Cyclist jailed for road rage attack

graham said:

A Calgary cyclist has been convicted of viciously assaulting a 70-year-old
man after the senior nearly struck him while exiting a driveway onto a busy
street.

The judge sentenced the cyclist to 30 days jail followed by a year of
probation.
She also ordered the 46 yr old to take counselling including anger
management.
"You lost your temper and attacked an old man while he was sitting in his
car. You
entered into a violent rage as a result of your losing control of your
bicycle. You
acted in an inappropriate and violent manner. This was unprovoked road
rage."

If, as the defendent claims, he was knocked off his bike, it was
clearly wrong to attack the driver, but hardly unprovoked. However,
the judge believed that the defendent had deliberately cycled quickly
thus caused his own crash with the kerb.

I am not convinced.

Quoted message said:

The July 9, 2004, road rage incident occurred when Richard Cuell pulled out
from a commercial driveway on Southland Drive near Fairmont Drive.
Cuell testified that just as he entered the street, Michael David Ensign,
45, bolted on his bike like "a bat out of hell," forcing him to stop his car
abruptly.
Ensign swerved, but crashed on the curb.
The driver opened his car door to render assistance, but was met by an
enraged Ensign, whom he said "karate jump-kicked" his back left window,
yelled obscenities and attacked him.
"The accused committed a number of assaults upon the victim," provincial
court Judge Cheryl Daniel said in convicting Ensign. "First, he tried to
punch at the victim. Then he kicked at him and connected with the victim's
legs and effected a glancing blow to the victim's chin.
"After that, he pulled and twisted the victim's left leg and then removed
the victim's right shoe and threw it at him, hitting him directly on the
nose."
The judge noted the initial assault was observed by two witnesses, who
corroborated the victim's story and confirmed Ensign was the aggressor.
"The events were recalled so vividly because of the stark and shocking
aggressiveness and violence exhibited by the accused," said the judge.
"Even when he was ostensibly apologizing to the victim, the accused lost his
temper and made as if to assault the victim again. Only police intervention
stopped it."
She also said Ensign was lying when he testified Cuell intentionally and
recklessly hit him as he passed in front of the car; that the victim
threatened in vulgar language to run him over the next time; and that he was
only riding his bike slowly and was prepared to dismount to go around the
car.
"I find as fact that he was riding his bike very quickly," said Daniel, and
that the victim did not even have time to react.

--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)

Tom Crispin said:

graham said:

A Calgary cyclist has been convicted of viciously assaulting a 70-year-old
man after the senior nearly struck him while exiting a driveway onto a busy
street.

The judge sentenced the cyclist to 30 days jail followed by a year of
probation.
She also ordered the 46 yr old to take counselling including anger
management.
"You lost your temper and attacked an old man while he was sitting in his
car. You
entered into a violent rage as a result of your losing control of your
bicycle. You
acted in an inappropriate and violent manner. This was unprovoked road
rage."

If, as the defendent claims, he was knocked off his bike, it was
clearly wrong to attack the driver, but hardly unprovoked. However,
the judge believed that the defendent had deliberately cycled quickly
thus caused his own crash with the kerb.

I am not convinced.

The fact that you are not convinced has precious little to do with the
matter. There were two independent witnesses to the collision/incident
who gave evidence. There would also have been the statements of the
Police officers who dealt with the incident. The guy was wrong, he
acted like a bully because he knew he could do so as his victim was
substantially older than himself and unable to fight back. His actions
could have had serious consequences which could easily have led to the
victim becoming hospitalised, housebound, crippled or dead from
secondary causes. He is lower than the lowest scum on the bottom of a
fish tank and got off lightly in my opinion.

Nothing in the original posting gave him the right or justification to
act in this way even had he been a victim of the drivers poor driving
which those with the access to the full facts say he was not. To claim
provocation is to claim a deliberate act on the part of one party to
another to bring about a singular reaction which again was not the case.
The judge found him to be a lying toe-rag, the witnesses testified to
his previous manner of cycling and consequent behaviour. I therefore
submit that there are in the world a number of people who ride bikes who
are not what we would refer to as cyclists and who display all the
characteristics of their counterparts in the motorised world I.E. are
bigoted, self important bullies.

Sniper8052

Sniper8052(L96A1) said:

Tom Crispin said:

graham said:

A Calgary cyclist has been convicted of viciously assaulting a 70-year-old
man after the senior nearly struck him while exiting a driveway onto a busy
street.

The judge sentenced the cyclist to 30 days jail followed by a year of
probation.
She also ordered the 46 yr old to take counselling including anger
management.
"You lost your temper and attacked an old man while he was sitting in his
car. You
entered into a violent rage as a result of your losing control of your
bicycle. You
acted in an inappropriate and violent manner. This was unprovoked road
rage."

