Interesting vids. I'll have to watch them at home, more closely, before commenting in depth. The tags over top do not help to see what happens, but at least it is easy to see who's side they are on . . .
Okay, so I've watched them several times. The car hits the cyclist, and speeds off. According to the annotated video, after the initial contact, the cyclist "calmly approaches the vehicle". I find this comment to be dubious at best. My only question would be, "Why escalate the incident by chasing after the car? I do not see the cyclist grabbing onto the car as it speeds away in either video. Am I just missing it? Or does it occur out of frame?
Interesting vids. I'll have to watch them at home, more closely, before commenting in depth. The tags over top do not help to see what happens, but at least it is easy to see who's side they are on . . .
Okay, so I've watched them several times. The car hits the cyclist, and speeds off. According to the annotated video, after the initial contact, the cyclist "calmly approaches the vehicle". I find this comment to be dubious at best. My only question would be, "Why escalate the incident by chasing after the car? I do not see the cyclist grabbing onto the car as it speeds away in either video. Am I just missing it? Or does it occur out of frame?
Is there any question.....any at all, that Bryant hit the bicyclist intentionally from behind? If so I don't know what video you were watching. And basically it's the cyclists fault he's dead. It's the cyclists fault for the annotations on the video. It's easy to see from your post whose side you're on (doesn't make any sense when I write it either). It's either the cyclist who "attacked" the vehicle or it's his fault for escalating the situation. I don't see you posting about how Bryant should go to jail.
As for your opinion that as many bicyclist are at fault in traffic incidents as cars.....it's just that: opinion. Not based in fact. It goes with my other favourite myth....motorcyclists cause as many of their own deaths as other motor vehicles. 80% of motorcycle incidents involve at fault car drivers (turning left in front of them, pulling out from driveways etc. Why would you think the statistic is different for bicyclist?
I am not on anyone's side. I am merely stating what I could make out while watching the videos. As for the car striking the cyclist from behind, that is true. Intentionally? I am not going to prejudge ANYTHING in this particular case.
As for your assumptions about my opinions re: cars/motorcycles/etc. you are so far off base it is not funny. I said the number of horror stories on each side was equal. I am probably one of the few posters on this site who has had everything from a "G" all the way up to an "AZ" license, including my motorcycle license, as well.
Trust me, most accidents ARE caused by car drivers. Truck drivers are safer drivers than most car drivers simply because their livelihood is at risk if they fuck up too badly. Motorcyclists are safer than car drivers because they pretty much dead otherwise. These are generalities, but I believe them to be fairly representative. So please, do not try and tar me with whatever bias suits your cause.
The videos show a car hitting a cyclist from behind, and then backing up and speeding away. I cannot tell from the video if the cyclist grabs onto the car in those frames, or if it occurs later in the incident. That is all.
The courts will decide what happened that night. It is folly to assume that any of us can do so based on conjecture, and a couple of videos.
Bad cases make bad law. Both sides of the car/cycle debate have chosen to use this incident to further their agendas. That is disgusting. I will say no more on this issue beyond pointing out what I have already said:
The courts will decide the facts of this case. I am content to accept that judgement, regardless of what it is. Can you say the same?
The courts will decide the facts of this case. I am content to accept that judgement, regardless of what it is. Can you say the same?
So OJ is innocent right? (the first time anyway). Karla Homolka got what she deserved?
Judgement and justice are two separate things. I'll be happy if justice is served. I'm not saying throw Bryant in jail for life. But this wasn't an collision that resulted from innattention. The actions were deliberate (on both sides). It should be dealt with more severely than a traffic ticket.
So OJ is innocent right? (the first time anyway). Karla Homolka got what she deserved?
Judgement and justice are two separate things. I'll be happy if justice is served. I'm not saying throw Bryant in jail for life. But this wasn't an collision that resulted from innattention. The actions were deliberate (on both sides). It should be dealt with more severely than a traffic ticket.
OJ was found "Not Guilty". There is a difference . . . That is why I like Scotland's verdict of "Not Proven" as an option for juries.
Karla got what she was entitled to under the terms of her (BAD) agreement.
To answer your question, yes, I accept the verdicts in both cases, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. I do this because I WAS NOT INVOLVED materially in the process of the trial, so I do not know all the facts. Same with this case. Neither you nor I know all the facts, so I say let the trial figure it out.
