hrt4me

Bicyclist Facing Charges After Pepper-Spraying Motorist
Posted: 4:51 pm EDT June 16, 2010Updated: 6:56 pm EDT June 16, 2010

NORTH HUNTINGDON, Pa. -- A bicyclist is facing charges after police said the man pepper-sprayed a motorist.

Investigators said it happened in North Huntingdown Township in Westmoreland County as traffic was backing up on Route 993 Tuesday.

Police said 51-year-old David Smith was riding his bike in the middle of the two-lane road when traffic backed up between Fifth and Sixth streets

Police said Gregory Freidhof was driving his car and pulled to the side to call police to tell them that Smith was riding along the double yellow line.

Freidhof said he asked Smith to move to the side and that's when Smith doused him in the face with pepper spray.

People living near the area said Smith should be punished.

"People today are nuts,” said Frank Venzon. “They have no patience with anybody else. They think they own the road."

Smith faces several charges, including assault. His preliminary hearing is set for July 28th.

Digital_Cowboy

I can't help but wonder what hasn't been reported about this story? What caused the back up? How long was the back up, both in time and length? What words and/or actions happened between the motorist and cyclist to incite the cyclist to pepper spray the motorists?

It wouldn't surprise me if there is more to this than what has been reported.

Roody

Maybe so. It's a very poorly written and reported story, as so many are these days.

cord13

it says that the "victim" pulled off the road to call the police, then was sprayed. so either they pulled off together, or he sped back up the the cyclist and confronted him. something doesn't add up.

Digital_Cowboy

I think that a reporters today subscribe to the theory that it's easier to apologize after the fact than it is to ask permission/get the facts right the first time.

whitecat

That "story" sounds completely uncomprehensible. It does not add up. If there was a traffic jam, and if cyclist blew right by that using the middle of the road, no one would have time to get a good look at him, much less call anyone. If the traffic was backed up, how could that driver pull over, and from what would he pull over, from standing still in a traffic jam? Why would the cyclist stick around if he was passing trough? This "story" has no sense, no start, no end, from what can bee seen. That "reporter" should report back to school first, to learn how to write something that can be understood.

Spire

So the motorist calls the police based on a minor moving violation?

There is something fishy here, it doesn't sound like we have the whole story. How did the cyclist know the motorist was calling the police...

desconhecido 

Ok, best I can tell, the cyclist was riding down the middle of the road, highway 993, impeding traffic. Because the cyclist was riding down the middle of the road, traffic backed up between 5th and 6th Streets. The motorist, part of the traffic jam, called the police to tell them that a bicyclist was riding down the middle of the road impeding traffic; riding, apparently, near the double yellow that separates the lanes. The motorist confronted the bicyclist and suggested he move to the side of the road and the cyclist responded with pepper spray. Exactly how it came to be that the motorist was in a position to confront the bicyclist after having phoned the police is unclear. Perhaps cars were passing in the oncoming lane, crossing the double yellow to get around the cyclist. Perhaps there was room to pass the cyclist on the right by using the shoulder. It's not clear How the confrontation transpired is not clear either. Perhaps the motorist was rude and threatening. Perhaps the motorist's actions were sufficiently threatening to cause the cyclist to fear for his life, or at least to fear gross and disgusting insult. Perhaps the cyclist is off his meds. Who can possibly know from the report.

Zardhex

I think the motorist was upset that someone on a bike could blow past the 4-wheeled coffin Mr. Friedhof was sittin in, decided to have words with Mr. Smith, maybe the words got louder and more vulgar and threatening, and the cyclist decided to unleash the dose....could be the cyclist or the driver at fault...from the vague detail in the story, who knows what really happened...just goes to show that mutual respect between motorists/cyclists is still a major work-in-progress

dmac49

Oh my...but of course the bike rider simple could not have been at fault ! It's so nice to live in the A & s WORLD.

Digital_Cowboy

That's the point, from the rather sketchy details given in the article there really isn't anyway for anyone to know who is at fault here. It could have been the cyclist, or it could have been the motorist. There really isn't enough information to go on.

sudo bike

Judging from the usual exaggeration, I'm guessing that by "riding on the double-yellow line" he was actually simply taking the lane.

The rest, who knows? But that's kind of my guess about that anyway...