If, as the defendent claims, he was knocked off his bike, it was
clearly wrong to attack the driver, but hardly unprovoked. However,
the judge believed that the defendent had deliberately cycled quickly
thus caused his own crash with the kerb.

I am not convinced.

The fact that you are not convinced has precious little to do with the
matter. There were two independent witnesses to the collision/incident
who gave evidence. There would also have been the statements of the
Police officers who dealt with the incident. The guy was wrong, he
acted like a bully because he knew he could do so as his victim was
substantially older than himself and unable to fight back. His actions
could have had serious consequences which could easily have led to the
victim becoming hospitalised, housebound, crippled or dead from
secondary causes. He is lower than the lowest scum on the bottom of a
fish tank and got off lightly in my opinion.

Nothing in the original posting gave him the right or justification to
act in this way even had he been a victim of the drivers poor driving
which those with the access to the full facts say he was not. To claim
provocation is to claim a deliberate act on the part of one party to
another to bring about a singular reaction which again was not the case.
The judge found him to be a lying toe-rag, the witnesses testified to
his previous manner of cycling and consequent behaviour. I therefore
submit that there are in the world a number of people who ride bikes who
are not what we would refer to as cyclists and who display all the
characteristics of their counterparts in the motorised world I.E. are
bigoted, self important bullies.

I reamin unconvinced that the cyclist deliberately cycled quickly to
cause his own crash. However, I agree with the essence of what you
write.
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)

Tom Crispin said:

Sniper8052(L96A1) said:

Tom Crispin said:

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 21:48:12 GMT, "graham" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>A Calgary cyclist has been convicted of viciously assaulting a 70-year-old
>man after the senior nearly struck him while exiting a driveway onto a busy
>street.
>
>The judge sentenced the cyclist to 30 days jail followed by a year of
>probation.
>She also ordered the 46 yr old to take counselling including anger
>management.
>"You lost your temper and attacked an old man while he was sitting in his
>car. You
>entered into a violent rage as a result of your losing control of your
>bicycle. You
>acted in an inappropriate and violent manner. This was unprovoked road
>rage."

If, as the defendent claims, he was knocked off his bike, it was
clearly wrong to attack the driver, but hardly unprovoked. However,
the judge believed that the defendent had deliberately cycled quickly
thus caused his own crash with the kerb.

I am not convinced.

The fact that you are not convinced has precious little to do with the
matter. There were two independent witnesses to the collision/incident
who gave evidence. There would also have been the statements of the
Police officers who dealt with the incident. The guy was wrong, he
acted like a bully because he knew he could do so as his victim was
substantially older than himself and unable to fight back. His actions
could have had serious consequences which could easily have led to the
victim becoming hospitalised, housebound, crippled or dead from
secondary causes. He is lower than the lowest scum on the bottom of a
fish tank and got off lightly in my opinion.

Nothing in the original posting gave him the right or justification to
act in this way even had he been a victim of the drivers poor driving
which those with the access to the full facts say he was not. To claim
provocation is to claim a deliberate act on the part of one party to
another to bring about a singular reaction which again was not the case.
The judge found him to be a lying toe-rag, the witnesses testified to
his previous manner of cycling and consequent behaviour. I therefore
submit that there are in the world a number of people who ride bikes who
are not what we would refer to as cyclists and who display all the
characteristics of their counterparts in the motorised world I.E. are
bigoted, self important bullies.

I reamin unconvinced that the cyclist deliberately cycled quickly to
cause his own crash. However, I agree with the essence of what you
write.
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)

Fair enough.

Sniper8052

"Tom Crispin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sniper8052(L96A1) said:

Tom Crispin said:

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 21:48:12 GMT, "graham" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>A Calgary cyclist has been convicted of viciously assaulting a
>70-year-old
>man after the senior nearly struck him while exiting a driveway onto a
>busy
>street.
>
>The judge sentenced the cyclist to 30 days jail followed by a year of
>probation.
>She also ordered the 46 yr old to take counselling including anger
>management.
>"You lost your temper and attacked an old man while he was sitting in
>his
>car. You
>entered into a violent rage as a result of your losing control of your
>bicycle. You
>acted in an inappropriate and violent manner. This was unprovoked road
>rage."

If, as the defendent claims, he was knocked off his bike, it was
clearly wrong to attack the driver, but hardly unprovoked. However,
the judge believed that the defendent had deliberately cycled quickly
thus caused his own crash with the kerb.

I am not convinced.

The fact that you are not convinced has precious little to do with the
matter. There were two independent witnesses to the collision/incident
who gave evidence. There would also have been the statements of the
Police officers who dealt with the incident. The guy was wrong, he
acted like a bully because he knew he could do so as his victim was
substantially older than himself and unable to fight back. His actions
could have had serious consequences which could easily have led to the
victim becoming hospitalised, housebound, crippled or dead from
secondary causes. He is lower than the lowest scum on the bottom of a
fish tank and got off lightly in my opinion.

