General Cycling Discussion - Cyclist Road Rage Caught on Tape! (wait there is more)

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_10838.aspx

BONUS POINT: the attacker is a cop

Thats pretty heavy stuff.

Oh man. What an @$$. Glad they caught him at any rate. The cyclist seems to be a pretty decent guy, I guess. I'd be, well, let's just say I'd be a bit less of a pacifist. ;)

jeeze, wtf.

what a shame. on another (non cycling forum) i frequent people were chearing the guy for hitting the cyclist. what is wrong with people? that cop should not only loose his job but have to spend time in jail or teaching cycling awareness classes.

For those who didn't take the time to watcht the unedited video, which is very different from what they showed on the news, you should. Seems to me a lot of people assume the cyclist was just minding his own business and got hit bya crazy driver. Looks to me like the cyclist was an idiot (who I "assume" was riding in the middle of traffic) and the driver was an A-hole. Note, the driver didn't punch hte cyclist until he picked up his bike to use as a weapon. I'm interested to hear the drivers side of the story.

FTR, Idon't think either is fully innocent and I think they are both idiots.

He kicked the guy's bike before he tried to pick it up... and Im not really sure he was going to try to use it as a weapon. I also think the cyclist wasnt doing anything wrong. Its a busy city, with probably hundreds of cikes on the road. Looks to me like a classic case of a-hole driver. I dont think the driver resorting to physical abuse was necessary at all. Completely ridiculous.

Note, the driver didn't punch hte cyclist until he picked up his bike to use as a weapon. I'm interested to hear the drivers side of the story.
The cop hit the rear wheel of the bike, at which point the cyclist lifted it to get it out of the way. Even if he wanted to use it against the cop, he was only self defending himself. Fianlly the cop pucnhed the guy in the face, knocking one of his teeth out. He is charged with assault causing harm. It seems to be there was only one idiot.

I think the cop should do jail time for this.

It looked to me like the cop was pleading with the man for some time...probably to move but who knows. He looked frustrated and confused...even pleading his case to someone in his car or passerby's, I couldn't tell. Finally, his frustration got the best of him and he kicked the bike and then starting throwing punches.


Why didn't the cyclist just move on before it came to that? He had plenty of time to ride off. He just stayed there and said what??? Probably running his mouth at the cop, just as I'm sure the cop was running his mouth. Either side could have walked away before it came to blows.

I'm not saying assault is right or justified...just that the cyclist was an idiot for standing there and continuing the argument when he could have just moved on.

I'm also saying that the cop is obviously an a**hole, but just because the other guy was on a bicycle, does not mean he's not an a**hole.

It looked to me like the cop was pleading with the man for some time...probably to move but who knows. He looked frustrated and confused...even pleading his case to someone in his car or passerby's, I couldn't tell. Finally, his frustration got the best of him and he kicked the bike and then starting throwing punches.


Why didn't the cyclist just move on before it came to that? He had plenty of time to ride off. He just stayed there and said what??? Probably running his mouth at the cop, just as I'm sure the cop was running his mouth. Either side could have walked away before it came to blows.

I'm not saying assault is right or justified...just that the cyclist was an idiot for standing there and continuing the argument when he could have just moved on.

I'm also saying that the cop is obviously an a**hole, but just because the other guy was on a bicycle, does not mean he's not an a**hole.
Are you saying that if you somoene starts yelling at you and ordering you around you wouldn't argue? The cyclist was probably asking what was wrong with that guy.

The thing is, we don't have the full story, just the hype (true, false, biased,???). The witnesses said the driver was initially upset because the cyclst stopped prior to a yellow light and he missed the light because of it. 1. This means the cyclist was riding in the middle of the lane and blocking traffic, otherwise the car would have easily gone around him. 2. The driver is clearly motioning to the side of the road where cyclists generally should ride. 3. Neither is leaving, the cyclist is still in front of the car in the middle of the lane, the driver is stopped in the road out of his car frustrated. 4. The driver kicked in a sweeping "move it' motion the cyclists tire. 5. The cyclist picked up his bike and wound up in a motion to definatley hit the driver. 6. The driver hit the cyclist out of anger and to avoid being hit by the bike.
1. Wrong, the cyclist shouldn't be riding in the middle of hte road blocking traffic.
2. Wrong, the driver should have never gotten out of his car, even if the guy said something ot him
3. Wrong, the cyclist should have long ridden off. If the guys mad enough to get out of the car, ride off, get his license plate and report it.
4. Wrong, being a cop he should know better and get back in his car. (which he probably shouldn't have been out of in the first place). The body language of hte driver says to me when he kicked, "move your ******** bike" (doubly wrong)
5. Wrong, the cyclist chose to stay and fight instead of leaving. He picked up his bike and tried to hit the guy with it (really bad idea).
6. Wrong, the guy had no choice but to punch the guy, which he was probably itching to do anyway at this point, or get hit with a bicycle.