As for justice, who decides? You? Me? No thanks . . . that is why we have juries and judges.
Or, you could try making a right turn while a cyclist has pulled up through traffic on the right hand side (between the cars and the curb), just so he can get ahead a few car lengths, and then take the verbal abuse that issues forth when "you" cut "him" off.
For every cyclist horror story you care to mention, there are as many egregious auto complaints, ALL equally justified.
More bike lanes are a wonderful idea, if implemented properly. The idea that painting a line on the road is sufficient is ludicrous. My father and older sister went to Holland this summer. Bike lanes are everywhere. But, they paint the entire lane red to differentiate it from the car lanes (when the lane is not physically separated from the car lanes, that is). Physical separation of car and bike lanes is the safest way to do this, but where is the space in the downtown core to put up said barriers?
You are talking about a fundamental shift in policy in terms of how people are going to get around in our cities. You are also talking about a large capital investment to make it happen. The politician with that kind of balls has not been born yet, sorry to say.
Firstly, I hope you agree that verbal abuse pales in comparison to being bumped/almost bumped. There's a fundamental difference between when a bicyclist riding improperly and a motor vehicle driving improperly; that being that when the cyclist rides improperly, they are putting their OWN lives in jeopardy. When I cyclist goes through a red light, if they get hit I say "Tough Shit". Just like when I jaywalk, I know that I'm taking a chance. I don't yell at passing cars and complain. However when I'm crossing on a green light and almost get hit by cars I will if able to confront the driver and show my displeasure. My problem is that most people don't know the rules of the road. They don't know that not only is a cyclist is legally entitled to ride on the road, they are obligated. Are we really surprised that a cyclist ran over a pedestrian?
Secondly, it's very hard to "intentionally bump someone" and then claim that you feel threatened. You couldn't wave a stick in a bouncer's face and legally shoot him when you are being ejected because you feel threatened.
Thirdly, with regards to people moving up while stopped at an intersection. Are you really going to tell me that when you see a bicycle stopped at a red light that you stay behind the bicycle and that you are in the norm by doing so? Are you surprised at being called an asshole? Not trying to say you're an asshole, I don't know you whatsoever. But based on the incident that you described, I don't know how you can be surprised at the cyclist's reaction.
Firstly, I hope you agree that verbal abuse pales in comparison to being bumped/almost bumped.
Agreed.
There's a fundamental difference between when a bicyclist riding improperly and a motor vehicle driving improperly; that being that when the cyclist rides improperly, they are putting their OWN lives in jeopardy. When I cyclist goes through a red light, if they get hit I say "Tough Shit". Just like when I jaywalk, I know that I'm taking a chance. I don't yell at passing cars and complain. However when I'm crossing on a green light and almost get hit by cars I will if able to confront the driver and show my displeasure.
Ditto.
My problem is that most people don't know the rules of the road. They don't know that not only is a cyclist is legally entitled to ride on the road, they are obligated. Are we really surprised that a cyclist ran over a pedestrian?
Secondly, it's very hard to "intentionally bump someone" and then claim that you feel threatened. You couldn't wave a stick in a bouncer's face and legally shoot him when you are being ejected because you feel threatened.
Apples/Oranges. You cannot know "intent". See my point on self-defence.
Thirdly, with regards to people moving up while stopped at an intersection. Are you really going to tell me that when you see a bicycle stopped at a red light that you stay behind the bicycle and that you are in the norm by doing so? Are you surprised at being called an asshole? Not trying to say you're an asshole, I don't know you whatsoever. But based on the incident that you described, I don't know how you can be surprised at the cyclist's reaction.
No. The cyclist has not cut me off, either. No. Hell no, have you seen the responses to some of my posts?
I never said the cyclist's response was surprising (I don't think). I just feel that, in a car/bike confrontation, the bike will lose everytime, so what is the point? Take down license #'s for grievous offences, and file a complaint. "Never take a knife to a gunfight."
See above. For the record, when it comes to cars/bikes, I have never been involved in an incident, from either perspective. I have merely put forth the idea that, for every car horror story, a driver can post a bike tale. He said/she said . . .
I am officially done with this thread . . . I hope.
See above. For the record, when it comes to cars/bikes, I have never been involved in an incident, from either perspective. I have merely put forth the idea that, for every car horror story, a driver can post a bike tale. He said/she said . . .
I am officially done with this thread . . . I hope.
