Greg Schiano hits bicyclist with car
September 23rd, 2016 at 3:58 AM ^
September 23rd, 2016 at 5:32 AM ^
September 23rd, 2016 at 8:14 AM ^
September 23rd, 2016 at 8:30 AM ^
September 23rd, 2016 at 10:01 AM ^
No. I don't think time makes much of a difference at all, tbh. What difference does it make if OSU celebrates cheating one year or 10 years or 20 years later? Why would time matter? Is lying to the NCAA suddenly ok because time has passed? No.
Look, all the glorification of the Fab Five is fine to me. They're a gigantic part of Michigan history, perhaps its most famous sports entity ever, and they should be celebrated because they accomplished some really great things. Who cares if you want to celebrate that? Whether it's a discussion panel that will assuredly show some highlights and glorify some accomplishments, or whether it's a two hour ESPN movie, or whether it's bringing Jalen out at halftime of a game, idc. It's all the same. Go for it.
I just find it hilarious when Michigan fans want to celebrate the Fab Five while looking down on OSU fans for celebrating Tressel. We're not so different, you and I.
September 23rd, 2016 at 2:44 PM ^
Putting a side the "does time make a difference" argument, the Universities handled the scandals in vastly different ways.
The University of Michigan imposed HEAVY sanctions on itself, including a post-season ban, vacating over 100 wins, paying nearly $450k back, and disassociating itself with the people involved. Their self-punishment was far worse than what the NCAA did (probation and docking a scholarship).
Also, Steve Fisher (who was supposed to be the responsible adult) is most assuredly no longer associated with the University.
Ohio State, on the other hand, vacated one season of wins and suspended a few players for a few early games in 2011. It took the NCAA stepping in for them to experience any type of bowl ban whatsoever. And Tressel, as established, is still very much celebrated by the school.
So the difference? Michigan accepts responsibility and punishes itself in a way that makes a statement about the University's values. Ohio State tries to skirt responsibility by self-imposing a half-assed punishment and then accepts the responsible coach back a few years later with open arms.
That's a big difference.
September 23rd, 2016 at 4:53 PM ^
That's really skewing what happened.
I don't know how you can say OSU firing the coach responsible, suspending the players responsible, self-imposing scholarship reductions and vacating wins is a half-assed punishment? Of course they only vacated one season of wins, all they got charged with was knowingly playing ineligible players for one season.
Why would they vacate anything else? I know this blog likes to pretend OSU paid players for years to make themselves feel better about the fact they got their asses kicked for the last 15 years, but that didn't happen, at least according to multiple NCAA investigations. Tress got a tip his players traded their jerseys for tattoos. Instead of reporting this to compliance, he pretended like he didn't receive the tip, and signed off on the compliance form as A-OK. The end. Nothing about buying players cars. Or cheating through classes. Or no-show jobs. That's it. Tress knew 5 players were ineligible for a few hundred dollars worth of tattoo ink, and instead of telling anyone in compliance and taking the four game non-con ban like AJ Green got, he lived above the rules and covered it up. He deserved to get fired.
Plus, OSU could have self-imposed a bowl ban on a 6-6 team, but really, is that a material difference in punishment than what Michigan did? The real punishment is suspending all your best players, and, more importantly, firing the most successful coach you've had in 20+ years. It's not skipping the Gator Bowl.
Your last paragraph is a joke.
September 23rd, 2016 at 6:14 PM ^
So a few things:
(1) OSU suspended the players for the first five games of the season, which included exactly ONE conference game. Everybody knows that suspensions during OOC are less consequential.
(2) I did not realize that OSU self-imposed scholarship reductions. The articles I read did not make that clear.
(3) There is no evidence whatsoever that OSU neglected to self-impose a bowl ban because they knew they were going to have a terrible season, nor does that make sense. It was just a coincidence that they had no ban during their bad season and a ban when they were undefeated.
