Hell Ride crash 'inevitable'

[Friday]

From the Age.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/hell-ride-crash-inevitable/2007/05/01/1177788114967.html

A "Hell Ride" cyclist found himself "between a rock and a hard place"
when he made the fatal decision to run a red light, killing an elderly
pedestrian, the cyclist's lawyer told an inquest today.

State Coroner Graeme Johnstone today heard final submissions on the
death of James Gould, 77, who was struck by cyclist William Raisin-Shaw
as he tried to cross a pedestrian crossing at Beach Road, Mentone, in
August last year.

Mr Raisin-Shaw, 30, of St Kilda, was one of up to 200 cyclists
participating in the "Hell Ride" - a weekly 75 kilometre high-speed ride
through Melbourne's bayside suburbs.

He has been charged with failing to stop at a red light, a charge that
carries a maximum fine of $215.

His lawyer, Michael Sharpley, today told the court his client had found
himself "between a rock and a hard place" with riders behind him yelling
at him to continue through the crossing, despite the fact the light had
already turned red.

"His view was that to brake heavily, in circumstances where those behind
had clearly signalled their intentions, would inevitably cause an
accident - potentially a serious one, involving a number of cyclists,"
Mr Sharpley said in his submission.

"The alternative of proceeding through the red signal appeared to be the
lesser of the two evils, on the basis that it was unlikely that a
pedestrian would walk out in front of cyclists approaching at speed," he
said.

Mr Sharpley said Mr Gould had been hidden from Mr Raisin-Shaw's view by
the cyclists in front of him.

Mr Raisin-Shaw's decision proved to be wrong, but in the circumstances
it "was not unreasonable", Mr Sharpley said.

Mr Sharpley accepted that his client had contributed to Mr Gould's death
but argued his actions were "not indicative of any significant degree of
negligence."

Mr Sharpley said Mr Gould had walked "into a wall of cyclists," and
would have been struck by another cyclist if Mr Raisin-Shaw had missed him.

In another submission, Gerard Mullaly, representing CycleSport Victoria
and the Amy Gillett Foundation, suggested a cyclists' code of conduct be
distributed with all new bikes sold.

He argued it was not practical nor was it desirable to control the size
of groups of cyclists, as danger came from the behaviour of individual
cyclists.

He emphasised that cyclists must obey the road rules at all times and
use adequate lighting when riding at night so they could be seen by
motorists.

Mr Johnstone will deliver his finding on July 25.

theage.com.au

[Paul Yates]

"Friday" > wrote in message
...
> From the Age.
>
> http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/hell-ride-crash-inevitable/2007/05/01/1177788114967.html
>
> A "Hell Ride" cyclist found himself "between a rock and a hard place" when
> he made the fatal decision to run a red light, killing an elderly
> pedestrian, the cyclist's lawyer told an inquest today.
>
> State Coroner Graeme Johnstone today heard final submissions on the death
> of James Gould, 77, who was struck by cyclist William Raisin-Shaw as he
> tried to cross a pedestrian crossing at Beach Road, Mentone, in August
> last year.
>
> Mr Raisin-Shaw, 30, of St Kilda, was one of up to 200 cyclists
> participating in the "Hell Ride" - a weekly 75 kilometre high-speed ride
> through Melbourne's bayside suburbs.
>
> He has been charged with failing to stop at a red light, a charge that
> carries a maximum fine of $215.
>
> His lawyer, Michael Sharpley, today told the court his client had found
> himself "between a rock and a hard place" with riders behind him yelling
> at him to continue through the crossing, despite the fact the light had
> already turned red.
>
> "His view was that to brake heavily, in circumstances where those behind
> had clearly signalled their intentions, would inevitably cause an
> accident - potentially a serious one, involving a number of cyclists," Mr
> Sharpley said in his submission.
>
> "The alternative of proceeding through the red signal appeared to be the
> lesser of the two evils, on the basis that it was unlikely that a
> pedestrian would walk out in front of cyclists approaching at speed," he
> said.
>
> Mr Sharpley said Mr Gould had been hidden from Mr Raisin-Shaw's view by
> the cyclists in front of him.
>
> Mr Raisin-Shaw's decision proved to be wrong, but in the circumstances it
> "was not unreasonable", Mr Sharpley said.
>
> Mr Sharpley accepted that his client had contributed to Mr Gould's death
> but argued his actions were "not indicative of any significant degree of
> negligence."
>
> Mr Sharpley said Mr Gould had walked "into a wall of cyclists," and would
> have been struck by another cyclist if Mr Raisin-Shaw had missed him.
>
> In another submission, Gerard Mullaly, representing CycleSport Victoria
> and the Amy Gillett Foundation, suggested a cyclists' code of conduct be
> distributed with all new bikes sold.
>
> He argued it was not practical nor was it desirable to control the size of
> groups of cyclists, as danger came from the behaviour of individual
> cyclists.