Thirdly, with regards to people moving up while stopped at an intersection. Are you really going to tell me that when you see a bicycle stopped at a red light that you stay behind the bicycle and that you are in the norm by doing so? Are you surprised at being called an asshole? Not trying to say you're an asshole, I don't know you whatsoever. But based on the incident that you described, I don't know how you can be surprised at the cyclist's reaction.
if this quote was related to my comments plaease re read. I said "in your blind spot" and yes if a bicycle is stopped at an intersection ahead of me and is providing me with the proper arm up at a 90 degree angle indication of a turn, then yes, I am aware they are making a right hand turn and yes i yield to them. If a bike sneaks up on the curb in my blind spot after i have stopped and am fully aware of the vehicles stopped around me and doesnt give me any rights to my lane how can you try to use this as justification? Then the random bicycle vehiclist throws a fit at you and hits your car with their hand calling you an asshole. That was my point.
no vehicle should be sneaking up at any stop in traffic as far as I am aware.
I still would like to see video from what led up the incident recorded. Something tells me that we arent getting the full picture.
i have now looked at the biased videos posted above. It still seems as unclear as ever, and in fact at first glance appears that the bicylcist rode up (in the lane at a stop light, as indicated in the video, illegal as far as i am aware) then decided to park himself in front of the car at the stop light. The light turned green and the bicyclist did not move, from what the video captions say. My feelings have always been that there is more to this story, and I feel that something happened prior to this video that we are seeing, and that it was the cause of the events. I do wish to note how the bicyclist completely disobeyed the rules of the road as clearly seen on the video and thank who ever posted it on you tube for helping prove that bike couriers in Toronto want their cake and to eat it too. I have no issue with following the rules of the road as long as its an even playing field for all on the road. How can a person ever report bad bike driving? maybe they should have a liscense plate so it can be noted and reported if need be.
Let's agree that Sheppard was likely guilty of an illegal pass. Do you not agree that Bryant is (at the very minimum) guilty of either:
a) moving his car forward on a green light without first looking straight ahead to ensure the road was safe and clear of pedestrians/cyclists/animals/whatever
b) intentionally hitting a cyclist with his car
and that either of those possibilities equates to a much more serious and dangerous infraction?
-
This unfortunate story is still big enough to generate an article from US-based Bicycling Magazine. This is only on their website right now, but Bob Moinske has a monthly column in the print issue - so it might also show up there as well in a couple weeks.
i completely agree that the driver in the video is wrong in the "bump". What i am saying is that when this all blew up i think a lot more was going down or had already gone down, and we are only seeing a small percentage of the whole thruth.
i I do wish to note how the bicyclist completely disobeyed the rules of the road as clearly seen on the video and thank who ever posted it on you tube for helping prove that bike couriers in Toronto want their cake and to eat it too. I have no issue with following the rules of the road as long as its an even playing field for all on the road.
hmmm.
How many bicyclists disobey the rules of the road? How many cars? This isn't an issue of the "problem cyclists" it's a problem of road rage (from the cyclist or the car driver). Have you seen the drivers in Toronto? You make it sound like a forest of honest drivers and maniac cyclist buzzing around.
Sorry but, if anything, Mike is more charitable in his comments than most (on either "side"). There are probably an equal % of maniacs operating both types of vehicles. Cyclists are always going to come out losers when the two meet, however . . .
Cyclists do, however, suffer fewer consequences for their run of the mill disobedience of traffic laws than car drivers do. That is probably where a lot of the confirmation bias amongst drivers comes from, no?
Cyclists do, however, suffer fewer consequences for their run of the mill disobedience of traffic laws than car drivers do.
Are you including death in your consequences?.....I think the vulnerability of the bike rider ramps up the consequences don't you? So your argument is that car drivers are "mad" that bicyclist run stop signs and don't get a ticket? How many pedestrians flaunt laws? We don't have anyone writing in about those damn walkers!!!!!! When a cyclist runs a stop sign it doesn't kill someone!
Jesus, 800, read the entire post, would ya? Don't just read what you want to see . . . I said, "run of the mill".
Obviously, I am talking about the nuisance stuff and, yes car drivers (and cyclists) get pissed at dumb pedestrians too.
As for your last comment . . . never read a story about someone's granny getting knocked over by a cyclist and killed? I have.
