Out Cole
Doin' It All for the Cookie
Pages to Fold
Introducing Ask Torontoist
A Trash Bin Quandary
Remember when, nearly two years ago, a motorist and a cyclist were involved in a particularly newsworthy physical altercation which involved cup throwing, car-keying and bike stomping?
At about 9:45 a.m. this morning, another shocking confrontation between a motorist and a cyclist took place at the intersection of College and McCaul Streets. During their heated dispute, the cyclist stabbed the motorist two to three times in the neck with a screwdriver. The cyclist, described as a male in his late 20s or 30s, fled the scene before police arrived and the motorist was taken to St. Michael's Hospital where his injuries were declared non-life threatening. One witness speaking to the Post theorized that the cyclist may have been a homeless man from a nearby shelter.
While many details of the altercation have not yet been released, we fear that this attack will further strain the already-tense biker-motorist relationship in Toronto. We'll keep you posted as developments continue.
Photo by SirCharlie in the Torontoist Flickr Pool.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
The day of the Holt Renfrew TIFF Party there was another assault by a deranged cyclist on a motorist. At Bay&Bloor (where Bloor was 1/2 bocked thanks to the party and 2 Police were standing in the middle of the intersection supervising) a young woman going southbound in a Civic (I think). She had gotten stuck, as usual, and was clearing the intersection just as Bloor got the green when an overly aggressive cyclist jumped the light and got hit (Bay-Bloor is serious hell for anyone, and it takes a while into the next light before its possible to clear for anyone).
The cyclist was absolutely unhurt, and exhibited this by popping up in self-righteous anger and attacking the woman's car. He kicked her car and then tried to kick the driver's window in until police arrived (from 10 feet away, they'd watched the whole thing go down) and subdued him.
Given the overly entitled attitude of cyclists, self-righteous politics leading to unwarranted assaults, total lack of manners or courtesy, and an abhorrence of traffic laws, the province should ban cycling as a form of commuting. Recreational cyclists are decent enough people with an appreciation for how a driver sees the road and a defensive approach to the road. They know that they pretty much have to break many traffic rules (stop signs, misusing traffic light mechanics) and thus must always be on the defensive. Cycle commuters are radical activists foaming at the mouth to strike back at "the system, man!" They are inherently dangerous and must be dealt with severely.
It is very unfortunate that criminal penalties in Canada are so weak. A politically motivated attempted murder is nothing more than terrorism and failing speedy capital punishment the perp should be jailed permanently, preferably on Hans Island.
was probably parked in the bike lane. can't say i haven't been tempted to take similar vigilante actions on occasion.
Every time I read that someone's injuries have been "declared non-life-threatening," I picture some fat guy in period costume with a scroll and three-cornered hat standing outside the hospital, saying, "Hear ye, hear ye! Let it be known that the man's injuries are not a danger to his life!"
I can't help it.
Reality Check, your trolling skills are formidable. The "overly entitled attitude of cyclists" is especially genius. I tip my hat to you, sir.
"Cycle commuters are radical activists foaming at the mouth "
ahahhhahahahaah!!!
that is friggin' funny, RealityCheck. you must work for the Colbert Report with wit like that. priceless!
i should send that to a former work colleague of mine who commutes daily. yeh, radical activist for sure: mid-40s, 2 kids, highly respected scientist in a major hospital in TO.
jackass ....
If I was just hit by a car, regardless of being completely uninjured, I'd be royally pissed off too. At least enough to start smashing some side view mirrors.
Can you really blame someone for getting angry at nearly being killed by someone who might not even be aware they'd nearly killed someone? Talk about sense of entitlement, it's the cyclists who risk their lives on the streets.
"Cycle commuters are radical activists foaming at the mouth to strike back at 'the system, man!'"
I think you took Monkey Warfare a little too literally.
I think we should wait for more facts before we start judging who was in the right here. As of right now, my sympathies lie with the dude who was stabbed several times in the neck (!!).
never heard of anyone loseing there life from being run over from a bike but i did lose my brother from being run over from a car so ya i have no repect for the person who is not paying attention once they're in they're 1200lb-2400lb box on wheels and they cut me off i kick the shit outa they're cars with a few nice dents with me steel toe shoes i'll bet they'll be more careful next time!!! {:O)
RealityCheck needs a reality check. By his description of the TIFF crash, the motorist had illegally entered the intersection and got stuck there when the light went red. When I took my driver's exam in Ontario, the law was that you should not enter an intersection if you are not sure you can exit on the other side.
The cyclist might have also done something wrong, but I am willing to bet he didn't enter the intersection until the light turned green. If he did "jump the light", they both were in the wrong and should both be ticketed.
Public streets were built for all residents and not just motorists. In fact, they were mostly built before autos and in that regard it is the cars that have invaded the space of other transportation alternatives.
This is tiresome. The first commentator is obviously trying to rile up the cyclists and should be ignored (as most of you did).
Rek unintentionally (?) provides fuel for the fire by making the very self-satisfied cyclist comment the first commentator parodies. Collisions on the road are not some freak by-product or malicious act by drivers, but an inevitable consequence of driving. There is a reason why the law requires all motorists (except cyclists for some reason) to carry insurance, including liability insurance in mandatory amounts. Somehow rek thinks that violent vigilante justice is the proper response to becoming a victim of an inevitable consequence. As I said, how tiresome.
Once you accept that collisions between vehicles (including bikes) on the road is an inevitable consequence of shared roadways, anyone who enters the roadway voluntarily assumes the risk of a collision. As a cyclist, you are also aware that you are unlikely to come out on top of a collision with a motorized vehicle. To stab someone in the back of the neck with a screwdriver after a collision is never justified, no matter how negligent the other vehicle driver was in its operation. To suggest otherwise, as rek does with the "some violence, maybe not to this level, is justified" dodge is beneath contempt.
x_the_x - I didn't say it was the proper response I said (implied) it was an understandable, angry, response. Nearly being killed is something most people would take personally. I'm also not a cyclist.
Everyone is aware that when you hit the road there is a chance the road will hit back. The difference is that when a car hits a bike, the guy in the car is extremely unlikely to be hurt and the guy on the bike stands a fair chance of serious injury or death. It's an asymmetric risk, and I think they're justified in their yawn-inducing desire to make the roads safer for cyclists. Since motorists are just as aware as cyclists when it comes to who stands to lose the most when their vehicles intersect, they ought to be hyper-aware of cyclists and their rights. Having car insurance doesn't change that, nor would requiring cyclists to carry insurance.