'Hell Ride' cyclist fined $400 over man's death

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 8 Aug 2007 15:38:43 +1000
ghostgum wrote:

Bleve Wrote:
It's a sad joke. Why this isn't manslaugher?

Yes it is sad that it comes down to a small fine. A custodial sentence
would be a more appropriate response to cyclist's actions.

Should every cyclist who runs a red light be jailed for it?

If not, why not?

Zebee

On 2007-08-08, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
In aus.bicycle on Wed, 8 Aug 2007 11:08:46 +0800
Theo Bekkers wrote:
I'm trying to imagine how Mr Gould's family feels at this decision. I
wouldn't be riding a bike in their street for a while.


If Mr GOuld had been 20 years younger, he might not have died. If
he'd been healthier he might not have died.

Is the health and age of a random person the cyclist's sole
responsibility? Yes, what he did was wrong. It was only lethal
because of special circumstances outside his control.

It's a dreadful thing, but it's also not quite so black and white.

I'd be very impressed if this lead to some really serious policing by
police, bike clubs, bike shops, and riders of riders who run red
lights under any circumstances. Police hanging out at city
intersections with radios to call head to intercept, bike clubs and
Bicycle Victoria and equivalents goingn all out in campaigns, bike
shops with posters and talking to cyclists, other cyclists making a
big deal of it.

And every carpark and car salesyard and ...


It would be a lot more fruitful to heavily police people breaking laws
in cars in just about every location, including Beach Road.

In fact, I could help them for them. Eg, I could suggest that if some
with a ticket book sat at the top end of Russell St, Melbourne, any
particular night, it'd be pretty profitable. Especially after 2nd
offense when they can impound and sell off the doof-doofmobiles.

--
TimC
Imagine what a tipped over tractor-trailer formerly
full of potatoes looks like.
Not half as messy as a truckload of oranges.
Or a hovercraft full of eels. -- Tanuki on ASR

On 2007-08-08, ghostgum (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Bleve Wrote:
It's a sad joke. Why this isn't manslaugher?

Yes it is sad that it comes down to a small fine. A custodial sentence
would be a more appropriate response to cyclist's actions.

As long as it was no different to your typical sentence dished out to
motorists who should otherwise be charged with manslaughter in a
perfect world. Ie, 6 months, suspended, and a $2300 fine.

Any different and it starts to look like you are punishing bike riders
more than car drivers for breaking the law, and we wouldn't want that.

Would you charge a car driver with manslaughter for doing the same
thing? There are motor vehicle car specific laws that sit between
"failing to stop at a red light" and manslaughter. Culpable driving
etc. But these don't apply to cyclists.

Depends. Just how useful is a 6 month suspended sentence anyway? In
either of the aims of deterance or punishment/revenge?

--
TimC
MacOSX: Sort of like a pedigree persian cat. Very sleek, very
sexy, but a little too prone to going cross-eyed, biting you on
your thumb and then throwing up on your trousers. -- Jim in ASR

I agree that the $400 fine is pathetic, but the judge can only go by
what the police have charged the person with.

The fine handed down to the cricket playing person the other day in
regards to the death of a cyclist where he fled the scene was also
disgusting.

The laws need to be revisited.


--
lisanne

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

If Mr GOuld had been 20 years younger, he might not have died. If
he'd been healthier he might not have died.

If Mr Gould had been 3 years old he might have died. Would it be ok for
a child of that age to die as the result of cyclist not having the guts
to put his own life on the line and stop at a red light?


Is the health and age of a random person the cyclist's sole
responsibility?

No but the general rule we should all live by is that if you are
undertaking an activity that has the potential to cause harm then you
should take extra care to not cause harm.

Yes, what he did was wrong. It was only lethal
because of special circumstances outside his control.

Not at all. It was lethal because he hit the ped. All the rest of your
argument is just speculation.

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 8 Aug 2007 17:51:59 +1000
Peter wrote:
Zebee Johnstone wrote:

If Mr GOuld had been 20 years younger, he might not have died. If
he'd been healthier he might not have died.

If Mr Gould had been 3 years old he might have died. Would it be ok for
a child of that age to die as the result of cyclist not having the guts
to put his own life on the line and stop at a red light?

I don't think he should have run the red. However neither do I think
that he should be treated differently to any other red light runner
because of these particular circumstances.

So, what should the penalty be for cyclists who run red lights?

Should only cyclists who hit people suffer penalty?

Should only those who hit people who are hurt by that suffer penalty?

Is the offence running the light, or hitting someone? If it's hitting
someone, then presumably there has to be intent of some kind, else
it's not hitting someone, it's running the light knowing hitting it
likely. Did he know that?

Zebee

Zebee

On Aug 8, 5:23 pm, TimC -
astro.swin.edu.au wrote:

As long as it was no different to your typical sentence dished out to
motorists who should otherwise be charged with manslaughter in a
perfect world. Ie, 6 months, suspended, and a $2300 fine.

Any different and it starts to look like you are punishing bike riders
more than car drivers for breaking the law, and we wouldn't want that.

Allow me to point out the fundamental, risk-based difference: mass of
unit. The law needs to be based on the risk posed.

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 08 Aug 2007 02:23:59 -0700
Donga wrote:
On Aug 8, 5:23 pm, TimC -
astro.swin.edu.au wrote:

As long as it was no different to your typical sentence dished out to
motorists who should otherwise be charged with manslaughter in a
perfect world. Ie, 6 months, suspended, and a $2300 fine.

Any different and it starts to look like you are punishing bike riders
more than car drivers for breaking the law, and we wouldn't want that.

Allow me to point out the fundamental, risk-based difference: mass of
unit. The law needs to be based on the risk posed.

Why? SOmeone just died, so it can obviously happen.

Zebee

On Aug 8, 8:24 pm, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
In aus.bicycle on Wed, 08 Aug 2007 02:23:59 -0700

Donga wrote:

Allow me to point out the fundamental, risk-based difference: mass of
unit. The law needs to be based on the risk posed.

Why? SOmeone just died, so it can obviously happen.

? I can be hit by a meteor, but that doesn't lead me to live in the
cellar. Laws are intended to influence people's behaviour that affects
others. Clearly driving a car through a red light poses much a greater
risk to others than does riding a bike through a red light. The laws
and sanctions should always reflect risks, estimated thus: The fact
that something 'can' happen is the first part of the analysis -
identifying the threat. Risk is calculated by 'likelihood' x
'consequence' of the threat. Likeise the extent of enforcement should
reflect risk - it would be ridiculous for police to spend as much time
on policing cyclists as they do on motorists.

Donga

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 08 Aug 2007 04:01:36 -0700
Donga wrote:
On Aug 8, 8:24 pm, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
In aus.bicycle on Wed, 08 Aug 2007 02:23:59 -0700

Donga wrote:

Allow me to point out the fundamental, risk-based difference: mass of
unit. The law needs to be based on the risk posed.

Why? SOmeone just died, so it can obviously happen.

? I can be hit by a meteor, but that doesn't lead me to live in the
cellar. Laws are intended to influence people's behaviour that affects
others. Clearly driving a car through a red light poses much a greater
risk to others than does riding a bike through a red light. The laws

So why is everyone jumping so hard on the guy?

Zebee