GOOD!

>
> He emphasised that cyclists must obey the road rules at all times and use
> adequate lighting when riding at night so they could be seen by motorists.

GOOD!

>
> Mr Johnstone will deliver his finding on July 25.
>
> theage.com.au

High speed ride? Sounds like they are going faster than the cars!

[Adam F[_3_]]

Friday wrote:
> From the Age.
>
> http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/hell-ride-crash-inevitable/2007/05/01/1177788114967.html
>
>
> A "Hell Ride" cyclist found himself "between a rock and a hard place"
> when he made the fatal decision to run a red light, killing an elderly
> pedestrian, the cyclist's lawyer told an inquest today.
>
<edit>
>

Obviously a dodgy situation - that ride doesn't exactly sound like my
idea of fun, but then I never have understood serious roadies....


--
//Adam F

[MikeyOz[_46_]]

Adam F Wrote:
>
> Obviously a dodgy situation - that ride doesn't exactly sound like my
> idea of fun, but then I never have understood serious roadies....
>

If all this pr*ck gets out of this is just a fine, it is a freakin
travesty of justice. He killed someone, yet is just making excuses,
the excuse is that he was part of this ride, so therefore I should not
have to pay the consequences of killing someone.

You broke a law and the consequences of that is that you killed
someone, Someones partner, father, brother.

Geesh there is no way I could be a lawyer.


--
MikeyOz

[byron27[_52_]]

MikeyOz Wrote:
> If all this pr*ck gets out of this is just a fine, it is a freakin
> travesty of justice. He killed someone, yet is just making excuses,
> the excuse is that he was part of this ride, so therefore I should not
> have to pay the consequences of killing someone.
>
> You broke a law and the consequences of that is that you killed
> someone, Someones partner, father, brother.
>
> Geesh there is no way I could be a lawyer.
agreed.

How is this any different from any case with a car driver hitting a
bike?

I cant believe that the lawyer states "he would have been hit by
another cyclist". Oh well, that makes it ok then. If we are all doing
it thats fine.

Really not happy about reading this. This w*nker is going to get off
with nothing.


--
byron27

[Bleve]

On May 2, 8:11 pm, byron27 <byron27.2py...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> MikeyOz Wrote:> If all this pr*ck gets out of this is just a fine, it is a freakin
> > travesty of justice. He killed someone, yet is just making excuses,
> > the excuse is that he was part of this ride, so therefore I should not
> > have to pay the consequences of killing someone.
>
> > You broke a law and the consequences of that is that you killed
> > someone, Someones partner, father, brother.
>
> > Geesh there is no way I could be a lawyer.
>
> agreed.
>
> How is this any different from any case with a car driver hitting a
> bike?
>
> I cant believe that the lawyer states "he would have been hit by
> another cyclist". Oh well, that makes it ok then. If we are all doing
> it thats fine.
>
> Really not happy about reading this. This w*nker is going to get off
> with nothing.

not necessarily, all you've read is his lawyer's argument to the
coroner, which is not the same thing as a criminal (or civil ... which
is one potentially interesting area in this case) proceeding.