But, go ahead, debate as irrationally as you like. It is this type of unreasoning, unbending approach that causes people to tune out any sort of logical solutions you may actually present in this thread.
But, go ahead, debate as irrationally as you like. It is this type of unreasoning, unbending approach that causes people to tune out any sort of logical solutions you may actually present in this thread.
goodnightnow
The Granny is the exception that proves the rule. In my post I had typed the granny example...but took it out as I though it was too much...guess I was wrong. As for the rest....what are you talking about? Really don't get the above.
Either way....I thought you were done with this thread.
The Granny is the exception that proves the rule. In my post I had typed the granny example...but took it out as I though it was too much...guess I was wrong. As for the rest....what are you talking about? Really don't get the above.
Either way....I thought you were done with this thread.
i'm gonna drop any further comments on this thread cuz 800 is really sounding very one sided and biased in this arguement. I will leave you with the following comments though.
I have been fair in my comments and still stand behind everything i have said. TY Milo for recognizing it.
b4 you go making any further biased remarks 800, i want you to know that yes i agree that some drivers in toronto are idiots but i feel that more bike couriers on bay st, university ave, avenue rd and surrounding streets are worse.
Further my 2 sisters were hit by a car driver in Vancouver while crossing the street at an intersection on a green light. The driver decided to watch the opposite light and saw it turned yellow, he then jumped out from behind a cube van in his pick up truck and struck them both, killing my younger sister who had pushed my youngest sister out of the way, who was also clipped from this pickup truck driver who didnt even have a liscense to drive. Our family was given $5k from the province, not even enough to burry her. So if you want to carry on with this foolish, biased and complete bullshit then carry on. I will continue to call you out on it. I have every reason to be upset with car drivers and have a hate on for them, however the video does not completely illustrate that.
The video shows sheppard peddling quickly in a lane designated for oncoming traffic in order for himself to park in front of bryants car and he intentionally sat there when the light turned green. This is shown in the video. Please dont try and distpute it. It is clear his intentions were to cause conflict plain and simple. If he was in such a hurry that he needed to drive on the wrong side of the road, surely he would have been aware of the traffic lights. I refuse to let you try and make him out to be some kind of angel who was done wrong by. I maintain that something happened prior to the event on the video that escalated to what we see happen in the above (biased sub-titled) video.
I also feel that 800's comments with regards to fluffing off bicylists who break the rules of the road to be offensive and to only be a true display of your sincere biased concerns with regards to the true issues of the matter.
I have no idea where you're coming from. All I can tell from your above post is that you think it's ok to run someone over because they piss you off. I don't care if someone pulls in front of you, tells you to fuck yourself and flips you the bird. You still aren't justified in running them over. as for "fluffing" I have no idea what you're talking about.(#1) Because I'm against people (not just cyclists) getting run over.....I'm biased? I don't think cyclist should get away with anything. But the punishment should fit the crime. Again when a cyclist runs a red light....give them a ticket....just like a car driver. When a car driver runs into a cyclist intentionally....charge them with assault. I don't care what the cyclist said/di that the car driver didn't like. Imagine the exact same situation where the cyclist was a pedestrian. Lets say drunk pedestrian runs in front of your car.....and won't get out of the way. How about if a car cut you off and wouldn't move....would you hit them? According to MidnightMike: run him over (weird when someone says you think something you don't eh?)
Btw are you pissed about something? "I refuse to let you try" sorry this is a forum, you don't have a choice....so relax. Re read my posts....never said the guy was an "angel" (#2) just that he got run over. Unfortunately you brought up your personal situation....which has nothing to do with anything. It's like saying you're a cop....or a taxi driver or bicycle tire maker. Is my opinion more relevant if I say I've been hit by a car before or not? Didn't think so. As for being biased....you make that sound like it means my opinion is not valid. You are biased* towards the car driver....does that mean you're wrong? The only thing offensive is how your comments have little to do with reality:
"I maintain that something happened prior to the event on the video that escalated to what we see happen in the above (biased sub-titled) video."(#3)
I maintain doesn't mean you made it up based on no evidence does it? Does it mean you have some insider information that no one else has? NO ONE has come forward to say that anything happened before the first colision in the video. Please tell us how you "maintain" anything that happened before the video (I'm kidding because I really know you made it up from a hunch or some Jedi skills or something, I don't actually want you to explain anything). Either way....you don't have to care what I think...... Let's agree:
I think you are wrong. (and I'm a smart ass)
You think I'm am wrong. (and come to conclusions based outside reality see #1,2,3,).