Nothing in the original posting gave him the right or justification to
act in this way even had he been a victim of the drivers poor driving
which those with the access to the full facts say he was not. To claim
provocation is to claim a deliberate act on the part of one party to
another to bring about a singular reaction which again was not the case.
The judge found him to be a lying toe-rag, the witnesses testified to
his previous manner of cycling and consequent behaviour. I therefore
submit that there are in the world a number of people who ride bikes who
are not what we would refer to as cyclists and who display all the
characteristics of their counterparts in the motorised world I.E. are
bigoted, self important bullies.

I reamin unconvinced that the cyclist deliberately cycled quickly to
cause his own crash.

What gave you the idea that idea? The sod was going "like a bat out of
hell" and LOST CONTROL.
His subsequent behaviour was in no way justified.
Graham

graham said:

What gave you the idea that idea? The sod was going "like a bat out of
hell" and LOST CONTROL.
His subsequent behaviour was in no way justified.

The assault victim claimed the cyclist was going "like a bat out of
hell". The cyclist claims to have been riding his bike "quite
slowly". I expect the truth lies somewhere between.

As the cyclist crashed, it is clear that he lost control. The cyclist
claims he lost control as a result of being hit by the car pulling
out. The court found that he lost control as a result of "cycling
very quickly" and the driver had no time to react.

Whatever the truth, from the cyclists perspective, he was cycling
along a road when a driver pulled out from a driveway, causing him to
swerve around, or make contact with, the car then lose control and
crash.

The cyclist's later behaviour was certainly "inappropriate and
violent", but I am unconvinced that the crash was deliberate. If the
motorist had not pulled out into the road the crash is unlikely to
have occurred.
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)

"Tom Crispin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

graham said:

What gave you the idea that idea? The sod was going "like a bat out of
hell" and LOST CONTROL.
His subsequent behaviour was in no way justified.

The assault victim claimed the cyclist was going "like a bat out of
hell". The cyclist claims to have been riding his bike "quite
slowly". I expect the truth lies somewhere between.

Fer chrissakes! There were witnesses!

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 21:48:12 GMT someone who may be "graham"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

"I find as fact that he was riding his bike very quickly,"

So what? What does she consider to be very quickly and how does this
compare to what a cyclist would think of as very quickly? Was he
riding more quickly then motorists drive in the same place?

Quoted message said:

said Daniel, and that the victim did not even have time to react.

React to what? A vehicle coming along the road, which the driver
failed to stop for? I wonder if the judge would have said the same
thing if the vehicle on the main road was a car?

None of this justifies physical violence on the driver, but these
remarks by the judge are rather stupid.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen said:

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 21:48:12 GMT someone who may be "graham"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

"I find as fact that he was riding his bike very quickly,"

So what? What does she consider to be very quickly and how does this
compare to what a cyclist would think of as very quickly? Was he
riding more quickly then motorists drive in the same place?

The so what is that there were two contradictory statements claimed as fact,
the cyclist claimed "he was
only riding his bike slowly and was prepared to dismount to go around the
car."

The "finding of fact" was the refuting of the cyclist's statement.

pk

graham said:

"Tom Crispin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

graham said:

What gave you the idea that idea? The sod was going "like a bat out of
hell" and LOST CONTROL.
His subsequent behaviour was in no way justified.

The assault victim claimed the cyclist was going "like a bat out of
hell". The cyclist claims to have been riding his bike "quite
slowly". I expect the truth lies somewhere between.

Fer chrissakes! There were witnesses!

And? One should not put 'too' much weight on witnesses unfortunately.
See Simons, D. J. & Chabris, C.F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst:
sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception, 28,
pp. 1059-1074. and have a look at the video
http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/grafs/demos/15.html 🙂

On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 18:00:00 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "p.k."
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So what? What does she consider to be very quickly and how does this
compare to what a cyclist would think of as very quickly? Was he
riding more quickly then motorists drive in the same place?

The so what is that there were two contradictory statements claimed as fact,
the cyclist claimed "he was
only riding his bike slowly and was prepared to dismount to go around the
car."

The "finding of fact" was the refuting of the cyclist's statement.

This doesn't address the issue that I raised.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

graham said:

"Tom Crispin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

graham said:

What gave you the idea that idea? The sod was going "like a bat out of
hell" and LOST CONTROL.
His subsequent behaviour was in no way justified.

The assault victim claimed the cyclist was going "like a bat out of
hell". The cyclist claims to have been riding his bike "quite
slowly". I expect the truth lies somewhere between.

Fer chrissakes! There were witnesses!

Indeed.

"The judge noted the initial assault was observed by two witnesses".

