[Hank]

I didn't say he should be in jail right now. You don't think he should have had to at least post-bail? From my understanding, he didn't even go to court, but was allowed to leave the police station.

Just because he didn't have a bail hearing doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't have to post bail. That being said, what would be gained by having him post bail? The point of bail is to ensure that people stick around. If we're completely sure that someone's not going to flee, there's no point to having them post bail. That being said, I would be surprised if he didn't have to post any bail.

 

[Roy G Biv]

Just because he didn't have a bail hearing doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't have to post bail.

Yes it does.

At the bail hearing, the burden of proof for detention would be on the prosecution. It would be determined that there is no reason to keep him detained before the trial, so I agree that he'd be allowed to post bail (with or without sureties/deposit), but it is unusual (although legal) for the police to directly release the accused.

It's bad PR. Everyone is going to look for favourable treatment, and boom, right of the bat, we see it.

 

[nfitz]

I don't see why they'd be looking for bail. There'd be little fear of further crimes, there were no identity issues, there'd be no reason to think he might fail to appear, no criminal record, and I think evidence may exist that the accused has an adequate understanding of the process. The bail hearing has never been mandatory. I've known regular people in Ontario not have to do a bail hearing under similiar circumstances.

Why waste taxpayers money?

 

[Hank]

Yes it does.

Even if that is the case, my point from above remains. The whole reason we have bail is to keep someone in the jurisdiction if you're afraid they're going to flee (or if they're going to be a danger to the community). If there's no worry that they might flee, there's no need for bail.

I can't imagine a more likely candidate to be released without bail than the former attorney general of the province. This whole bail thing is a non-issue.

 

[GraphicMatt]

I don't really think offenders like this need to face bail hearings - even if he's found guilty on all counts, the charge is negligence. The odds of him re-offending are zero. He poses no immediate danger to the public.

 

[MetroMan]

So where could Sheppard have hung onto? I thought the Saab 9-3 had rollbars which would be logical grab on points, but it seems that the convertible has no obvious grab on points on the right side of the car.

This reinforces Bryant's defence: Sheppard had to be holding on to either Bryant or the steering wheel (or both) to cling to a speeding 90km p/hr vehicle thus explaining why the vehicle was swerving into the wrong lane and onto the sidewalk.

Finger prints will no doubt prove this.

So far, the swerving is the prosecution's strongest point because it would have demonstrated intent to throw Sheppard off the moving vehicle which Bryant would have known would likely cause fatal injuries.

If the swerving was a result of Sheppard holding on to Bryant and/or the steering wheel, the prosecution has no case.

 

[Epi]

Perhaps Bryant will now be the greatest senator of the 21st century...

 

[simply Dan]

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2009/09/04/10743401-sun.html

No rules bar drunk cycling
Cops question putting cyclists on roads with cars

By TAMARA CHERRY, SUN MEDIA

Last Updated: 4th September 2009, 2:39am

You can get in trouble for not having a working bell on your bike, but legally, there is nothing stopping you from drinking 40 ounces of vodka and cycling along Toronto streets.

Toronto Police was criticized in recent days for allowing Darcy Allan Sheppard to cycle home Monday night before he was fatally run down, allegedly at the hands of former attorney general Michael Bryant.

But the 33-year-old former bike messenger had the legal right to do so, even if he was as drunk as he appeared.

While police said Bryant hadn't been drinking before the alleged altercation between he and Sheppard in the moments before Sheppard was run down, it could be months before toxicology tests show how much, if any, alcohol or drugs Sheppard had consumed.

In the hour before the altercation, cops responded to a complaint about a disturbance inside a George St. apartment where Sheppard's girlfriend lives. Arriving officers found Sheppard "had been drinking," but had committed no crime, so they let him go, Staff-Sgt. Kevin Guest said yesterday.

While cyclists are supposed to abide by the rules of the road, and can be fined for such offences as having a defective bell or failing to stop at a red light, there is no offence for impaired cycling.

Sgt. Jack West, who launched a cyclist awareness campaign yesterday, asked why there isn't such an offence.

