Oh that's right, when I walk to Chelsea Piers, I look both ways before crossing the busy West Side Greenway that no bikes are coming…Then again, I am not a high functioning retard.....
 

all those witnesses won't hold up in court anyway (or at least to best of my knowledge), they're in the same group and therefore will help mike.

that ped can probably fight the misdemeanor altogether.

Unlikely it'll go to court, besides it's being adjudicated by the Blog Justice League here in Gothamist's community.

 Take your pick: Hudson River, Central Park, Prospect Park, just about any street bike lane in the city. And you're probably right that the guy was acting on some built up resentment. The only difference between him and many other pedestrians is that most of us have the maturity and self-restraint to control our impulse to knock some reckless, arrogant cyclist off his bike.

Again you're twisting this story into your own. It's not. It's ours and I'm claiming it back for what happened right in front of me. Mandinberg is not an arrogant cyclist. He was attacked.

So, according to the witness quoted on Streetsblog, "there was never any danger to this guy as he entered the first stripe of the crosswalk, bikes alerted him...bikes slowed a bit and moved away from him." In other words, none of the cyclists actually stopped at the crosswalk, which is what the law requires--not to "alert" the pedestrian that you are about to cut him off in the crosswalk--but to come to a full stop and allow him to cross. This is way we have traffic regulations, so we don't have to rely on every individual cyclist to make an on-the-spot determination that there is or is not a danger to a pedestrian when deciding whether or not to yield at the cross walk. Just fucking yield.

So charge the idiot with misdemeanor assault--but be aware that as long as cyclists continue, en masse, ignore the law, this kind of nonsense will continue.

You say "cyclists continue, en masse, [to] ignore the law"--I'd suggest that one place cyclists are most likely to form that mass is on the West Side Park bike path. I would not be surprised to hear that this guy had been nearly mowed down lots of times attempting to cross this pathway to get to the park next to the river, or at least by god I know I have.

  Take your pick: Hudson River, Central Park, Prospect Park, just about any street bike lane in the city. And you're probably right that the guy was acting on some built up resentment. The only difference between him and many other pedestrians is that most of us have the maturity and self-restraint to control our impulse to knock some reckless, arrogant cyclist off his bike.

 Well, Mr. Know-It-All, what do you have to say about the NYPD, en masses, ignoring almost every motor vehicle law in existence.  What kind of nonsense will continue from that?

 You live in an interesting moral universe. Because the police disregard many traffic offenses and pedestrians often don't look before crossing the street, cyclists are absolved from their responsibility to obey traffic regulations?

 Well, actually yes, if the Police ignore the law, then why should anybody follow them?

The cyclist in question was obeying the law.

One more time:  If you are crossing a major bike path, YOU LOOK BOTH WAYS. 

Would you cross the West Side Highway without having the light and expect cars to stop for you?  So does not the same common sense fall on a busy bike lane?

One more time... It's a bike lane and there is no light.  So you LOOK BOTH WAYS and cross when there is a break in bikes.... Is that two hard to comprehend?

As I posted, said, and commented earlier and will state for the record before the Blog Justice League, holding court on this day in Gothamist's community, the reason the perp was arrested was because he stepped into the crosswalk to attack Mandinberg. He stepped into and kicked Mandiberg's wheel. We'd have, "just fucking yield" 'd if the crosswalk was occupied. It was not. This was an act of violence and not a ped v. cyclist issue.

 I'm confused. When you say "as I posted," are you referring to the post quoted in the article above? If so, that's not what you wrote. You wrote "there was never any danger to this guy as he entered the first stripe of
the crosswalk, bikes alerted him (he was not looking, w/ noise
canceling headphones on), bikes slowed a bit and moved away from him
Michael saying 'yo!'" Yet here you write that "he stepped into the crosswalk to attack Mandinberg." Your earlier statement indicates he was already in "the first strip of the crosswalk" when you approached him--seemingly oblivious to your presence; here you're arguing that he already had the intention of attacking someone (someone who, according to you earlier statement, he apparently neither saw nor heard) before he entered the crosswalk. Which is it?

See my comment above, my post on Bike Hugger's blog and I wasn't the "witness" cited by Streetsblog nor does it matter. I'm here because Gothamist lets comments flow unmoderated and commenters such as yourself are spinning this into whatever agenda they have. This story was pieced together from my tweets and flickr photos. This was a violent, random act and why the perp was arrested. You're attempt at Blog Justice makes your point, irrelevant of what happened.

 Wait a minute. Gothamist should "moderate" these comments? To what end? To eliminate comments that don't comport with your agenda. I don't have an agenda. I'm just pointing out inconsistencies in these supposed eyewitness accounts. Either the guy was already entering the crosswalk when cyclists failed to yield to him, or else he entered the crosswalk with the premeditated intention of attacking a cyclist. Both stories can't be true. Look, I commute by bike 25 miles round-trip daily to work and bike up the Hudson River Greenway all the way to Inwood to visit friends on a regular basis. I know for a fact that a majority nearing a totality of cyclists fail to yield to pedestrians at crosswalks. I've been hollered at by other cyclists for stopping in front of them to let pedestrians cross. Cyclists have a habit of treating multi-purpose recreational greenways as their own personal velodromes. So, yes, there is an element of arrogance in failing to recognize any responsibility on the part of cyclists who sail through intersections and over crosswalks assuming that their traffic logic is superior to the posted regulations and the expectations of pedestrians.

Assault is never justified, and I'm not about to attempt it now. That said, other bikers should stop sticking up for each other and start speaking out against the majority of bikers who run traffic lights, travel at dangerous speeds in pedestrian areas, and wilfully zig zag through traffic to give themselves an adrenaline buzz. I am regularly pulling my kids out of the path of a too fast, traffic rule breaking biker and I'm sick of it. They treat shared bike paths like they're race tracks, and travel in massive chatty packs blissfully unaware of the dangers they're causing. No, assault is never justified, but, in this case, I could see how it would be mighty tempting.

 You might want to figure out standing in a bike lane with your kids is a pretty asinine move.  It would be you, who is creating the danger because you should be standing on the sidewalk, assclown....

"travel in massive chatty packs"  just shows what a disconnected turd you are.

There is no cyclist speaking up for the bike riding lawbreakers, douchenozzle.  I have been calling for the NYPD to get off their fat duffs and ticket them along with the jaywalking aholes like you.

Maybe you need to go out on a ride and burn off some excess rage, Ed. 

Funny you bring up rage, dickweed.  I have never hit a pedestrian walking in a cross wlak, but this story is about a douche like you kicking a bike.   

Not a douche like me--I've never kicked a bike. Just a douche I admire.