Is that right?
*term used to described a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology or result. (not necessarily bad is it) I'm biased towards poker,boobs and bicycles and guess what: cars! love em, they are responsible for my welfare. And why wait 10 days for the response....please don't answer, again I don't want to know. I'm official done with this thread (don't mean it....just wanted to see what it felt like to type it and I have to say it's not as satisfying as I thought it would be.....) And yeah I like brackets what of it!
By the way, I got the dancing bear one, and noticed a few of the changes in the first, but certainly not all of them. I love those sorts of videos. Just shows you what studies have proven as well: Eyewitnesses do not see everything, do not remember what they see very well, and often just plain get the facts wrong.
Comments
Okay, so I've watched them several times. The car hits the cyclist, and speeds off. According to the annotated video, after the initial contact, the cyclist "calmly approaches the vehicle". I find this comment to be dubious at best. My only question would be, "Why escalate the incident by chasing after the car? I do not see the cyclist grabbing onto the car as it speeds away in either video. Am I just missing it? Or does it occur out of frame?
Is there any question.....any at all, that Bryant hit the bicyclist intentionally from behind? If so I don't know what video you were watching. And basically it's the cyclists fault he's dead. It's the cyclists fault for the annotations on the video. It's easy to see from your post whose side you're on (doesn't make any sense when I write it either). It's either the cyclist who "attacked" the vehicle or it's his fault for escalating the situation. I don't see you posting about how Bryant should go to jail.
As for your opinion that as many bicyclist are at fault in traffic incidents as cars.....it's just that: opinion. Not based in fact. It goes with my other favourite myth....motorcyclists cause as many of their own deaths as other motor vehicles. 80% of motorcycle incidents involve at fault car drivers (turning left in front of them, pulling out from driveways etc. Why would you think the statistic is different for bicyclist?
The music kind of sickens me
As for your assumptions about my opinions re: cars/motorcycles/etc. you are so far off base it is not funny. I said the number of horror stories on each side was equal. I am probably one of the few posters on this site who has had everything from a "G" all the way up to an "AZ" license, including my motorcycle license, as well.
Trust me, most accidents ARE caused by car drivers. Truck drivers are safer drivers than most car drivers simply because their livelihood is at risk if they fuck up too badly. Motorcyclists are safer than car drivers because they pretty much dead otherwise. These are generalities, but I believe them to be fairly representative. So please, do not try and tar me with whatever bias suits your cause.
The videos show a car hitting a cyclist from behind, and then backing up and speeding away. I cannot tell from the video if the cyclist grabs onto the car in those frames, or if it occurs later in the incident. That is all.
The courts will decide what happened that night. It is folly to assume that any of us can do so based on conjecture, and a couple of videos.
Bad cases make bad law. Both sides of the car/cycle debate have chosen to use this incident to further their agendas. That is disgusting. I will say no more on this issue beyond pointing out what I have already said:
The courts will decide the facts of this case. I am content to accept that judgement, regardless of what it is. Can you say the same?
So OJ is innocent right? (the first time anyway). Karla Homolka got what she deserved?
Judgement and justice are two separate things. I'll be happy if justice is served. I'm not saying throw Bryant in jail for life. But this wasn't an collision that resulted from innattention. The actions were deliberate (on both sides). It should be dealt with more severely than a traffic ticket.
OJ was found "Not Guilty". There is a difference . . . That is why I like Scotland's verdict of "Not Proven" as an option for juries.
Karla got what she was entitled to under the terms of her (BAD) agreement.
To answer your question, yes, I accept the verdicts in both cases, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. I do this because I WAS NOT INVOLVED materially in the process of the trial, so I do not know all the facts. Same with this case. Neither you nor I know all the facts, so I say let the trial figure it out.
As for justice, who decides? You? Me? No thanks . . . that is why we have juries and judges.
Firstly, I hope you agree that verbal abuse pales in comparison to being bumped/almost bumped. There's a fundamental difference between when a bicyclist riding improperly and a motor vehicle driving improperly; that being that when the cyclist rides improperly, they are putting their OWN lives in jeopardy. When I cyclist goes through a red light, if they get hit I say "Tough Shit". Just like when I jaywalk, I know that I'm taking a chance. I don't yell at passing cars and complain. However when I'm crossing on a green light and almost get hit by cars I will if able to confront the driver and show my displeasure. My problem is that most people don't know the rules of the road. They don't know that not only is a cyclist is legally entitled to ride on the road, they are obligated. Are we really surprised that a cyclist ran over a pedestrian?