I'm not on the drivers side. But this whole thing is about escalation. Both parties clearly kept making it worse. There were probably words exchanged on both sides before the driver ever got out of his car. The cyclist lost a tooth to prove he "wasn't wrong."

If it were me, I would have moved over or rode off before it got that far. And I would have taken the guys plate down and called the cops on him. The lesson here for people who want to engage in shouting matches and stand toe-to-toe with A-hole drivers on matters of principle is, right or wrong be prepared to get a tooth knocked out.

Makes you wonder why the cop has been on "personal leave" since 2004.

6. Wrong, the guy had no choice but to punch the guy, which he was probably itching to do anyway at this point, or get hit with a bicycle.


To quote you, WRONG!

"no choice but to punch the guy"??? You ALWAYS have a choice. And as a cop, he should know better; he's expected to be above all that.

The cyclist may have done some stuff wrong, but the COP was in the wrong and takes the full blame for this one. He should never have gotten out of his car in the first place. Doing so set these events in motion.

Lols pwnt. That guy got owned.


1. Wrong, the cyclist shouldn't be riding in the middle of hte road blocking traffic.

You assumed this. Even if it were true cyclists have a right to take the lane when needed. Cyclists don't block traffic, they ARE traffic.

You should really cross reference this to the RBR thread you got it from...

I'm glad this cagetard didn't have a gun.

Funny that there are people here ignorant enough to defend the accused. He punched the guy numerous times. That is assault. It don't matter what happened before, during or after. He is charged with assault. There is NO way that is self defense.

Funny that there are people here ignorant enough to defend the accused. He punched the guy numerous times. That is assault. It don't matter what happened before, during or after. He is charged with assault. There is NO way that is self defense.

Absolutely! Even if the cyclist was picking up his bike to swing it at the driver (and in my opinion it doesn't look like that was his intent) it stops being self defense as soon as the cyclist tries to turn away.

With a good lawyer, I could see the potential for the cop getting off for the first hit, but for the ones after that he was just wrong no matter how it is sliced.

WHat could his defense be? "Your honor, he kept assaulting my fist with his face."
:rolleyes:

Ummm, yellow lights are also not supposed to be driven through.

1. This means the cyclist was riding in the middle of the lane and blocking traffic, otherwise the car would have easily gone around him.

Ouch. Anybody wanna take this one?

The driver punching him wasn't self-defense, it was the result of the his own actions which he took and continued to take, leading up to a situation where he looks to have forced his hand by not getting back into his car. It's all escalation, how something stupid gets blown way out of proportion and leads to bigger problems because no one is willing to back down.
If you watch the video, pay attention to the bike, not the cyclist or driver from the kick to the punch. You'll see when he kicks the bike it is more of a soft sweeping motion to push it sideways (it is not a attack on the guy, though the cyclist (both) were probably in the heat of the moment). The cyclists grabs it to keep it from falling over sets it fully down on the ground then picks it up and winds up trying to swing it into the guys head. (I'm not defending the jerk(driver), I'm just pointing out what happened) Watch the cyclists head, it's turned toward the jerk (driver), he's definately decided to get into a physical fight with the guy. It wasn't a suckerpunch. The driver will rightly have a lot of trouble to answer to and face for his actions. I'd still like to hear his version of what happened. I think it's sad to hear how people think the cyclist deserved getting punched and applaud the actions of the driver without knowing all the facts of the situation. I think it's equally sad that people with the same lack of information applaud the cyclist.

For those who think it is smart to argue with crazed people in the middle of the street I hope if you ever have children you give them better advice.

Ouch. Anybody wanna take this one?
I'm 100% for cyclists having a right to be on the road and to use the road in a safe and law abiding manner. The road isn't just for cars, nor is it just for cyclists. Cars aren't the only ones expected to obey the rules of the road. So far just about everyone, myself included, is making a lot of assumptions based on limited information about what actually happened from beginning to end.

:)

[SIZE=2] I'd still like to hear his version of what happened.

It would probably sound a lot like yours. Fortunately the video proves otherwise.