(4) Again, Tressel has been welcomed back to the OSU community with open arms.
(5) It appears that it was clear to the sporting world -- including hometown outlets -- that OSU was trying to give itself minimal punishments to avoid tougher NCAA sanctions. That is not accepting responsibility.
To be clear, I'm looking at the situation as somebody who was JUST learning about college football when the OSU stuff went down, so my understanding of the situation comes from only non-Michigan sources. I'm not somebody recalling history that I experienced with Maize-colored glasses. History shows that Michigan slammed itself after the Fab Five and the general consensus is that OSU tried to do the bare minimum to avoid tough sanctions and it backfired.
September 25th, 2016 at 9:44 AM ^
September 23rd, 2016 at 6:08 AM ^
September 23rd, 2016 at 6:32 AM ^
We're allowed on roads because the infrastructure to separate us typically doesnt' exist. We would very much prefer it.
September 23rd, 2016 at 7:11 AM ^
September 23rd, 2016 at 7:32 AM ^
September 23rd, 2016 at 9:57 AM ^
This is completely misleading. The truth is, only the occasional maintenance of the surface of the road is paid for by gas taxes, and only a small part of registration fees can be said to go to infrastructure maintenance in any state. And given the wide range of gas taxes across states, and the wide range of registration fees (and in some cases annual property taxes), it's obvious that money isn't being used to fix roads.
The biggest cost to all of us is the allocation of public property to basically free private usage, in the form of rights of way for passage and especially for parking. Why the hell should any of us subsidize the storage of anyone else's vehicle? And why do we subsidize the passage of vehicle traffic that destroys thousands of lives and pollutes the environment? There are obvious answers to these questions that we simply accept, but don't make the false claim that you pay for your privilege, you don't, we all do no matter how much we drive or not. And it is indisputable that a bicycle creates next to no negative impact on infrastructure or environment - even if you allocate capital funds to build bike infrastrucure, it would never be worn out by bicycles.
Privatize it all and then see how willing you are to pay for it. You'd be on a bike in no time.
September 23rd, 2016 at 10:50 AM ^
a functional economy if it wasn't for motorized transportation. All those good being transported to stores and factories sure as hell aren't getting there via bicycle.
Maybe you're advocating a return to the 18th century, when most people lived and worked in a 3 mile radius and never left it. Because that's what you get in a world without cars and trucks.
We subsidize the roads and infrastructure because we can't sustain our economy or current standard of living without them.
September 23rd, 2016 at 11:04 AM ^
while your claims "wouldn't have..." and "can't sustain..." are way overstated, I basically agree with the premise, see my statement "...there are obvious answers to these questions that we simply accept."
But the fact remains that you don't pay for your individual privilege, not by a long shot.
September 23rd, 2016 at 11:25 AM ^
September 23rd, 2016 at 6:46 AM ^
Imagine a bike flying down the sidewalk at 30 mph and hitting a pedestrian. Not going to end well.
September 23rd, 2016 at 7:08 AM ^
September 23rd, 2016 at 7:16 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 23rd, 2016 at 9:46 AM ^
That's an excellent law, if in fact police are willing to enforce it. And if in fact drivers react by driving defensively and safely. Neither of which is likely.
September 23rd, 2016 at 10:50 AM ^
They may have passed this law after seeing what a distracted/raging/inebriated (wasn't clear what was really the problem at time of accident) drove through a group of cyclists and killed a number of them earlier this year.
But I'm sure the cyclists deserved it for having the gall to put themselves in harms way in public like that.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kalamazoo-bike-crash-prosecutor-driver-on-d…
September 23rd, 2016 at 11:06 AM ^
is fucking terrifying.
September 23rd, 2016 at 11:57 AM ^
At least the prosecutor had the balls to charge him with second degree murder and not some "vehicular manslaughter" bs. Or the ever popular, "I didn't see them officer, they came out of nowhere" that seems to be a free pass in most crashes.