Secondly, it's very hard to "intentionally bump someone" and then claim that you feel threatened. You couldn't wave a stick in a bouncer's face and legally shoot him when you are being ejected because you feel threatened.
Thirdly, with regards to people moving up while stopped at an intersection. Are you really going to tell me that when you see a bicycle stopped at a red light that you stay behind the bicycle and that you are in the norm by doing so? Are you surprised at being called an asshole? Not trying to say you're an asshole, I don't know you whatsoever. But based on the incident that you described, I don't know how you can be surprised at the cyclist's reaction.
See above. For the record, when it comes to cars/bikes, I have never been involved in an incident, from either perspective. I have merely put forth the idea that, for every car horror story, a driver can post a bike tale. He said/she said . . .
I am officially done with this thread . . . I hope.
Have you ever ridden a bicycle?
Thirdly, with regards to people moving up while stopped at an intersection. Are you really going to tell me that when you see a bicycle stopped at a red light that you stay behind the bicycle and that you are in the norm by doing so? Are you surprised at being called an asshole? Not trying to say you're an asshole, I don't know you whatsoever. But based on the incident that you described, I don't know how you can be surprised at the cyclist's reaction.
if this quote was related to my comments plaease re read. I said "in your blind spot" and yes if a bicycle is stopped at an intersection ahead of me and is providing me with the proper arm up at a 90 degree angle indication of a turn, then yes, I am aware they are making a right hand turn and yes i yield to them. If a bike sneaks up on the curb in my blind spot after i have stopped and am fully aware of the vehicles stopped around me and doesnt give me any rights to my lane how can you try to use this as justification? Then the random bicycle vehiclist throws a fit at you and hits your car with their hand calling you an asshole. That was my point.
no vehicle should be sneaking up at any stop in traffic as far as I am aware.
I still would like to see video from what led up the incident recorded. Something tells me that we arent getting the full picture.
hmmm.
a) moving his car forward on a green light without first looking straight ahead to ensure the road was safe and clear of pedestrians/cyclists/animals/whatever
b) intentionally hitting a cyclist with his car
and that either of those possibilities equates to a much more serious and dangerous infraction?
-
This unfortunate story is still big enough to generate an article from US-based Bicycling Magazine. This is only on their website right now, but Bob Moinske has a monthly column in the print issue - so it might also show up there as well in a couple weeks.
When Worlds Collide
by Bob Mionske
Bicycling Magazine, Sep. 16, 2009
How many bicyclists disobey the rules of the road? How many cars? This isn't an issue of the "problem cyclists" it's a problem of road rage (from the cyclist or the car driver). Have you seen the drivers in Toronto? You make it sound like a forest of honest drivers and maniac cyclist buzzing around.
Cyclists do, however, suffer fewer consequences for their run of the mill disobedience of traffic laws than car drivers do. That is probably where a lot of the confirmation bias amongst drivers comes from, no?
Are you including death in your consequences?.....I think the vulnerability of the bike rider ramps up the consequences don't you? So your argument is that car drivers are "mad" that bicyclist run stop signs and don't get a ticket? How many pedestrians flaunt laws? We don't have anyone writing in about those damn walkers!!!!!! When a cyclist runs a stop sign it doesn't kill someone!
Obviously, I am talking about the nuisance stuff and, yes car drivers (and cyclists) get pissed at dumb pedestrians too.
As for your last comment . . . never read a story about someone's granny getting knocked over by a cyclist and killed? I have.
But, go ahead, debate as irrationally as you like. It is this type of unreasoning, unbending approach that causes people to tune out any sort of logical solutions you may actually present in this thread.
goodnightnow
The Granny is the exception that proves the rule. In my post I had typed the granny example...but took it out as I though it was too much...guess I was wrong. As for the rest....what are you talking about? Really don't get the above.
Either way....I thought you were done with this thread.
Bluffing, obv.
I have been fair in my comments and still stand behind everything i have said. TY Milo for recognizing it.
b4 you go making any further biased remarks 800, i want you to know that yes i agree that some drivers in toronto are idiots but i feel that more bike couriers on bay st, university ave, avenue rd and surrounding streets are worse.