I see two enraged screwups here. Car drivers get pissed when bikes block the lane,and don't hug the right when they can.Is that "right"-no, but that is the way it is.If you can hug right with no increase in risk, hug right.Bike riding on roadways is a lot more risky than driving,so there is always increased risk!!
The cyclist should have left right away.Why stop and argue with a pissed off driver-especially since the bike rider obviously wasn't equiped to fight and win. I don't see any point in getting in a situation where you are goig to get your A kicked.-Leave!!If you are a skilled fighter of some sort-wrestling,martial arts-stay, but you had better hope your antagonist isn't armed(knife,gun,tire iron)-JUST LEAVE!!
The cop car driver is more wrong-probably-but if the bike rider was going to hit him with the bike(and he will convincingly argue that)-he isn't going to be convicted despite the fact that he hasn't been "on duty" in 3 years(why, beating the crap out of people-if so he is in trouble).
Just leave,and don't go out of your way to antagonise folks with 4000lb chunks of steel!!"DEAD RIGHT!!
This CV bs is all about being "Dead Right."."I have the right to....." yes, but he has a 5000 lb SUV going 30 mph!! I have the right to the whole lane!!
He must have wanted to be a martyr to the CV or CM cause-got his wish!!
Get a brain transplant!!Both of them.
Charlie

1. Wrong, the cyclist shouldn't be riding in the middle of hte road blocking traffic.

You have the right to take the lane.


3. Wrong, the cyclist should have long ridden off. If the guys mad enough to get out of the car, ride off, get his license plate and report it.
Ridden where? He is waiting on a red light.


5. Wrong, the cyclist chose to stay and fight instead of leaving. He picked up his bike and tried to hit the guy with it (really bad idea).
The cyclist did NOT fight. The only one who threw punches was the cop. It seemed to me that cyclist was simply moving his bike out of the way.


6. Wrong, the guy had no choice but to punch the guy, which he was probably itching to do anyway at this point, or get hit with a bicycle.
The cop had plenty of choice to avoid this, beginning with not leaving his car at all.


Both parties clearly kept making it worse. There were probably words exchanged on both sides before the driver ever got out of his car. The cyclist lost a tooth to prove he "wasn't wrong."
From what i see in the video, the only one in the wrong was the driver.

The cyclists grabs it to keep it from falling over sets it fully down on the ground then picks it up and winds up trying to swing it into the guys head. (I'm not defending the jerk(driver), I'm just pointing out what happened) Watch the cyclists head, it's turned toward the jerk (driver), he's definately decided to get into a physical fight with the guy.

I agree with most of your post, but this part could really be as simple as the cyclist grabbing his bike to use as a defensive weapon in case the driver decides to attack. Since the video doesn't have their conversation, we can't really know what, if anything, provoked the cyclist to lift his bike and position himself to use it as a weapon.

the cyclist shouldn't be riding in the middle of hte road blocking traffic.


WRONG! I always go to the middle of the lane when I come to an intersection. Otherwise the a-clowns will try to speed around me, which puts me in danger. Don't like it? Tough. The lane is mine just as much as it is the car's.]

That said, I wish an off-duty cop would go in a rage and knock my tooth out. I could use some dental work at city expense.

It would probably sound a lot like yours. Fortunately the video proves otherwise.
I wholly doubt that. My "version" is that we don't actually know what happened prior to the start of filming, or who said or did what. We only have assumptions. The video is very revealing, but you actually have to pay attention to what is happening in it to see what occured.

You can make whatever claims to what you think happened, that doesn't make it true. Video can be misleading (it doesn't always show you everything that is happening or has happened), you would know this if you had much experience with these types of situations. The intelligent thing to do before making rash decisions is to listen to both sides of a story (even if it appears clear-cut), reference that to witness accounts (which we don't seem to have) and reference those to the video. Then you can start to figure out what actually happened and why. Luckily we have a court system which allows both sides to tell what they think happened and a judge/jury to weed through the bs and conflicting parts instead of jumping straight to conviction.

The point I am trying to get across is that we don't actually know all the details of this specific event. I have dealt with several A-hole drivers when I ride and no two events have been identical, similar themes, but not identical all the way through. To be clear, if I had to lay blame based solely on the limited info I have I would blame the driver much more than the cyclist. Was the cyclist 100% blame free in all his actions, I don't know, but I doubt it. Not all cyclists obey the rules of the road or have common sense, not to attack the guy, but take a look at him - does he look like a courteous, conscientious, cyclist. Or the type of guy most of you would be p!ssed off at if he were riding on a bike path when you were trying to get a ride in. I think we know the answer to that. The driver is very likely more than 50% to blame (probably much much more).

aMull, he could have taken a right turn or ridden away on the sidewalk. The cyclist definately has a right to use the lane. But, again we don't actually know how he was using it. Read my previous post then watch the video again to see what I'm refering to as using the bike as a weapon.

CdCf, excellent observation. It's something I also initially considered before watching it a few times to be sure. Either way it's the escalation I was mentioning. By lifting the bike to use as a weapon (defensive or offensive) it takes things up another notch instead of trying to diffuse and end the situation.

The point I am trying to get across is that we don't actually know all the details of this specific event.

No...



...but take a look at him - does he look like a courteous, conscientious, cyclist. Or the type of guy most of you would be p!ssed off at if he were riding on a bike path when you were trying to get a ride in. I think we know the answer to that...