September 23rd, 2016 at 7:29 AM ^
September 23rd, 2016 at 8:21 AM ^
You may be correct about drivers not following the laws as they should. But as a driver, I'm surrounded by a steel cage and 27 airbags.
I used to love riding motorcycles. I stopped when I had kids. Not having my brains splattered on the pavement was more important than the enjoyment I got from riding.
September 23rd, 2016 at 8:44 AM ^
I also like to bike (although my tummy tells me it's been a while) and found that bikers (myself included) didn't really follow the laws on bikes. It's like you are half car half pedestrian and can follow the rule that's better for you.
September 23rd, 2016 at 8:40 AM ^
September 23rd, 2016 at 6:29 AM ^
Love how the caption is quick to point out that Schiano wasn't injured in the accident.
I too cycle a lot, including to work, so I can't avoid riding on some parts of busy roads. I try to keep out of the way (because cars driving too fast and too close scare the hell out of me), but I often wish drivers were more patient and willing to wait the 5 to 10 seconds it takes for me to get out of the way.
September 23rd, 2016 at 6:30 AM ^
Oscar: Where?
Michael Scott: It happened this morning in the parking lot. I took her to the hospital. And the doctors tried to save her, life, they did the best they could. And she is going to be ok.
Stanley: What is wrong with you? Why would you have to phrase is like that?
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 23rd, 2016 at 12:28 PM ^
Michael: It happened on company property with company property, so double jeopardy. We are fine.
Ryan: I don't think you understand how jeopardy works.
Michael: What is "We're fine?"
September 23rd, 2016 at 8:41 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 23rd, 2016 at 8:43 AM ^
Gerg Schitcano, don't worry, tOsu will cover for you because football is above many things in Toadhio. Just ask Gene Smith.
September 23rd, 2016 at 9:07 AM ^
September 23rd, 2016 at 9:17 AM ^
Never give up a yard. #defensivedriving
September 23rd, 2016 at 9:28 AM ^
This has evolved into blaming one of the parties (without any facts) based on a set of presumptions. Many on this thread would jump down throats if this were in another context, such as an alleged sexual assault. And rightly so.
Let's just be glad both parties are okay, and that Schiano stuck around instead of running off.
September 23rd, 2016 at 9:33 AM ^
September 23rd, 2016 at 10:04 AM ^
I know a lot of people probably don't like it, but you should never pass anyone any closer than that if you can avoid it. Think about if someone passed you while you were in your car and their vehicle came within two feet of yours. It would probably scare the shit out of you.
September 23rd, 2016 at 10:42 AM ^
I'll have to grit my teeth saying this, but our bike infrastructure here is pretty good and there is a protected lane around where the accident occured. I can't comment further on what went down since I wasn't there but let's just say it's Schiano's fault because he coaches at Ohio State and is already on record as being an asshole and possible molestation enabler.
The problem with bikes vs. cars is that basic common sense works just fine... until it doesn't. And it is frustrating for all parties involved because there isn't a consensus on how they should both behave. Like, sidewalks - contrary to what car drivers think, bicyclists shoud not ride on sidewalks.... 95% of the time. It's dangerous and disruptive to pedestrians and as a cyclist you're in more danger everytime you go through a driveway because you're less visible to cars.
However - there are corner cases where it's not only OK but probably more adviseable to take the sidewalk. Overpass with no shoulder and a bottleneck hugging the curb? Take the sidewalk. Divided highway with 55 mph traffic and zero pedestrian traffic? Take the sidewalk. You're a 9 years old or a 65 year old getting back into shape and can only ride 7 mph? Take the damn sidewalk. There isn't a clearly understood consensus here and you have to use common sense - again, though, common sense works right up until it doesn't.