009jim

I'm glad to see so many people questioning the journalist's version. I used to think newspapers were a source of information but for the last 20 years I realized their stories are just a distorted one sided story based on some event. The side of the story is always told to sell the most newspapers. For instance, say there is this community where a majority feel some dislike toward cyclists, then if some drunk dude in a car runs a cyclist down while and the cyclist miraculously manages to avoid serious injury so he rips the dudes head off, the paper will print the story that "Cyclist Assaults Motorist". Other side of the coin; if the community is pro-cycle, the paper headlines "Drunk Motorist Arrested". Basically I would suggest people whenever you read a paper, no matter what the subject, always look for the other side of the story because it is probably where the truth lies.

009jim

I often hear about a nasty event where an innocent person has been killed by some moron. I think to myself what could I do if I was in that situation? One thing you've got to realize is that the cops are never there when you need one, true. Think of any situation you were in and you needed a cop to keep the peace. Nowhere to be seen - right. I have even more than once tried to report a problem to a cop and was told "oh there's nothing we can do". They are not interested until you are dead. So what's the value? Placebo effect? I guess that's why we have advertisement on the TV telling us if we do blah-blah we will be caught. The trouble is that the guys who do blah-blah seem to do it when no copper is around. So - you have a choice. Are you going to wait until you get hurt and then say "oh but the cops came and they said they will catch the dude, I'll be ok after my broken leg heals and I've got brain damage now anyway so I can't remember what life used to be like"? Or are you gonna have a can of pepper spray in your pocket? I know I'd much rather be healthy in jail than at home with brain damage (or worse).

sudo bike

In essence, "Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6".

At any rate, police are usually for apprehending someone who has already committed a crime, they don't generally stop them from happening.

Roughstuff

All this 'traffic jam,' 'double yellow line,' stuff is completely irrelevant. You use pepper spray in SELF DEFENSE. The bicyclist bears the burden of proof that use of pepper spray was justified in this case, plain and simple. I don't think being inconvenienced in traffic is enough; but certainly if he was harassed or near-assaulted by vehicle(s) then that is another matter.

Some he-said she-said testimony, no doubt. I feel bad for the biker, because it sounds like he has a weak case.

roughstuff

Bluechip

My favorite quote was "People living near the area said Smith should be punished." What exactly does that add to the story? Were they witnesses or just people who heard about the incident?

unterhausen

the logical problem with this story is that if the motorist just pulls over to the side of the road to call the cops, there is no reason for the cyclist to know that's what he was doing. There is no reason for the cyclist to pepper spray the motorist. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the motorist would have his window down if all he was doing was calling the cops. I'm guessing the pepper spray was an over-reaction. However, the likelihood that the motorist was innocent of all provocation seems rather slim.

thegooddoctor

This is what I also read into the account. No matter what, I always stay as far away from cars as practical and don't care to get aggressive with fellow motorists, show my track stand skills at red lights, ride two abreast on busy roads (or at all) etc. Arrogance and entitlement in many arenas seem to be a plauge in current society.

Digital_Cowboy

Yeah, I just "loved" that quote myself. Maybe they know something about the cyclist that wasn't included in the article?

Roughstuff

Please..after 20 years of Dan Rather, 60 minutes, PBS, PMSNBC, and whatever...it is far simpler than that. Some losers huddled around a 'journalist' with an IQ that puts Ron Artest to shame, made some snoot remark and the next thing ya know, its in print.

roughstuff

SCROUDS

Around these parts, assault with a deadly weapon (a 2 ton deadly weapon) is grounds to kill someone. Pepper spray was just being nice enough to leave his attacker alive.

Maybe the cyclist just snapped and got tired of 1 more honking a-hole yelling out their window. We don't have any real details.

Seattle Forrest

Well, the one and only thing this tells us, is that journalism is in the toilette. But we already knew that.

I'm curious how the police caught the cyclist? We're fast, maneuverable, and able to almost disappear. I would think that once the guy turned a corner, he would be "gone." I would also think he wouldn't stick around after pepper spraying somebody ... unless he expected the police to take his side in the dispute. Maybe somebody called in a report on "A guy on a bike - I think he had jeans on."

dougmc

Actually, thanks to "presumed innocent until proven guilty", the burden of proof is actually on the prosecutor, to show that the pepper spray was not justified. If the prosecutor can't convince a judge or jury of this beyond a reasonable doubt ... not guilty.

(Of course, there could also be a civil case, where the rules are radically different.)

(Of course, I also agree that you'd better be very certain of how a judge or jury would see your actions before you used that pepper spray ...)

unterhausen

I find it hard to believe that there is a self defense argument to be made for pepper spraying a motorist sitting in a car. If that part of the story wasn't true, then I'm willing to consider a self defense argument. You would think the police wouldn't have done anything if there was any element of doubt about that part.