Further my 2 sisters were hit by a car driver in Vancouver while crossing the street at an intersection on a green light. The driver decided to watch the opposite light and saw it turned yellow, he then jumped out from behind a cube van in his pick up truck and struck them both, killing my younger sister who had pushed my youngest sister out of the way, who was also clipped from this pickup truck driver who didnt even have a liscense to drive. Our family was given $5k from the province, not even enough to burry her. So if you want to carry on with this foolish, biased and complete bullshit then carry on. I will continue to call you out on it. I have every reason to be upset with car drivers and have a hate on for them, however the video does not completely illustrate that.
The video shows sheppard peddling quickly in a lane designated for oncoming traffic in order for himself to park in front of bryants car and he intentionally sat there when the light turned green. This is shown in the video. Please dont try and distpute it. It is clear his intentions were to cause conflict plain and simple. If he was in such a hurry that he needed to drive on the wrong side of the road, surely he would have been aware of the traffic lights. I refuse to let you try and make him out to be some kind of angel who was done wrong by. I maintain that something happened prior to the event on the video that escalated to what we see happen in the above (biased sub-titled) video.
I also feel that 800's comments with regards to fluffing off bicylists who break the rules of the road to be offensive and to only be a true display of your sincere biased concerns with regards to the true issues of the matter.
I have no idea where you're coming from. All I can tell from your above post is that you think it's ok to run someone over because they piss you off. I don't care if someone pulls in front of you, tells you to fuck yourself and flips you the bird. You still aren't justified in running them over. as for "fluffing" I have no idea what you're talking about.(#1) Because I'm against people (not just cyclists) getting run over.....I'm biased? I don't think cyclist should get away with anything. But the punishment should fit the crime. Again when a cyclist runs a red light....give them a ticket....just like a car driver. When a car driver runs into a cyclist intentionally....charge them with assault. I don't care what the cyclist said/di that the car driver didn't like. Imagine the exact same situation where the cyclist was a pedestrian. Lets say drunk pedestrian runs in front of your car.....and won't get out of the way. How about if a car cut you off and wouldn't move....would you hit them? According to MidnightMike: run him over (weird when someone says you think something you don't eh?)
Btw are you pissed about something? "I refuse to let you try" sorry this is a forum, you don't have a choice....so relax. Re read my posts....never said the guy was an "angel" (#2) just that he got run over. Unfortunately you brought up your personal situation....which has nothing to do with anything. It's like saying you're a cop....or a taxi driver or bicycle tire maker. Is my opinion more relevant if I say I've been hit by a car before or not? Didn't think so. As for being biased....you make that sound like it means my opinion is not valid. You are biased* towards the car driver....does that mean you're wrong? The only thing offensive is how your comments have little to do with reality:
"I maintain that something happened prior to the event on the video that escalated to what we see happen in the above (biased sub-titled) video."(#3)
I maintain doesn't mean you made it up based on no evidence does it? Does it mean you have some insider information that no one else has? NO ONE has come forward to say that anything happened before the first colision in the video. Please tell us how you "maintain" anything that happened before the video (I'm kidding because I really know you made it up from a hunch or some Jedi skills or something, I don't actually want you to explain anything). Either way....you don't have to care what I think...... Let's agree:
I think you are wrong. (and I'm a smart ass)
You think I'm am wrong. (and come to conclusions based outside reality see #1,2,3,).
Is that right?
*term used to described a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology or result. (not necessarily bad is it) I'm biased towards poker,boobs and bicycles and guess what: cars! love em, they are responsible for my welfare. And why wait 10 days for the response....please don't answer, again I don't want to know. I'm official done with this thread (don't mean it....just wanted to see what it felt like to type it and I have to say it's not as satisfying as I thought it would be.....) And yeah I like brackets what of it!
YouTube - Test Your Awareness : Whodunnit?
YouTube - Test Your Awareness: Do The Test
Hope for Michael Bryant? Judge acquits motorist of assaulting cyclist in 2007 altercation - Posted Toronto
I wonder . . .
By the way, I got the dancing bear one, and noticed a few of the changes in the first, but certainly not all of them. I love those sorts of videos. Just shows you what studies have proven as well: Eyewitnesses do not see everything, do not remember what they see very well, and often just plain get the facts wrong.