There is nothing in the report to suggest they observed the crash or
events leading up to it.
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Fer chrissakes! There were witnesses!

Indeed.

"The judge noted the initial assault was observed by two witnesses".

There is nothing in the report to suggest they observed the crash or
events leading up to it.

And there's nothing in the report to suggest that they didn't......

It's a rather pointless argument...the assailant was in the wrong no matter
what preceded his attack.

vernon said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Fer chrissakes! There were witnesses!

Indeed.

"The judge noted the initial assault was observed by two witnesses".

There is nothing in the report to suggest they observed the crash or
events leading up to it.

And there's nothing in the report to suggest that they didn't......

It's a rather pointless argument...the assailant was in the wrong no
matter what preceded his attack.

Ah, but he was a cyclist and therefore can do no wrong, the other party was
a motorist and therefore by definition "at fault". Do you not understand
these simple concepts of planet URC?

pk

p.k. said:

vernon said:

Quoted message said:

> Fer chrissakes! There were witnesses!

Indeed.

"The judge noted the initial assault was observed by two witnesses".

There is nothing in the report to suggest they observed the crash or
events leading up to it.

And there's nothing in the report to suggest that they didn't......

It's a rather pointless argument...the assailant was in the wrong no
matter what preceded his attack.

Ah, but he was a cyclist and therefore can do no wrong, the other party was
a motorist and therefore by definition "at fault". Do you not understand
these simple concepts of planet URC?

I think the point is that the judge should not even have mentioed the lead up.

Was she trying to imply that the defendant would somehow have been less guilty
if his version were believed?

Whatever, her vaguely hidden criticism that cycles should not be moving very
fast was uncalled for, and at least in this country, quite wrong in law. And her
statement that the "victim" (read primary perpetrator in the overall
altercation), "did not have time to react" is utterly preposterous.

"Paul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

p.k. said:

vernon said:

>> Fer chrissakes! There were witnesses!
>
> Indeed.
>
> "The judge noted the initial assault was observed by two witnesses".
>
> There is nothing in the report to suggest they observed the crash or
> events leading up to it.

And there's nothing in the report to suggest that they didn't......

It's a rather pointless argument...the assailant was in the wrong no
matter what preceded his attack.

Ah, but he was a cyclist and therefore can do no wrong, the other party
was
a motorist and therefore by definition "at fault". Do you not understand
these simple concepts of planet URC?

I think the point is that the judge should not even have mentioed the lead
up.

Was she trying to imply that the defendant would somehow have been less
guilty
if his version were believed?

Whatever, her vaguely hidden criticism that cycles should not be moving
very
fast was uncalled for, and at least in this country, quite wrong in law.
And her
statement that the "victim" (read primary perpetrator in the overall
altercation), "did not have time to react" is utterly preposterous.

It's remarkable the number of bar-room lawyers we have here. It's obvious
from the report that the cyclist was riding recklessly and without due care
and attention. Substitute motorist for cyclist and you would be rightly
indignant. p.k. is so right!

Paul said:

I think the point is that the judge should not even have mentioed the
lead up.

Was she trying to imply that the defendant would somehow have been
less guilty if his version were believed?

Whatever, her vaguely hidden criticism that cycles should not be
moving very fast was uncalled for, and at least in this country,
quite wrong in law. And her statement that the "victim" (read primary
perpetrator in the overall altercation), "did not have time to react"
is utterly preposterous.

Surely the point she was making was (simply) to indicate which of the
contradicting statements (fast or slow) she believed to be fact.

In the context of the inital report:

"She also said Ensign was lying when he testified Cuell intentionally and
recklessly hit him as he passed in front of the car; that the victim
threatened in vulgar language to run him over the next time; and that he was
only riding his bike slowly and was prepared to dismount to go around the
car.
"I find as fact that he was riding his bike very quickly," said Daniel, and
that the victim did not even have time to react."

pk

graham said:

It's remarkable the number of bar-room lawyers we have here.

How do you know whom is a qualified lawyer, and whom one from the barrack room?

Quoted message said:

It's obvious
from the report that the cyclist was riding recklessly and without due care
and attention.

I could not see that in the report. Perhaps you would be kind enough to show
where it states that?

It certainly states that the _judge_ _thought_ that, and the way the report was
written makes it clear that the writer, at the very least, held the cyclist
resonsible for being hit by a car coming out of a side road. For this reason,
neither of these people has much credence from, I would imagine, most of the
group.

graham said:

It's remarkable the number of bar-room lawyers we have here. It's obvious
from the report that the cyclist was riding recklessly and without due care
and attention. Substitute motorist for cyclist and you would be rightly
indignant. p.k. is so right!

Southland Drive is a dual carriageway. It is not unreasonable for a
bicycle to be making good progress.

http://tinyurl.com/fygmq
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)