RazrSkutr

Some of you will remember Michael Bryant, the AG of Ontario who dragged bike courier Darcy Sheppard to his death ... after first ramming him from behind as seen on the video below. Now that a safe interval has passed Michael is releasing a memoir. The link below the video is to the CBC's coverage of it in which they carefully use the passive voice to describe "when he was involved in an incident which took a cyclists life."

Here's a fun game; let's think of all the other things we could report with that phrasing:

Terrorist attacks: "Osama bin Laden was involved in an incident which took some Americans' lives"
Rapes: "The Penn State coach was involved in an incident which violated some children"
Theft: "The suspect was involved in an incident in which some people had their money removed and spent by someone else."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...8-seconds.html

no motor?

I was thinking of moving to Canada when this happened for a variety of reasons, with a better/fairer justice system being one of them. This convinced me not too.

GamblerGORD53

That video is like editing WWII and only showing the A-Bombs.
The FACTS are that this LOONIE cyclist has ATTACKED over a dozen vihicles/drivers.

asmac

That seems to be the case if we can believe anything that's been reported. Nonetheless, I'm pretty sure that if I did what Bryant did the police/justice system response would have been different and probably a bit less understanding. Bryant claims to have lost some of his arrogance and I hope it's true.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...8-seconds.html

To my Chicago wannabe emigrant friend, what did you think... that Canadians gambol about all day in green meadows full of rainbows and sunshine telling each other how sorry we are. Honestly, you've been watching too much Michael Moore.

Commodus

I didn't see the cyclist attack anyone in the video. He was probably yelling at the guy I guess.

Nonetheless, I get yelled at like once a month or so by some loonie driver. Well that's probably an exaggeration, maybe every three months. However, I'm pretty sure if I killed one of them I would at least go to trial.

lostarchitect 

Oh, come on.

Chris516

I was thinking of doing the same thing. But for different reasons. This and some other reasons made me change my mind.

silmarillion

Whaaat???

asmac, Serious joykill. Couldn't you have let us down a little easier than that?

And I had such high hopes.

Next thing you know you'll be telling us that they do not plan to bring F1 back to Montreal...

Oh well, there's always Rush, Hockey and Beer!

Wolfvegas

There is video/photos of the biker in previous incidents that show him trying to get in someones car, the guy was a lunatic.

I was just in Toronto this weekend and it looked like one of the most friendly places to bike ever compared to other cities I have been to (montego bay, Edmonton, st.johns, Fort Lauderdale ect ect.

Having said that.... Canada rocks and im glad im Canadian....

RazrSkutr

I think that's the interesting thing about this case. There's no doubt that Darcy Allan Shepard was no choir boy -- but the idea that I can ram someone from behind, and THEN speed off with them hanging from my car and smash them to death and not even face a trial seems ... odd ... especially now that there are hints in the CBC link that he's "struggling with alcoholism".

Commodus

Yup. So the guy on the bike was a lunatic, sure, maybe he was. Most people call the police when they're confronted with a guy like that, they don't run him over three times.

spunkyj

Bryant did not run Darcy over. The video shows a stalled car lurching forward three times. Police confirmed from video evidence that the car's headlights dimmed between lurches, consistent with Bryant's story that he was trying to restart his engine. Apparently Darcy became enraged that he was lurched at and charged toward the car. This is when Bryant panicked, and trying to restart his car lurched at Darcy again. Darcy ended up rolling on the hood of Bryant's car, but witnesses report he was not seriously injured at this point. Now an enraged Darcy tries to hold on to the convertible while Bryant continues to try to escape.

I agree that Bryant's case should have at least gone to trial. He should have faced some consequences for not being able to control his car properly when he first lurched into Darcy. His car should have been in safe operating condition, even in a panicked situation.

Commodus

Okay, maybe the first one was accidental. Maybe he wasn't just trying to threaten the guy, and then ran him over when he called his bluff. The second? The third? At what point does a regular human being, I don't know, stop the car and call the cops? An ambulance?

spunkyj

The dimming headlights are evidence that Bryant was truly having trouble restarting his car (yes, all three times), and his panic as Darcy approached the car with possibly violent intentions is what (he claims) caused him to lose control. Given the evidence his car had actually stalled, and witness testimony that Darcy was out of control at the time, I can see how Bryant panicked and just wanted to get away as fast as possible.

This is no excuse for having a poorly maintained car, and not being able to control it, but it doesn't amount to purposefully running into Darcy. On the other hand the claim that he somehow purposefully made his car stall in order to have an excuse to ram into a cyclist sounds comparably contrived.


Faced with a raging, drunk cyclist (who had already had the police called on him earlier in the night and who had been antagonizing other motorists before Bryant) I'm not sure how many of us would stop. In an enclosed car, sure. But not in a convertible, and especially not with a loved one also in the car.

After the incident Bryant pulled around the corner, stopped, and called the police. If Darcy hadn't latched on to his convertible this may have been his original intention.

RazrSkutr

It would be great if there had been a jury trial with expert witnesses called to testify on oath whether or not this is actually believable. Unfortunately there was no trial.


Again, it would be great to have this evidence presented to a jury who could decide after how many minutes it is reasonable to pull in; after expert witnesses had explained the precise legal definition of fleeing the scene of an accident; after cellphone records had been analyzed by other expert witnesses. Sadly, for some reason, even after one person was killed, there was no trial. Weird.