The obvious counter-argument is that he made the deliberate choice to
participate in the ride, knowing full well how it worked and what
behaviour was likely.


>
> --
> byron27

[rooman[_105_]]

....the statements are selve serving...clearly, and that is what erks
us, but in context this submission is part of the process. It's a
Coronial Enquiry, not a prosecution for an offence. The Coroner wants
to know what happened, and asks for explanations from those involved or
connected . This guy has already admitted he impacted with Mr Gould and
that caused his death, and we hope for his own sake he will accept the
punishment ( regrettably, light as it will be) down the track for
failing to stop at a red light ( big deal )...

...there is a bit more afoot here if you read into the submission by
CSV and AGFs Counsel. They have a lot more at stake, either as 1) a
peak body in this state on the sport of cycling and 2) the other being
involved in advocacy and aware of the trauma death causes to those
involved. They are the ones who are saying to the Coroner, we have
valuable contributions to make to help you look at how we as a society
can make sense of this and bring about change.

A lot of the noise is an over reaction, especially by the feeding
frenzy of an overzealous headline hunting print media. One death in
Victoria caused by a bike in how many years? . One death here, in the
midst of continuous carnage against bicycle riders and pedestrians by
motorised vehicles controlled by drunks, drug affected , arrogent or
inattentive drivers and the press gleefully unleash hell on everyone
who rides Beach Road as a "racing pack of hell raisers". In the opinion
of the press they make all bicylce riders guilty by association!

This rider cannot justify what took place by saying "if it wasnt me it
would have been someone else", but the sad fact is, he is right!
This incident no matter how seemingly insignificant in the scheme of
road fatality statistics will likely get a strong and scathing further
reaction down the track.

The guy making this assertion is certainly going to bring that further
scathing attack and likely unwanted ( but possibly not unwarranted in
the opinion of some) strong enforcement countermeasures upon all riders
if the Coroner accepts it.

I'm inclined to think the Coroner will say to this rider..-."no mate it
is your personal responsibility to make decisions and choices in how you
ride your bike if the consequences mean someone is injured or killed.
You made the choice, you accept the consequences of your actions and
face the music. As for other riders, all be warned you too have to be
responsible and ride accordingly, you cannot hide in a group and accept
to get immunity". -

The argument raised by his Counsel is akin with the crap we have heard
before here and out riding that a bunch is the same as an articulated
vehicle and everyone has to wait till it passes. Wrong, every
individual is responsible for their own actions and must ride
accordingly. Riding in a group doesnt abrogate that responsibility.

That's how I feel anyway...toss the book at him, but sadly its only
going to be a softcover!


--
rooman

[MikeyOz[_49_]]

rooman Wrote:
> That's how I feel anyway...toss the book at him, but sadly its only
> going to be a softcover!

I pretty much agree with all this and understand it is a Coronial
Enquiry, it is just what is being said that is disappointing me. I
want this guy to come out and accept full responsibility for his
actions, instead of cowering behind the fact he was riding in a group.

I know he is not saying it, but its almost like saying, I just have to
say my ass, the guy is dead now, I just have to save my ass. Its the
same as a car driver hitting a cyclist, "honestly I did not see him",
just admit you screwed up, you were not concentrating, not looking for
a cyclist. Your actions, its just all about I have to "Save my own
ass"


--
MikeyOz

[rooman[_106_]]

MikeyOz Wrote:
> chomp...
>
> , "honestly I did not see him",
translates to:

didn't look


--
rooman

[Plodder]

"MikeyOz" > wrote in message
...
>
> rooman Wrote:
>> That's how I feel anyway...toss the book at him, but sadly its only
>> going to be a softcover!
>
> I pretty much agree with all this and understand it is a Coronial
> Enquiry, it is just what is being said that is disappointing me. I
> want this guy to come out and accept full responsibility for his
> actions, instead of cowering behind the fact he was riding in a group.
>
> I know he is not saying it, but its almost like saying, I just have to
> say my ass, the guy is dead now, I just have to save my ass. Its the
> same as a car driver hitting a cyclist, "honestly I did not see him",
> just admit you screwed up, you were not concentrating, not looking for
> a cyclist. Your actions, its just all about I have to "Save my own
> ass"
>
>
> --
> MikeyOz

"...I just have to save my ass"...

