Advocacy & Safety - Driver charged with purposely hitting cyclist in Toronto

This is just unbelievable.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/toronto-driver-charged-after-car-knocks-down-cyclist/article2232217/

A left turning driver purposely overtakes a left-turning cyclist (by moving further leftward into the oncoming lane), and then purposefully drives her into the sidewalk, and then purposefully mounted the sidewalk in order to hit the cyclist! This just days after another Toronto cyclist was killed by a left turning truck:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/780229-Cyclist-killed-in-Toronto

While it may be shocking, it is hardly "unbelievable."

The driver should be jailed and charged with attempted murder. Bail should be set at 10 million dollars.

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1084792--man-charged-in-violent-driver-cyclist-incident?bn=1

The Star seems to be reporting a completely opposite viewpoint...

He is charged with failing to stop after an accident, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and assault with a weapon.

Wasn't it DX-Man who said something about the charge of failing to stop after an accident is brought because no one has passed a law against failing to stop after an on-purpose?

People who shoot at people shouldn't be allowed to own or handle firearms. People who place others in danger while driving shouldn't be allowed to own or operate motor vehicles.

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1084792--man-charged-in-violent-driver-cyclist-incident?bn=1

The Star seems to be reporting a completely opposite viewpoint...
Sorry, kicking an inanimate object is not quite in the same league as willfully striking a person's body with two tons of motorized steel.

The motorist put her in danger with an aggressive pass, she responded by striking his cage. Oh, the terror he must have felt.

Sorry, kicking an inanimate object is not quite in the same league as willfully striking a person's body with two tons of motorized steel.

The motorist put her in danger with an aggressive pass, she responded by striking his cage. Oh, the terror he must have felt.
The thing is, the Toronto Star isn't even reporting it as deliberate. The article simply states that the motorist drove alongside the cyclist on the sidewalk, and that the cyclist was struck.

I don't know what actually happened, so I'm not going to jump to a conclusion.

The thing is, the Toronto Star isn't even reporting it as deliberate. The article simply states that the motorist drove alongside the cyclist on the sidewalk, and that the cyclist was struck.

I don't know what actually happened, so I'm not going to jump to a conclusion.

IMHO, the Toronto Star doesn't set a very high bar for quality journalism (The Globe and Mail is much more reputable). And for whatever reason their editorial board seems to have some sort of anti-cyclist bent. They are quick to condemn cyclists, and conveniently leave out incriminating details about vehicle behavior.

Plus, whether the hit was intentional or not, what did the driver honestly think would happen by mounting the sidewalk? (unless this part of the story is untrue). And then, after the hit, the driver took off. However the Star wants to spin it, this is a case of reckless aggression against a cyclist that thankfully didn't lead to serious injury.

The driver should be jailed and charged with attempted murder.

+1

I don't see what the big deal is. I mean, sure, a motorist just nearly killed a woman shortly after someone was killed in a similar incident, but what's the big deal?
Unfortunately that's what I think most people think.

Wouldn't this be practically the same as someone pinching lightly, doing no permanent damage, and the other pulling out a gun and blowing the knee caps off the pincher?
The reaction seems unjustified is all we can say. Maybe the cyclist was being a ******, but even then, this should be filed as an attempted murder case. Because in court, "She was being a ******" doesn't work well as a defense statement.

Why does a flagrant motorist have to admit their misdeeds concerning a cyclist, before law enforcement will do anything!!!!:mad: It is just another example of how law enforcement looks at cyclists'!!!!:mad:

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1084792--man-charged-in-violent-driver-cyclist-incident?bn=1

The Star seems to be reporting a completely opposite viewpoint...

I got the same impression from how they reported the story.

The thing is, the Toronto Star isn't even reporting it as deliberate. The article simply states that the motorist drove alongside the cyclist on the sidewalk, and that the cyclist was struck.

I don't know what actually happened, so I'm not going to jump to a conclusion.

Yes, no need to jump conclusions. The motorist may have had a legitimate reason for driving on the sidewalk, perhaps lured there by the wily cyclist.

Yes, no need to jump conclusions. The motorist may have had a legitimate reason for driving on the sidewalk, perhaps lured there by the wily cyclist.
Perhaps he was trying to intimidate the cyclist, or wanted to be closer to argue louder, or something. Obviously neither of these is acceptable behavior, but they're not quite on the same magnitude as deliberately hitting someone.