Cycle Event Director criminally liable for Competitor's death

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 02:53:52 +0000, Seppo Renfors wrote:

-
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The one who is educated from only one type of book is not educated. ;-)

From: "Gordon"

The one who is educated from only one type of book is not educated. ;-)



Bravo!! Holy **** Batman!! etc...
Thank You!!! for pointing this out.
Morons sort facts by political slant. Humans slant opinions based on fact.
Bill C

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 13:27:28 GMT, "Kyle Legate"
wrote:


Every single road race (with the exception of Nationals) I have participated
in has taken place on open public roads. At the amateur level it's the norm.


Whereabouts are you posting from?

What is the situation regarding road closures with professional
cycling events where you come from?

SNOOPY





--
Join the fight against aggressive, unrepentant
spammers 'china-netcom'. E-mail me for more
details

--

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 10:21:41 -0400, Alex Rodriguez
wrote:


Why would a race on a public road be dangerous? It safely happens all the
time. As long as there are course marshalls properly placed, it is a safe
way to have a race.


What country and region are you posting from Alex?

What power do you consider marshalls should have? How would you
decide if they are 'properly placed'?

SNOOPY



--
Join the fight against aggressive, unrepentant
spammers 'china-netcom'. E-mail me for more
details

--

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 02:53:52 GMT, Seppo Renfors
wrote:


Troublesome is the fact that Police elected to prosecute - and
therefore it is a crime and that attaches it to an individual when this
wasn't an individual "crime" - it is committees that run these sort of
things and decisions are collective, not individual and are often
inherited from past events


Since the revival of this event after several years of not holding it,
the current race director has been 'in charge'. So in this case none
of the pre-publicity material was inherited from someone else.


- sometimes may even be governed by rules/requirements
from outside the organisation putting on the
particular event.


In this instance the rules/requirements were determined by the
organization , 'The Events Company' which organized the event. 'The
Events Company's' Principal is race director Astrid Anderson. The
event is not part of any wider series. Anderson was not required to
be registered with Cycling New Zealand as a cycle race promotor.
Anderson apparently, had full control over all aspects of the 'Le
Race' event.


It also has the burden of proof to be BEYOND
reasonable doubt. I cannot see that such can have been achieved with
the defence details left intact above. If a road is deemed open, it
simultaneously also requires users to obey the road rules. The cyclist
did not.


Yes, but the fact was that several cyclists *believed* the road was
not open. The basis of the conviction was that such a belief was
reasonable. The fact that the road always was open became irrelevant
to the trial.


Quite frankly in that situation I don't know how the hell it
is possible to hold ONE single person as being "guilty" for collective
decisions. The Jury should have acquitted on that ground alone.


You are correct in that if any alleged deficiency of the event could
not have been pinned down to a single person, then the police charge
would have collapsed. Anderson never attempted to deny that she had
overall responsibility and control of the event. In hindsight,
perhaps that was a mistake?


Further to that it is fairly common knowledge in the community that
road racing on bikes IS on open roads. This knowledge isn't exactly
exclusive to the racing community - but they would be intimately
familiar with this. It doesn't appear to have ben considered.


Is it reasonable to assume that a first time competitor would know
this though? The competitor who died was indeed a first timer.


To quote the second URL in part:
"Judge Abbott addressed jurors in the Christchurch District Court
shortly after 9pm, reminding them they had taken an oath to try the
case to the best of their ability. "A view which is honestly held can
equally be honestly changed," he said."


Yes that was certainly an odd statement by the judge. Given that the
trial had taken almost three weeks and was obviously very expensive to
conduct, perhaps the judge considered that a deliberation time of
fifteen hours plus was not out of line, and that 180 degree switches
in views could be expected?


This was after the jury had told the judge they could not reach a
verdict. In my view this is also a legitimate finding by the jury. I
don't see that the Judge had a right to overrule and NOT ACCEPT the
"verdict" given.


I think the jury foreman said that they were having 'difficulty
reaching a verdict'. He didn't actually say they could not reach a
verdict. A subtle difference?


The sentence quoted from Judge Abbott, is not
correct. How on earth is it possible to HONESTLY hold TWO POV's -
GUILTY and NOT GUILTY simultaneously?


It isn't. The judge suggested that after 15 hours deliberation it is
OK to change your mind.


It isn't but that IS what the
Judge would infer with the statement, and further to that, it tends to
also support, give ammunition to verbal bullying in the Jury room! I
suspect this is what happened, the hour was late, and people wanted to
go home - the case itself became of lesser importance to jurors the
later it got. After all the Judge had said it is "HONEST" to change
your mind, even if you don't necessarily agree with the change!
Bullying tactics work well in such an environment.


Wouldn't 'bullying' be a factor to some extent in all long jury
deliberations?

Are you saying that the conduct of the judge as reported is in itself
enough evidence to declare the trial a mistrial?


Further I would say this was a very bad case to be tried by a Jury....
there was far too much emotive baggage for the prosecution to play
with.


