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

MikeyOz Wrote:
Yeah but trying explaining that to the Lynch Mob.

Common sense dictates what you are saying, but we all know that the
communities we live in don't work on common sense.

Not quite as intangible as logic, cold hard facts and logic if you
please Sir! :P


--
EuanB

Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
Not "the ride". "The ride" isn't the problem or the point. Cyclists
run red lights everywhere and all the time. If they didn't then there
would have been a hell of a lot more people on that ride stopping for
lights.

While cyclists think the rules don't apply to them if the rules are
inconvenient, then you will get people running reds and there's the
chance to hit someone or cause some other crash.


To drag in the red light palavar and attempting to extend it to other
cyclists is a non sequitur statement and best left for the more inane
comments in the Herald Sun. On ABC radio this morning, Victorian
Attorney Rob Hull commented at that he is looking at this case and
seeing if laws can be reviewed. However I believe it would take a lot
more to alter than simply tinkering with legislation at a state level
to get a higher level of compliance from road users to follow traffic
signals.

Perceptions of the ride are important, as virtually every bunch ride up
and down Beach Road (and elsewhere) has ended up branded with the
so-called HR, whether participants have behaved legally or not.

And while everyone's getting a tad over excited about the sentencing
given to Raisin-Shaw, under the existing road laws, that's all the
Police could charge him with. Believe you me, the police went over in
fine detail what they could actually bring against him in court. If
people have any real interest in this case, extending past the recent
bout of meedya hyperbole, for example, they should be observing the
Sentencing Advisory Council as well as monitor any proposed changes to
the Road Safety Act and the Transport Act.


--
cfsmtb

On Aug 9, 11:35 am, cfsmtb cfsmtb.2v0...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com wrote:
Zebee Johnstone Wrote:

Not "the ride". "The ride" isn't the problem or the point. Cyclists
run red lights everywhere and all the time. If they didn't then there
would have been a hell of a lot more people on that ride stopping for
lights.

While cyclists think the rules don't apply to them if the rules are
inconvenient, then you will get people running reds and there's the
chance to hit someone or cause some other crash.

To drag in the red light palavar and attempting to extend it to other
cyclists is a non sequitur statement and best left for the more inane
comments in the Herald Sun. On ABC radio this morning, Victorian
Attorney Rob Hull commented at that he is looking at this case and
seeing if laws can be reviewed. However I believe it would take a lot
more to alter than simply tinkering with legislation at a state level
to get a higher level of compliance from road users to follow traffic
signals.

Perceptions of the ride are important, as virtually every bunch ride up
and down Beach Road (and elsewhere) has ended up branded with the
so-called HR, whether participants have behaved legally or not.

And while everyone's getting a tad over excited about the sentencing
given to Raisin-Shaw, under the existing road laws, that's all the
Police could charge him with. Believe you me, the police went over in
fine detail what they could actually bring against him in court. If
people have any real interest in this case, extending past the recent
bout of meedya hyperbole, for example, they should be observing the
Sentencing Advisory Council as well as monitor any proposed changes to
the Road Safety Act and the Transport Act.

--
cfsmtb

Surely they could have thrown an assault charge at him?

The only redeeming feature of this case is that unlike recent car
related convictions he wasn't tired and emotional/drunk, didn't leave
the scene, didn't disappear to make up a story and sober and
assistance was rendered to the man immediately. He did not contest the
charge but his weasling that he was worried about others behind meant
that he could not stop has damaged all cyclists reputation.

The sadi thing is that all the media fuss taken away from the fact
that over 300 people a year die on victorias roads and in the last 10
years just two have been killed by cyclists.

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 9 Aug 2007 11:35:13 +1000
cfsmtb wrote:

Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
Not "the ride". "The ride" isn't the problem or the point. Cyclists
run red lights everywhere and all the time. If they didn't then there
would have been a hell of a lot more people on that ride stopping for
lights.

While cyclists think the rules don't apply to them if the rules are
inconvenient, then you will get people running reds and there's the
chance to hit someone or cause some other crash.


To drag in the red light palavar and attempting to extend it to other
cyclists is a non sequitur statement and best left for the more inane
comments in the Herald Sun. On ABC radio this morning, Victorian

Care to expand rather than just assert? Like umm.. refuting the
argument or something?

No, I am interested. Why is running the light on Beach Rd so
different to it anywhere else that there's no connection between
them?

Attorney Rob Hull commented at that he is looking at this case and
seeing if laws can be reviewed. However I believe it would take a lot
more to alter than simply tinkering with legislation at a state level
to get a higher level of compliance from road users to follow traffic
signals.

Absolutely. Major education campaign plus prosecutions. Difficulty
being that it costs a lot to prosecute as you have to have human
beings doing the nabbing rather than cameras.

It takes a fair while too. It took a long time to turn the perception
of drink driving around for example. Time and money.

I don't think anyone gets on a bike or in a car and thinks "I will go
and kill someone today". They tend to think "I can do this manouver
and get where I'm going faster", some even add "safely" in there
somewhere. Few think "but I won't cos it is wrong".