Also, @ Mad Hatter - I can only speak for myself but suspect I'm not alone here: as cyclists, we don't want to be on busy streets any more than you want us there. I would never willingly ride down, say, Ann Arbor's Eisenhower Parkway at rush hour if I could help it. I've gotten really good at navigating side streets around Columbus to get where I'm going because i don't like being stressed out by bumper-to-bumper traffic. The thing is, sometimes the shitty highway is your only option. Sometimes your office isn't considerate enough to be located on a bike lane. And until we have better bike infrastructure across the board and have a better mutual understanding as to how cyclists and motorists should interact, that's how it's gonna be so we both have to acknowledge that.
September 23rd, 2016 at 10:55 AM ^
And if I'm being honest, I don't have too many problems with cyclists. But like any group, the bad apples are the ones that stand out.
And I feel the same way about drivers. I commute on 696 and 275 (and have for more than a decade), and I have seen people do some incredibly stupid shit. And now with smartphones it's getting worse. I'd say 10% of the people I looked at on my way into work today were staring at their phones.
September 23rd, 2016 at 11:10 AM ^
I don't disagree that bad cyclists stick out worse because there are less of them - and I'm not going to act like I've never fucked up either. The thing is, that both motorists and cyclists are both on the road to get from point A to point B and while neither should tolerate the other group's inevitable fuckups it's wrong to get angry at the very idea of the other's existence. Instead, get angry that OSU cheated for a decade-plus under Sweatervest and were rewarded by landing Urban Meyer while we got Brady Hodor.
September 23rd, 2016 at 11:54 AM ^
The true enemy is not cyclists or drivers, it's the entire state of Ohio.
September 23rd, 2016 at 11:58 AM ^
September 23rd, 2016 at 10:14 PM ^
lanes here in Columbus, including many more added in downtown with special turn areas, etc. But does Lane avenue actually have bike lanes next to the Value City Arena?
Street view from Google:
Westbound, where the cyclist was, has only 2 lanes and no paved shoulder - has that changed? Eastbound has right turn lane, two thru lanes, and 2 left turn lanes. Schiano was in one of the two left turn lanes. The time frame was likely 15 or 20 minutes before sunrise. The sun would have been slightly north of due east (slightly to the left of dead ahead). Burden would be on the driver to be very sure of what was coming towards him, even with brightness in his eyes. What did he see and when?
September 23rd, 2016 at 10:47 AM ^
I get that pedestrians have the right of way but am I in the minority that I'm surprised at how little they yield to cars? How quite often they are content to keep peddling without sliding over? There are too many distracted drivers out there...I don't think I'd be as oblivious. I would not be able to trust the general public....
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 23rd, 2016 at 11:20 AM ^
I don't see why you think the bicyclist should slow down for you, and they are being so much more inconsiderate than you are? You are being powered by the decayed, compressed remains of dead dinosaurs.
As a cyclist, you have to expend a lot of muscle power to build up momentum. You lose a tremendous amount of energy slowing down. In addition, if you pull over to let the car pass, they may try to squeeze through where they shouldn't and put you in greater danger than if you had just taken the lane.
You pose a lot of hypotheticals in your blaming of cyclests, so let me ask. When's the last time you biked anywhere?
September 23rd, 2016 at 4:19 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 23rd, 2016 at 4:11 PM ^
You may consider the situation from the cyclist's perspective. In a two lane road, particularly one with little to no shoulder, the center of the lane is the safest place to be when there is traffic coming toward you. In the scenario you mention, if I am on the right side of the road, the driver behind will have to pass me within an arm's length, and if I'm lucky, they'll slow down to only 10-15 mph faster than be (but not likely). In the center, they must respect the space I am demanding.
This is a strategy I employ particulary at curves, hills, and RR crossings, when I don't WANT a driver to pass me. If you give me 10-15 seconds, I'll move out of your way and neither of us will be worse for the wear.
September 23rd, 2016 at 10:53 PM ^
that bicyclists are not pedestrians. A bicycle is a vehicle. By law and reason, if you were capable of putting yourself in someone else's shoes for a minute.