The judge instructed the jury to put any baggage, that a young
pregnant woman in the prime of life had died. There was also emotive
baggage that could be played on the side of the accused. Astrid
Anderson it came out during the proceedings was a very well respected
event organizer. Her general standard of health and safety planning
for the event was way in excess of any legal requirements in force at
the time of the race (March 2001).


This looks like having grounds
for an appeal as well.


On what specific basis?

SNOOPY


--
Join the fight against aggressive, unrepentant
spammers 'china-netcom'. E-mail me for more
details

--

Thanks for the elucid replu, Snoopy.
Cheers *

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:30:39 +1200, (Snoopy)
te**yson@caverock.*et.*z.*is'n' wrote:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 03:40:17 +1200, Joe wrote:

Am I wrong?
I thought the cyclist crossed over the centre line against the race
instructions.
If the cyclist failed to follow instructions - therefore that person
is guilty.


The crown case is that the 'culture of cycling' allows people to ride
all over the road, if the road is closed.

This means that a cyclist who *believes* the road is closed may
consider that they may legitmately ride all over the road, if there is
not enough information in the race instructions to dispell such a
false belief. The crown argued that there was sufficient ambiguity in
the pre race printed material and verbal briefing that a reasonable
person might conclude that 'the Summit Road' (the second one) was
indeed closed. The Crown produced a series of credible witnesses
who testified that by their reading of the race publicity material
they believed the Summit Road (the second one) to be closed. Of
course, the defence was able to produce an equal number of witnesses
that believed the pre race instructions were not ambiguous.

The fact that several competitors 'misread' the instructions and that
their misinterpretation of the rules was not dispelled by the 'on the
day' briefing, was enough to convict Astrid Anderson.


If the regulations said the cyclists could disobey the rules of the
road, then the person who drafted these rules and approved them
guilty.


Legally if a road is closed, you *are* allowed to disobey the road
rules.

SNOOPY



--
Join the fight against aggressive, unrepentant
spammers 'china-netcom'. E-mail me for more
details

And I thought we had problems with ridiculous liability actions in the US.

--
Mike Murray

"Snoopy" te**yson@caverock.*et.*z.*is'n' wrote in message
...

9th August 2003, Christchurch, New Zealand

Astrid Anderson, director of the 'LeRace' cycling event over a
challenging 100km winding hill course over two hill ranges between
Christchurch City and Akaroa was today found guilty of a 'criminal
negligence' charge. The event catered for a wide range of cyclists,
from 'semi-professional racing cyclists' right down to 'weekend
wheelers'. The charge was laid followed the death of an inexperienced
cyclist who had crossed over the centre line of the road, while
starting to overtake two other cyclists on a downhill section. The
cyclist collided with an oncoming car, with fatal results.

Competitors had signed a waver to the effect that they were competing
at their own risk. However, while this waver can legally cover civil
litigation, it cannot exhonerate the race director if the police
decide to bring a criminal charge against him/her.

The charge was brought by the police because there was doubt that the
literature of the event clearly indicated that a section of the course
called the 'summit road', where the accident occurred, was not closed.

Both the pre-race literature, and briefing, made reference to a 'road
closure' on the 'summit road' to weed out so called 'sneaky cyclists'
who had not paid to enter the event. This 'road closure' was in fact
a check point to stop support vehicles and unentered cyclists from
following event cyclists over the road. The road was not closed to
other traffic. Nevertheless 'road closure' was the legally correct
term for this check point, according to local council regulations.

Equally importantly for the case there were two completely separate
'summit roads' (the legally correct name for both roads was the same),
corresponding to each of the two hill ranges crossed. The accident
occurred on the second 'summit road' where there was no check point.

The police alleged that the inclusion of the phrase 'road closure on
the summit road' both in ther pre-race literature and the pre-race
briefing was confusing. They further went on to say that the race
director had identified 'competitors not getting the right
information' as a hazard correctly identified in the health and safety
plan for the event. This health and safety plan was written and
signed off by the race director. Finally the police identified that
'there is a culture within bike racing of using all of the road' when
a road is closed, and by not making the information of the road
closure clear (there were no 'road open' signs placed along the route)
the event organizer had contributed to the death of the competitor.

The defence contended that the competitor had died as a result of
their own carelessness or even recklessness by attempting a passing
maneuvre where there was insufficient visibility. Furthermore the
defence contended that the written pre-race information was not
misleading when read in context. The phrase 'road closure' occurred
only in the section of the pre race pamphlet under the sub header of
'sneaky cyclists'. The one sentence that used the words 'road
closure', had an adjunct phrase linked by a dash that made this
contextual meaning perfectly clear. Furthermore the defence produced
evidence that the dead competitor had seen at least three vehicles
(one of which was a logging truck) come out of the summit road before
they entered it. The defence also produced evidence that the dead
competitor would have passed a milk tanker and possibly two or three
additional vehicles between the start of the summit road and the
accident site. The contention here was that even if the competitor
had misread the instructions and believed the road to be closed the
presence of occasional vehicles on the road would have dispelled this
myth. The defence also contended that other phrases used in the
pre-race documentation ('read these instructions carefully', 'keep
left' and 'obey the road rules at all times') should have meant that
any reasonable competitor should not have placed their bicycle on the
road in a position of risk. The defence furthermore contended that
'road open' signs were not required because 'the road is always open'.