"We're putting cyclists on the roadway alongside motor vehicles and there's a lot of responsibility attached to that," West said.

Media reports attributed to Sheppard's girlfriend, Misty Bailey, said Sheppard was drunk when he encountered Bryant. While Bailey wouldn't confirm Sheppard was drunk to the Sun, she did question in an e-mail to the Sun why the cops wouldn't drive her boyfriend home.

"If that was the case, we wouldn't be doing anything else but, or there wouldn't be a cell left in the city or an officer left in the city to deal with anything but that, especially downtown," Guest said. "He (Sheppard) had had something to drink, but he was well within the limits of caring for himself."

 

[lordmandeep]

Yeah a drunk cyclist can easily get himself killed or hurt if he is riding his bike on the road with cars.

Bikers always will say that we don't drink and bike, where to good for that.

 

[AGTO]

where to good for that.

What do you mean?

 

[confusion]

Yeah a drunk cyclist can easily get himself killed or hurt if he is riding his bike on the road with cars.

Although I don't condone drinking and driving while using any vehicle, the actions of a drunk bicycle vs drunk motor vehicle affect a very different subset of people. The cyclist really is only out to harm themselves by choosing to ride drunk.

Another point I would like to make from my occassional ride home from the pub with friends (2-3 drinks) is I am very concious of whether or not I am able to ride, and I was definitely under the legal limit if I was driving any time I have rode in that state. If I was seriously drunk, I wouldn't even be able to keep balance on my bike and would attempt to walk beside my bike on the sidewalk. I believe this is why we don't have an epidemic of dead drunk cyclists. For Sheppard, the only logical affect the alcohol had on his system was a kick up in his rage/overreaction level.

But like I said, I don't think it is wise to drink and drive period.

 

[Whoaccio]

Although I don't condone drinking and driving while using any vehicle, the actions of a drunk bicycle vs drunk motor vehicle affect a very different subset of people. The cyclist really is only out to harm themselves by choosing to ride drunk.

That is pretty flimsy. If someone decides to bike drunk, and as a result of intoxication is struck down by a car, the driver of the vehicle even if perfectly healthy has to deal with all of the legal, social, economic and emotional implications of killing someone. It's simply not fair to other road users to recklessly endanger anyone's life. I mean, let's say that it is found out that Bryant was at no fault here and Sheppard's intoxication was. Bryant's life is still pretty much ruined. He will have a six figure legal bill, a shattered career, likely some kind of emotional stress and he is facing potentially serious jail time. If Sheppard's intoxication contributed to this scenario at all that is grossly unfair.

 

[valkoholic]

I feel bad for the courier, but to be honest I'm not sure what I would've done if an enraged bike courier reached into or onto my car when I was in it with my wife. I think unless you're in that situation it's really hard to judge this guy's actions. If he feels like he and/or his wife are in danger he has every right to drive away, even if that puts the assailant in danger. I’m not sure what his reasonable course of action would have been. Drive fast enough that the assailant falls off but doesn’t hurt himself? Reason with the guy?

I love the spin on this one though, it’s become the rallying point for cycling safety. The guy wasn’t even on a bike. When he was on his bike he was under the influence and had just been released by the police. This should be a rallying point for alcohol-induced male stupidity, which, although fun at times, is far more an issue in our society than bike safety.

 

[Mustapha]

This has been a long thread.., I'm still wondering why Bryant's foot stayed on the gas pedal as long as it did. If Sheppard had come after me - if indeed he 'went after' Bryant at all - I would have stopped my car and gotten out to deal with him - even if it meant my coming out on the loosing end, than use my car as an escape capsule on Bloor street, or a weapon as the case may be. I think what happened here was panic overriding rationality on both sides.

 

[AKS]

There's also safety to pedestrians for drunk cycling. If the cycler decided to cycle on the pedestrian sidewalk. What about the pedestrian getting hit or if an elderly die from a heart attack?

If drivers of auto can't drink and drive. Neither should bicyclers.