Commodus

At no point did I see the cyclist threaten the motorist. He originally stopped his bike in front of the car. There was an entire hood and windshield between them. I don't even see how it was physically possible for the cyclist to reach Bryant, or his loved one. If at any point he moved to the side of the car to reach at them, why couldn't he just drive away?

And the dimming headlights thing...I just can not accept any kind of excuse for a driver so incompetent that his failure to start his car results in him striking someone three separate times. Frankly, I think it's much more likely that he struck him on purpose, perhaps stalling his car as he attempted to hit him without actually killing him. That is, lurching forward to hit him and then trying to brak short of actually running completely over him. That is the kind of situation where it makes sense that, yea, maybe you couldn't get back to the clutch in time after hitting the brake. It was either sheer, negligent incompetence (keep in mind we're talking about an admitted alcoholic here, coming back from celebrating his anniversary) or on purpose. I just don't see any middle ground between the two.

And if someone latches onto your convertible, you should probably stop moving. You should definitely not drive into oncoming traffic, and against objects on the side of the road. Cuz that could kill the guy.

RaleighSport

Just curious does anyone have the contact info for this guy? (The runner over)

spunkyj

Some of my post alludes to previously reported aspects of the case which are not shown in the video. There were many eye witness accounts of what happened, and they are easy to find in a google search if you're interested. Some of your assumptions about what happened (based on your viewing of the video) are factually incorrect. Darcy was never run over by Bryant, and in the video he is only hit once by the car (the first two lurches forward didn't result in contact). In addition, Darcy's girlfriend had called the police on him earlier in the night due to drunken domestic violence, and eye witnesses describe Darcy as throwing garbage and pylons in the street, screaming at motorists, and doing figure 8s to block entire lanes of traffic just prior to his encounter with Bryant. Bryant claims he was threatened after his car first lurched forward, without hitting Darcy (Darcy presumably felt this was a purposefully aggressive, and responded in kind).

The whole point is that Bryant's car was stalled, meaning that he couldn't simply drive away if Darcy moved to the passenger side. This is why Bryant panicked. (Furthermore, when Darcy eventually did make it to the side he attempted to punch Bryant, grab the steering wheel, and hold onto the moving car).

I agree here that Bryant's mishandling of his automobile should have been prosecuted. I don't drive a manual transmission, so you could be right about his explanation sounding fishy. But I still think it makes more sense that he lurched forward thrice in an attempt to start his car, rather than he purposefully tried to ram Darcy and had the misfortune of stalling all three times.

spunkyj

I agree with you there. Bryant should have been prosecuted and subjected to the scrutiny of the law and common sense.

spunkyj

Some of my post alludes to previously reported aspects of the case which are not shown in the video. There were many eye witness accounts of what happened, and they are easy to find in a google search if you're interested. Some of your assumptions about what happened (based on your viewing of the video) are factually incorrect. Darcy was never run over by Bryant, and in the video he is only hit once by the car (the first two lurches forward didn't result in contact). In addition, Darcy's girlfriend had called the police on him earlier in the night due to drunken domestic violence, and eye witnesses describe Darcy as throwing garbage and pylons in the street, screaming at motorists, and doing figure 8s to block entire lanes of traffic just prior to his encounter with Bryant. Bryant claims he was threatened after his car first lurched forward, without hitting Darcy (Darcy presumably felt this was a purposefully aggressive, and responded in kind).

The whole point is that Bryant's car was stalled, meaning that he couldn't simply drive away if Darcy moved to the passenger side. This is why Bryant panicked. (Furthermore, when Darcy eventually did make it to the side he attempted to punch Bryant, grab the steering wheel, and hold onto the moving car).

I agree here that Bryant's mishandling of his automobile should have been prosecuted. I don't drive a manual transmission, so you could be right about his explanation sounding fishy. But I still think it makes more sense that he lurched forward thrice in an attempt to start his car, rather than he purposefully tried to ram Darcy and had the misfortune of stalling stalled all three times.

Daves_Not_Here

At least six prior incidents of confronting motorists? Police had just been there on a domestic violence complaint?

https://news.nationalpost.com/2010/05...bryant-photos/
https://news.nationalpost.com/2010/05...ant-withdrawn/

If I'm in an open convertable and menaced by an aggressive thug, I can only hope he's the only one I run over.

asmac

c/o Premier Dalton McGuinty
Queen's Park
Toronto ON

RazrSkutr

You make a great argument for taking you off the road whether on a bicycle or a car. It's out of hormonal insanity like this that such situations occur: on both sides.

Seriously: if you have a bicycle, please sell it and get yourself something appropriate to your mental situation (perhaps a strait-jacket?). If you have a car .... let's hope you're an attorney general struggling with your alcholism.

GamblerGORD53

Re: the 2 links above
What the video does show is Darcy passing the car rather loonily on the left. WHY ???? TO cause trouble IMO.

So in the BMW incident Darcy thinks cars are not allowed to cross the yellow line to pass objects and SMVs ?? WTF
So the police had contact with this wildly drunk guy and they ALLOWED him to ride his bike home drunk ?? WTF
So the Toronto Bicycle Union STILL thinks this is just a car/cyclist "accident" WTF
So RazrSkutr thinks it's OK for a drunk to jump on your car ? WTF

IMO the POLICE are the ones totally responsible for the entire train of events.

asmac

Nonsense. It's understandable that people might panic when they're threatened and predictable that bad things can result.