...but we're all for making sweeping generalizations based on his appearance. :rolleyes:

aMull, he could have taken a right turn or ridden away on the sidewalk. The cyclist definately has a right to use the lane.

In many places it is illegal to ride a bike on a sidewalk and it is usually a bad idea. He could have =walked= his bike on it, but that may not have been much help if his antagonist was bent on continuing the confrontation.

In many places it is illegal to ride a bike on a sidewalk and it is usually a bad idea:) So if someone got out of their call after yelling at you, you would stay and wait to see what he does and you wouldn't try to avoid the situation and leave because it might be illegal to ride on the sidewalk?? Or if you did you would walk your bike instead or riding away? (laughing in doubt) Me, I'd ride away fast or sprint then jump on my bike and keep going. I'd hope a cop stopped me too, I could report the idiot quicker. I'm sorry, I don't mean to make fun of you, but that is pretty funny. :):):)

gcl8a, while you are absolutely right about the generalizations that we really can't make any accurate assumptions based solely on his appearance, I still stand by the point that a lot of 'roadies' would likely complain if if he were riding on a bike path. Not everyone is as PC as they allude to being.

I'm not clear what you mean by "No." Are you saying we actually know absolutely what happened, from beginning to end, and what was said by who and how? I wasn't there and the video has no sound and starts after the beginning of the event. Even that is blocked at times by passing cars.

Running away may have saved him the tooth, but now at least the ****** has been charged. And why is their conversation so important? Fact is the guy assaulted the cyclist, and he should have stayed in his car, wait until the light is green and go on his way.

Running away may have saved him the tooth, but now at least the ****** has been charged. And why is their conversation so important? Fact is the guy assaulted the cyclist, and he should have stayed in his car, wait until the light is green and go on his way.
I actually agree with you that the guy was a ****** and that it is good he got charged with something. The missing info makes a difference between him being charged with simple assault or if something more severe is warranted and/or prosecutable. It also makes a difference in him getting convicted and if so what kind of sentence he should/will recieve.

Some people make it sound like cyclists in general can do no wrong and that this cyclist did absolutely nothing wrong or nothing to egg the driver and situation on (I don't know, can any of us?). That may in fact turn out to be the case here. But for those who are championing this as example how innocent cyclists have to deal with problems from A-holes in cars, they should find out all the facts of the case before they use it as an example so others can't turn it around on them.

There was a court date listed for last week. I couldn't find any info about what came of it. Does anyone know?

:) So if someone got out of their call after yelling at you, you would stay and wait to see what he does and you wouldn't try to avoid the situation and leave because it might be illegal to ride on the sidewalk?? Or if you did you would walk your bike instead or riding away? (laughing in doubt) Me, I'd ride away fast or sprint then jump on my bike and keep going. I'd hope a cop stopped me too, I could report the idiot quicker. I'm sorry, I don't mean to make fun of you, but that is pretty funny. :):):)

It turns out that in this case the idiot was a cop. So not only might he have been caught anyway, but maybe charged with riding on the sidewalk or, who knows, fleeing arrest. You've got to judge every situation as it happens and I'm just pointing out that some of your suggested solutions carry their own risks.

gcl8a, while you are absolutely right about the generalizations that we really can't make any accurate assumptions based solely on his appearance, I still stand by the point that a lot of 'roadies' would likely complain if if he were riding on a bike path. Not everyone is as PC as they allude to being.

I'm not clear what you mean by "No." Are you saying we actually know absolutely what happened, from beginning to end, and what was said by who and how? I wasn't there and the video has no sound and starts after the beginning of the event. Even that is blocked at times by passing cars.

I'm agreeing, as in: "No, we don't know all the details."

I was just being snarky about your comments about bike paths and clothes and their complete irrelevance to this case.

For the record, though, there's enough evidence for me to lay the blame squarely on the motorist, or at least to expect that the case will end hugely in the cyclist's favor. The motorist had every opportunity not to escalate the situation, and chose poorly every time. There may be something hidden, but the actions of both parties don't show it. (Yes I've seen all the video and the raising of the bike -- that's the only kicker -- but I still think the cyclist was by no means the aggressor)

I may be wrong when all the facts come in, but if I were betting in Vegas...:D

there is no arguement here, why dont people realize this, IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT LED UP TO THE PUNCH. the fact is, the guy was unprovoked. he decided on his own to punch him, and not just 1 or 2 times. there is now way based on that tape that you can say the cyclist was swinging his bike at the guy. you cant tell at all. i am not being biased to the biker either because im actually hard on bikers when it comes to situations like these, and the whole thing comes down to this, that cop is an idiot, and deserves all the punishment he gets, there is many situations i could get really mad and punch someone everyday, as we all could, but it doesnt make it legal.