I have 3 traffic lights on my current commute. Two cross very
busy roads, little to no chance of light running there, so cyclists
don't. The other has a couple of chances and sure enough the weirdo on
the 'bent is the only one who waits for the lights. Until the idea
that cyclists are special is stomped on it will keep happening.

Zebee

On 2007-08-08, TimC wrote:
Depends. Just how useful is a 6 month suspended sentence anyway? In
either of the aims of deterance or punishment/revenge?

My understanding of suspended sentences is that they aim to deter repeat
offences: "yes, ok, you made a mistake, we understand that you are
sorry, so we're giving you a suspended sentence. Don't do it again."

If the offender *does* do it again, they get sentenced for the second
offence, and the suspended sentence is added on to the sentence for that
second offence. In other words, suspended sentences are like warnings
for first offences with a few added teeth.

So somebody who makes a genuine mistake won't be punished harshly for
it, but somebody who fails to learn from that mistake (or who *didn't*
make a mistake, they just said they did) will (hopefully) get the lesson
they need.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

PiledHigher Wrote: [color=blue]
On Aug 9, 11:35 am, cfsmtb cfsmtb.2v0...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com wrote:

Surely they could have thrown an assault charge at him?

The only redeeming feature of this case is that unlike recent car
related convictions he wasn't tired and emotional/drunk, didn't leave
the scene, didn't disappear to make up a story and sober and
assistance was rendered to the man immediately. He did not contest the
charge but his weasling that he was worried about others behind meant
that he could not stop has damaged all cyclists reputation.

The sadi thing is that all the media fuss taken away from the fact
that over 300 people a year die on victorias roads and in the last 10
years just two have been killed by cyclists.


He could have said "I didn't see him" - that usually gets you off when
you kill a cyclist with a car.


--
ProfTournesol

On Aug 8, 3:37 pm, "Theo Bekkers" wrote:
Stomper wrote:
Personally I believe the Victorian Police are culpable too - for years
they have known the pattern of behaviour - but chose to do nothing
about it. They could have, either -

1. policed the route - ie had a car at the head of the peleton
stopping for the lights

OR

2. worked with the group to make sure the ride was safe

The fact that they did nothing is nothing short of negligence.

**** me! It's the Police dept's fault Mr Gould is dead. Geezus Christ!

Theo

You can have more than one party reponsible - that's how liability
cases are decided through apportionment of responsibility.

For years the Hell Ride had (has?) a reputation of rules being broken
- the Police (and riders) could have done more - and should have.

Mr Raisin-Shaw could have been one of many - unfortunately for him
(and Mr Gould) he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

How many of us here can put our hands on our hearts and say we haven't
ran a red light in our time????

Karl aka Stomper

On 2007-08-09, Stomper (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Mr Raisin-Shaw could have been one of many - unfortunately for him
(and Mr Gould) he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

.... and overtaking already stopped riders. Which makes him stupider
than everyone else who stopped that he rode around.

How many of us here can put our hands on our hearts and say we haven't
ran a red light in our time????

Not in such stupid circumstances.

I did dramastically reduce the number of occasions I ran red lights
when I found out about the social reasons for stopping even at 2am
when nobody is around, but the length of my patience typically only
lasts 5 minutes before I give up and go through after checking all
directions that there is absolutely nothing about.

Camberwell junction and the top end of Franklin st near RMIT (??) come
to mind as places where I give up after some minutes. Note that both
have detector loops that do detect bicycle.... eventually. Probably
by quantum fluctuations in the timing circuit that vary over the
timescale of millenia. I don't think this is any worse than being a
sole car at those intersections though, so perhaps I am just being
impatient.

--
TimC
This plane is not equipped with vertices.

On Aug 8, 9:44 pm, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
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

Because the more cynical definition of risk is "Hazard x
outrage" (Peter Sandman)
.... and because they are not thinking of the old adage "there for the
grace of dog go I".

donga

On Aug 9, 9:40 am, "Plodder" wrote:
"Donga" wrote in message

oups.com...

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.

I disagree. I think the law should be based on behaviours and (if possible)
on intention. Knock down the behaviours that create a risk and risk across
the board is mitigated. If, for example, EVERYONE can be dissuaded from
running red lights, the whole risk of collisions is reduced. To treat
behavious differently depending on (your thought) assumes that a person
risking themselves (a cyclist or a pedestrian, for example) is less
important that a person risking another.

A death is a death. If I were to run a red light my action (running a red)
could be said to have contributed to my death or inury (I "brought it on
myself") that doesn't mean I DESERVE the outcome, just that the fault lies
with me.

The purpose of road rules, I think, is about creating predictable behaviour,
which mitigates risk. Traffic flow, and all the other aspects of traffic
control and rules comes second to lowering behavioural risk.

Cheers,

Frank

It's not red-light-running that's at issue, is it? The fine for that
is fairly small, for motorist or cyclist. The issue is "causing death
by dangerous driving/cycling" as far as I can see.