? Let go!

I don't believe you're thinking this through thoroughly enough: Cyclist is hanging on, driver suddenly floors it. By the time the cyclist can react to this, the car is already at 30-40mph and accelerating fast. The hard, hard pavement is whipping by, and the cyclist is not a prepared and protected stunt man in a Hollywood movie, so his very first survival instinct is to hold the fuck on.

Speed increases, all this in a matter of seconds (even a relatively slow car can get to 60 in under 10 seconds) et voila, the cyclist no longer has a good choice to make.

Natural Instinct is to hang on? I'd say it's more to let go...

Not if you don't get a full chance to react because you're yelling at the driver until, in 3 seconds or so, you're already @ 30-40 mph.

THIS is my main complaint with many of the posts from the "hot house flower virgins" of ATOT -- they pass judgment on real life situations that can unfold hella quickly from the calm and safety of their latte stained laptops.

 

[LTC8K6]

But why was he (presumably) holding on in the first place?

Because the guy drove like a maniac, swerved into oncoming traffic and then onto the sidewalk and hit him?

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.

 

[HannibalX]

Typical mob mentality response from AT, guilty until proven innocent.

 

[LTC8K6]

That one version seems pretty clear to me.

The driver swerved into oncoming traffic for soem reason. To avoid the oncoming cars, he went on the sidewalk and hit the cyclist. The cyclist was unable to get loose and the driver did not stop immediately.

Of course, further info could change the story, as usual.

I'll go with the 48 hour rule before final opinions...

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: dainthomas
I realize it was instinctive, but why would you put other people in danger rather than just punch they guy? The worst that can happen is you might take a couple shots, but it's certainly better than killing some bystanders.

We have aggressive bikers in Portland, but our drivers are at least equally aggressive. There have been far more cases of drivers using their cars as weapons than bikes. People like that really should be in jail.

The worst that could happen is you'd die.

From getting punched? Do you have one of those genetic brittle bone diseases?

If the guy's armed that's one thing, but the cyclist in the OP certainly wasn't.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: yllus
The cyclist (allegedly) continuing to hold on to the car instead of letting go when the speed picked up a little is where I place the most blame for this: He's in a steel box that weighs a couple of tons, you're on a flimsy bike. Your self-preservation alarm isn't going off like crazy when he floors it? Let go!

I don't believe you're thinking this through thoroughly enough: Cyclist is hanging on, driver suddenly floors it. By the time the cyclist can react to this, the car is already at 30-40mph and accelerating fast. The hard, hard pavement is whipping by, and the cyclist is not a prepared and protected stunt man in a Hollywood movie, so his very first survival instinct is to hold the fuck on.

Speed increases, all this in a matter of seconds (even a relatively slow car can get to 60 in under 10 seconds) et voila, the cyclist no longer has a good choice to make.

Yeah, I was wondering whether the first instinct of a bicyclist would be to let go or hang on. I figured it would to bail and take his lumps at a lower speed rather than hold on and hope the driver slows down, but it could go either way.

The vehicle Mr. Bryant was driving a "1995 Saab convertible", which I'm guessing can go fast in a hurry. The entire thing probably took place in a matter of seconds.

Some more information on the victim:

Former Ontario AG under arrest

The Globe and Mail has learned that the victim was 33-year-old bike courier Darcy Allan Sheppard.

...

Raajiv Rajadurai, 23, and a friend were driving east on Bloor when they noticed that a car in the westbound lane had struck a cyclist. The accident didn't look serious, but the biker seemed agitated.

Mr. Rajadurai said he saw the the cyclist slam his backpack onto the car's hood and then grab the driver's side mirror as the vehicle sped away.

"The driver was going so fast that at one point the biker was holding on to his car and there were sparks coming from the bottom of his shoes," he said.

"It seemed like the driver was trying to shake him off because he turned really suddenly, put on the brakes, jetted it one last time and then all your hear is three thumps and then the guy falls on the floor."

Mr. Rajadurai said that when he got out of his car he noticed that the cyclist wasn't moving. He wasn't wearing a helmet.

This is likely to sway public opinion in Mr. Bryant's favour. Bike couriers are stereotyped as a particularly unfriendly bunch of the streets of Toronto.

 

[LTC8K6]

The driver swerves into oncomong traffic and up on the sidewalk first.

Then he hits the cyclist.

He did not drive on the sidewalk to dislodge the cyclist.

The sidewalk is where he hit the cyclist.

At least, that's how the story reads to me.

The driver slammed on his brakes while he was on the sidewalk, but hit the cyclist anyway, and then continued to drive.

 

[LTC8K6]

The driver was going West on the Eastbound sidewalk when he hit the cyclist and the argument ensued.

The driver will get little sympathy, imo.