Further details are available at these links

http://www.lerace.co.nz/

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2622998a10,00.html

Comments anyone?

SNOOPY


--
Join the fight against aggressive, unrepentant
spammers 'china-netcom'. E-mail me for more
details

--

Snoopy wrote:
On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 13:27:28 GMT, "Kyle Legate"
wrote:


Every single road race (with the exception of Nationals) I have
participated in has taken place on open public roads. At the amateur
level it's the norm.


Whereabouts are you posting from?

What is the situation regarding road closures with professional
cycling events where you come from?

I'm speaking from the perspective of Canadian events. Professional
events--what are those?

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
news:URtZa.78240$cF.24406@rwcrnsc53...
And I thought we had problems with ridiculous liability actions in the US.


This was a criminal case; I see the US as having a civil liability problem
more than criminal.

--
Mike Murray

"Snoopy" te**yson@caverock.*et.*z.*is'n' wrote in message
...

9th August 2003, Christchurch, New Zealand

Astrid Anderson, director of the 'LeRace' cycling event over a
challenging 100km winding hill course over two hill ranges between
Christchurch City and Akaroa was today found guilty of a 'criminal
negligence' charge. The event catered for a wide range of cyclists,
from 'semi-professional racing cyclists' right down to 'weekend
wheelers'. The charge was laid followed the death of an inexperienced
cyclist who had crossed over the centre line of the road, while
starting to overtake two other cyclists on a downhill section. The
cyclist collided with an oncoming car, with fatal results.

Competitors had signed a waver to the effect that they were competing
at their own risk. However, while this waver can legally cover civil
litigation, it cannot exhonerate the race director if the police
decide to bring a criminal charge against him/her.

The charge was brought by the police because there was doubt that the
literature of the event clearly indicated that a section of the course
called the 'summit road', where the accident occurred, was not closed.

Both the pre-race literature, and briefing, made reference to a 'road
closure' on the 'summit road' to weed out so called 'sneaky cyclists'
who had not paid to enter the event. This 'road closure' was in fact
a check point to stop support vehicles and unentered cyclists from
following event cyclists over the road. The road was not closed to
other traffic. Nevertheless 'road closure' was the legally correct
term for this check point, according to local council regulations.

Equally importantly for the case there were two completely separate
'summit roads' (the legally correct name for both roads was the same),
corresponding to each of the two hill ranges crossed. The accident
occurred on the second 'summit road' where there was no check point.

The police alleged that the inclusion of the phrase 'road closure on
the summit road' both in ther pre-race literature and the pre-race
briefing was confusing. They further went on to say that the race
director had identified 'competitors not getting the right
information' as a hazard correctly identified in the health and safety
plan for the event. This health and safety plan was written and
signed off by the race director. Finally the police identified that
'there is a culture within bike racing of using all of the road' when
a road is closed, and by not making the information of the road
closure clear (there were no 'road open' signs placed along the route)
the event organizer had contributed to the death of the competitor.

The defence contended that the competitor had died as a result of
their own carelessness or even recklessness by attempting a passing
maneuvre where there was insufficient visibility. Furthermore the
defence contended that the written pre-race information was not
misleading when read in context. The phrase 'road closure' occurred
only in the section of the pre race pamphlet under the sub header of
'sneaky cyclists'. The one sentence that used the words 'road
closure', had an adjunct phrase linked by a dash that made this
contextual meaning perfectly clear. Furthermore the defence produced
evidence that the dead competitor had seen at least three vehicles
(one of which was a logging truck) come out of the summit road before
they entered it. The defence also produced evidence that the dead
competitor would have passed a milk tanker and possibly two or three
additional vehicles between the start of the summit road and the
accident site. The contention here was that even if the competitor
had misread the instructions and believed the road to be closed the
presence of occasional vehicles on the road would have dispelled this
myth. The defence also contended that other phrases used in the
pre-race documentation ('read these instructions carefully', 'keep
left' and 'obey the road rules at all times') should have meant that
any reasonable competitor should not have placed their bicycle on the
road in a position of risk. The defence furthermore contended that
'road open' signs were not required because 'the road is always open'.

Further details are available at these links

http://www.lerace.co.nz/

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2622998a10,00.html

Comments anyone?

SNOOPY


--
Join the fight against aggressive, unrepentant
spammers 'china-netcom'. E-mail me for more
details

--

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 16:28:14 GMT, Kyle Legate wrote:

Snoopy wrote:
On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 13:27:28 GMT, "Kyle Legate"
wrote:


Every single road race (with the exception of Nationals) I have
participated in has taken place on open public roads. At the amateur
level it's the norm.


Whereabouts are you posting from?

What is the situation regarding road closures with professional
cycling events where you come from?

I'm speaking from the perspective of Canadian events. Professional
events--what are those?

Interestingly, if it was a professional event, the course would have been
regarded as a workplace, and the OSH investigative policy is geared toward
identifying and prosecuting a single person in the management structure who
is "responsible". a.k.a. buck-hunting :-)



--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/