Picky bit: It's "arse" here in Oz. The septics might have a problem
distinguishing their donkey from their derriere, but here we know the
difference and that knowledge is reflected in our language.

Sorry - it's just one of my many pet peeves :-P

me

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 3 May 2007 09:07:07 +1000
MikeyOz > wrote:
>
> rooman Wrote:
>> That's how I feel anyway...toss the book at him, but sadly its only
>> going to be a softcover!
>
> I pretty much agree with all this and understand it is a Coronial
> Enquiry, it is just what is being said that is disappointing me. I
> want this guy to come out and accept full responsibility for his
> actions, instead of cowering behind the fact he was riding in a group.
>

Dunno.. it is an interesting problem.

You are coming to a red light. you know it is common for riders in
the hell ride to run it so it's likely there's a bunch of bods going
to be coming up beside you maybe even hitting you. You yourself can't
see any reason to stop (as you can't see the ped).

Do you stop and risk someone crashing into you? Especially as people
are yelling loudly?

Risking an almost certain crash compared to a minor naughtiness which
is all it would have been if that bod (the one you didn't know was
there) wasn't crossing?

How many people have made the decision to run the red and not hit
someone?

I can see it as a difficult decision for someone who would ride in the
Hell Ride in the first place. Not easy for them at all. What's
"right" is clear, but how many make the "right" decision given the
fact that running the light has happened many times without mishap?

What would be an equivalent decision for non-HellRide cyclists to show
the dilemma? Not sure, what is a common cyclist thing that's
theoretically illegal but is often done and almost never causes a
problem?

Zebee

[Plodder]

"Zebee Johnstone" > wrote in message
...
> In aus.bicycle on Thu, 3 May 2007 09:07:07 +1000
> MikeyOz > wrote:
>>
>> rooman Wrote:
>>> That's how I feel anyway...toss the book at him, but sadly its only
>>> going to be a softcover!
>>
>> I pretty much agree with all this and understand it is a Coronial
>> Enquiry, it is just what is being said that is disappointing me. I
>> want this guy to come out and accept full responsibility for his
>> actions, instead of cowering behind the fact he was riding in a group.
>>
>
> Dunno.. it is an interesting problem.
>
> You are coming to a red light. you know it is common for riders in
> the hell ride to run it so it's likely there's a bunch of bods going
> to be coming up beside you maybe even hitting you. You yourself can't
> see any reason to stop (as you can't see the ped).
>
> Do you stop and risk someone crashing into you? Especially as people
> are yelling loudly?
>
> Risking an almost certain crash compared to a minor naughtiness which
> is all it would have been if that bod (the one you didn't know was
> there) wasn't crossing?
>
> How many people have made the decision to run the red and not hit
> someone?
>
> I can see it as a difficult decision for someone who would ride in the
> Hell Ride in the first place. Not easy for them at all. What's
> "right" is clear, but how many make the "right" decision given the
> fact that running the light has happened many times without mishap?
>
> What would be an equivalent decision for non-HellRide cyclists to show
> the dilemma? Not sure, what is a common cyclist thing that's
> theoretically illegal but is often done and almost never causes a
> problem?
>
> Zebee

There's the key: "...compared to a minor naughtiness". We still (I include
myself) regard running a red as a minor naughtiness when it suits us then
bay for blood when we don't like the consequence.

me

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 02 May 2007 23:33:32 GMT
Plodder > wrote:
>
> There's the key: "...compared to a minor naughtiness". We still (I include
> myself) regard running a red as a minor naughtiness when it suits us then
> bay for blood when we don't like the consequence.
>

That's what I was thinking.

Everyone - driver, cyclist, motorcyclist, pedestrian - does minorly
naughty things. And sometimes there's someone or something unexpected
and pain ensues.

