My intent was to get people to think about how they might react. It’s easy to be an armchair quarterback and state how we think people should have reacted for the safety and tranquility of our armchairs.

As for the case, I think the forensic and toxicology reports will be interesting, but I guess we’ll have to wait until the trial for those details.

On the topic of hit&run, I’m not sure where that comes from if the car driver stopped to phone 911 … there was a hit but where’s the run part come from? Does running = reporting yourself by calling 911?

“You ride a bike every single day for a living taking your life into your hands to make a buck. Each day you are cut off and yelled at by pompous jerks who are very brave within the protection of their “weapon on wheels”.”

1) Yes this happens. 2) Yes bike riders also ignore the rules of the road and yell at drivers in cars. Big deal it goes both ways. It’s not like there is a lack of choices here, if you’re unhappy how car drivers treat you as a bike rider….don’t ride a bike. If as a car driver you’re unhappy with how bike riders treat you, don’t drive a car. If you’re completely unhappy being on either side, take public transit or a taxi.

“Oh god, is that a mailbox up ahead? You see it coming. What do you do?”

The obvious answer would seem to be “let go” if you value your life at all.
Actually one would assume that the logical choice is not to grab onto a moving car at all. But to simply record the license and report the issue to the police.

“I just want it known that the driver was potentially a ROAD RAGE LUNATIC.”

Although your name calling YELLING is quite amusing your practical use of “potentially” kind of ruins the rant. Though I’m sure by YELLING you hope people will ignore your use of “potentially” and focus on the YELLING while assuming it’s based on some sort of fact (which obviously it isn’t).

“You ARE indeed adding to the speculation whether you like it or not while contributing to the bias that the cyclist was a drunken maniac.”

Where’s the bias? It seems pretty cut and dry.
Either he was drunk or he wasn’t.
Either he was a maniac or he wasn’t.
Applying some simple logic to your earlier point about the mailbox and what to do leads to a fairly solid answer to the maniac question.
Once the tox results are in we’ll have a solid answer to your first question (i.e.: drunk or not).

Does it really matter if he was drink, if he was a maniac, or if both apply? It seems obvious that holding on to a car to the point that you slam into a mailbox causing yourself serious bodily harm means one of the two or both are correct.

I’m pretty sure that a sober or non-maniacal individual can do the logic on holding on to a moving vehicle and the consequences of being slammed into a mailbox.

While you are making “clever” hypothesis utilizing word for word speculation from the internet how about this one.

1. You ride a bike every single day for a living taking your life into your hands to make a buck. Each day you are cut off and yelled at by pompous jerks who are very brave within the protection of their “weapon on wheels”. One day, not only are you hit by one, you are hit by one driven by a person not exactly known for sound judgment or rational thinking. The driver, a politician who thinks he is above the commoners tells you to F-Off and then flees the scene of an accident! You naturally run after him. You can’t believe it since the last time you checked a HIT AND RUN was illegal. You are too stunned to take down the license plate and make the decision to chase after him and grab onto his door. Realizing now that the Saub driver is a subhuman politician known for such rash decisions as banning Pit Bulls, you cling for dear life as he makes every attempt to kill you including reckless driving and the endangerment of others (namely potential drivers that could have been coming in oncoming traffic.) Oh god, is that a mailbox up ahead? You see it coming. What do you do?

All of this is as you say “hypothetical” of course.

I like your article, I really do. However, don’t hide behind the words HYPOTHETICAL. You ARE indeed adding to the speculation whether you like it or not while contributing to the bias that the cyclist was a drunken maniac. I just want it known that the driver was potentially a ROAD RAGE LUNATIC. Oh and I admit I am totally biased against Michael Bryant and those people like him. He showed his true colours leaving someone bleeding in the street.

Maniacs and lunatics all around I guess but one was using a car as a weapon and the other is dead.