Think about the recent tragedy on the Cotter - a rider does something
they shouldn't have done but maybe did many times before without
incident but this time there was a car.

There's a stop sign near my place, a T junction where one side of the
crossbar is a dead end with one dead end road leading off it. So 99.99%
of traffic coming out of the stem is turning into the non-dead end of
the crossbar, and 99.99% of traffic along the crossbar is turning into
the stem.

On the pushie I might do either (the dead end also leads to a cycle
path) but coming out of the stem I and most traffic roll right through
because no one ever seems to cross the stem, always turning into it.

One day (on the motorcycle) I realised that a car was going straight
ahead, so I stopped. Had I been a little less awake (and he a bit
closer when I got there) then nastiness might have ensued. All my
fault for sure, but still....

I use that intersection twice a day every working day and usually at
least twice over a weekend. For 4 years now. I think I've seen one
straight-ahead vehicle - that one - in that time. So I have been
conditioned to not bother about it really. As, I suspect, many people
are conditioned to commit their minor naughtinesses to make their
lives more convenient.

Zebee

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 3 May 2007 09:22:32 +1000
rooman > wrote:
>
> MikeyOz Wrote:
>> chomp...
>>
>> , "honestly I did not see him",
> translates to:
>
> didn't look

Not always.

can translate to "Looked, but there was a physical obstruction in
the way". I've seen a rather worrying film of a driver's view of a
roundabout from inside a late model car. The driver's side pillar was
big enough to completely obscure a motorcycle entering the roundabout.
The converging speeds and the angles were such that the bike was hidden
all the way.

It can also translate to "looked but did not expect, so did not process".
It's happened to me at an intersection where there was never any traffic.
Once day I came to the give way sign, slowed, looked (as in turned my
head) and then realised the brakes had gone on. It wasn't till I had
thought "why are the brakes on" that I saw the car. My subconscious had
put them on, the conscious mind was still sure there was nothing there
because it expected to see nothing.

I have seen the same thing in a car I was a passenger in. Similar
intersection - never any traffic there. I saw on the left a small bright
yellow panel van (with its headlights on even!) but my housemate who was
driving breezed through the intersection and was startled by the brakes
and horn of the aggrieved van. I *saw* him turn his head. But he didn't
expect to see, so he didn't. "Where did he come from?" and I had to say
"he's been there all the time."

There is a big difference between can't see, didn't look, and didn't see.
The didn't see is the hardest to deal with because really honestly they
did look and they didn't see. Not because bikes (or Commodores or yellow
vans) are hard to see, but because expectations are hard to change.

Zebee

[Bleve]

On May 3, 9:26 am, Zebee Johnstone > wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Thu, 3 May 2007 09:07:07 +1000
>
> MikeyOz > wrote:
>
> > rooman Wrote:
> >> That's how I feel anyway...toss the book at him, but sadly its only
> >> going to be a softcover!
>
> > I pretty much agree with all this and understand it is a Coronial
> > Enquiry, it is just what is being said that is disappointing me. I
> > want this guy to come out and accept full responsibility for his
> > actions, instead of cowering behind the fact he was riding in a group.
>
> Dunno.. it is an interesting problem.
>
> You are coming to a red light. you know it is common for riders in
> the hell ride to run it so it's likely there's a bunch of bods going
> to be coming up beside you maybe even hitting you. You yourself can't
> see any reason to stop (as you can't see the ped).
>
> Do you stop and risk someone crashing into you? Especially as people
> are yelling loudly?
>
> Risking an almost certain crash compared to a minor naughtiness which
> is all it would have been if that bod (the one you didn't know was
> there) wasn't crossing?
>
> How many people have made the decision to run the red and not hit
> someone?
>
> I can see it as a difficult decision for someone who would ride in the
> Hell Ride in the first place. Not easy for them at all.


They made the decision earlier, when a cyclist decides to participate
in that ride. What happens in that ride is no secret.

[Bleve]

On May 3, 10:15 am, Zebee Johnstone > wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Thu, 3 May 2007 09:22:32 +1000
>
> rooman > wrote:
>
> > MikeyOz Wrote:
> >> chomp...
>
> >> , "honestly I did not see him",
> > translates to:
>
> > didn't look
>
> Not always.
>
> can translate to "Looked, but there was a physical obstruction in
> the way". I've seen a rather worrying film of a driver's view of a
> roundabout from inside a late model car. The driver's side pillar was
> big enough to completely obscure a motorcycle entering the roundabout.
> The converging speeds and the angles were such that the bike was hidden
> all the way.

A pillars (the part of a car you're describing as a vision blocker,
there's 3, A pillar, B pillar and C pillar, in most car designs) are
big. If you can't see the drivers face, they can't see you.

[MikeyOz[_50_]]

Plodder Wrote:
>
> Picky bit: It's "arse" here in Oz.
>

as in "You are a pain in" ? :p

I can't be assed writing arse, so I write ass..... ooops sorry.


--
MikeyOz

[MikeyOz[_51_]]

Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
> What would be an equivalent decision for non-HellRide cyclists to show
> the dilemma? Not sure, what is a common cyclist thing that's
> theoretically illegal but is often done and almost never causes a
> problem?
> Zebee

I understand what you are saying, but you missed my point.

My point was take responsibility for your actions, instead of hiding
behind the guise of "I was riding in a group, it was going to happen,
it just happened to be me, but because I was riding in a group, nothing
should happen to me"

Total bullsh*t

Put your hand up and say, it was my fault I decided to run the red
light and I Killed someone, not the group, not the person behind me or
in front of me. But me because "I" decided to run the red light.


--
MikeyOz

[TimC]

On 2007-05-03, MikeyOz (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>> What would be an equivalent decision for non-HellRide cyclists to show
>> the dilemma? Not sure, what is a common cyclist thing that's
>> theoretically illegal but is often done and almost never causes a
>> problem?
>> Zebee
>
> I understand what you are saying, but you missed my point.
>
> My point was take responsibility for your actions, instead of hiding
> behind the guise of "I was riding in a group, it was going to happen,
> it just happened to be me, but because I was riding in a group, nothing
> should happen to me"
>
> Total bullsh*t
>
> Put your hand up and say, it was my fault I decided to run the red
> light and I Killed someone, not the group, not the person behind me or
> in front of me. But me because "I" decided to run the red light.

Particularly since there are (unsubstantiated) allegations he rode
around a part of the bunch that had already stopped. Of course, they
are going to say that to get themselves out of trouble, but who do you
believe?


My other point of view is that I really hope the coroner doesn't place
any weight on that particular argument of this cyclist, since we would
be absolutely screwed if such an argument was ever made at a coroner's
court for cars in a line of traffic -- you'd never stop a line of
traffic at a red light or for any obstacle on the road.

--
TimC
Error in operator: add beer

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 3 May 2007 16:35:17 +1000
MikeyOz > wrote:
>
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>> What would be an equivalent decision for non-HellRide cyclists to show
>> the dilemma? Not sure, what is a common cyclist thing that's
>> theoretically illegal but is often done and almost never causes a
>> problem?
>> Zebee
>
> I understand what you are saying, but you missed my point.

Yes, I was riffing on it really.


IN that there is certainly personal responsibility but why are people
"not responsible"? Do they think "I will be irresponsible"? Do they
think "I'll kill someone but I don't care"?

Nope... more likely to be normal people doing something that has
ceased to be "wrong" because there have been no consequences. TIll
now.

Zebee

[jcjordan[_9_]]

I can understand the view that the rider should have taken more
responsibility for his actions, but there are a number of additional
things that I think need to be considered.
- If he had put on the breaks, knowing that the habit of the ride was
to push through, and a crash was cause because of this and you were one
of the cyclist caught up in the crash who would you have held
responsible.

-if the mentality of the group is to push through lights, then should
not have the whole group been held responsible?

From what I understand the Hell ride is very similar to a ride here in
Canberra called the Bakery Ride. Fortunately for this group there is
almost no pedestrian traffic on the route so a Hell ride incident is
unlikely, but the fact that no one has been hit by a car is a real
wonder. The other saving grace is that the numbers are not in the same
league as the Hell Ride.

Having been on this ride once (admittedly got dropped reasonably
quickly), I made the conscious decision that I would never do it again.
The behaviour of the group when it came to traffic lights and the
disregard that the group has at roundabouts was of the same mentality
that of the Hell Ride.


--
jcjordan

[AndrewJ]

On May 3, 7:15 pm, Zebee Johnstone > wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Thu, 3 May 2007 16:35:17 +1000
>
> MikeyOz > wrote:
>
> > Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
> >> What would be an equivalent decision for non-HellRide cyclists to show
> >> the dilemma? Not sure, what is a common cyclist thing that's
> >> theoretically illegal but is often done and almost never causes a
> >> problem?
> >> Zebee
>
> > I understand what you are saying, but you missed my point.
>
> Yes, I was riffing on it really.
>
> IN that there is certainly personal responsibility but why are people
> "not responsible"? Do they think "I will be irresponsible"? Do they
> think "I'll kill someone but I don't care"?
>
> Nope... more likely to be normal people doing something that has
> ceased to be "wrong" because there have been no consequences. TIll
> now.
>
> Zebee


I'd say the person responsible is living out the consequences as we
speak, and they are about
as serious as they get. Not in terms of legal or whatever, but put
yourself in his
position.

I recall the religous group in the US that had some kids killed in a
shooting
from one of their members. They invited the shooter to the funeral.
Now that's
commitment. Their belief is in forgiveness, and they believe in
putting their
convictions into action.

You can't base civilisation on endless blame, and revenge. There was a
mistake,
it was a minor one, but it had totally unexpected consequences. End of
story.

[Terryc]

jcjordan wrote:
> I can understand the view that the rider should have taken more
> responsibility for his actions, but there are a number of additional
> things that I think need to be considered.
> - If he had put on the breaks, knowing that the habit of the ride was
> to push through, and a crash was cause because of this and you were one
> of the cyclist caught up in the crash who would you have held
> responsible.

You are responsible for riding safely. He should go to gaol, just like I
xpect a mv driver to be sent for killing someone.

You really need to read some of the comments. It is clear that some
people in front of him did stop at the lights.

[MikeyOz[_52_]]

jcjordan Wrote:
>
> -if the mentality of the group is to push through lights, then should
> not have the whole group been held responsible?
>

Nope.... no way.... and has been quite clearly stated people in front
of him had already stopped, they were the people that had blocked the
visibility of Mr Gould to see the riders and vice versa. Did they not
fear they were going to get hit as well ?

I do not do the ride anymore exactly for the reasons you have said,
particularly after some of the nasty incidents I saw on it, involving
just cyclists in the ride. But even back when I was riding it, people
still made a decision whether to run the lights or not.

If you are going to do that you have to be responsible for your
actions.


--
MikeyOz

[Plodder]

"MikeyOz" > wrote in message
...
>
> Plodder Wrote:
>>
>> Picky bit: It's "arse" here in Oz.
>>
>
> as in "You are a pain in" ? :p

You must know me :)


> I can't be assed writing arse, so I write ass..... ooops sorry.
>
>
> --
> MikeyOz
>

[Theo Bekkers]

TimC wrote:
> MikeyOz wrote
>> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:

>> My point was take responsibility for your actions, instead of hiding
>> behind the guise of "I was riding in a group, it was going to happen,
>> it just happened to be me, but because I was riding in a group,
>> nothing should happen to me"
>>
>> Total bullsh*t
>>
>> Put your hand up and say, it was my fault I decided to run the red
>> light and I Killed someone, not the group, not the person behind me
>> or in front of me. But me because "I" decided to run the red light.
>
> Particularly since there are (unsubstantiated) allegations he rode
> around a part of the bunch that had already stopped. Of course, they
> are going to say that to get themselves out of trouble, but who do you
> believe?

I think the decision to run reds were made by a lot of people when they
decided to join the ride.

Theo