|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Event Director criminally liable for Competitor's death
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 -- |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Event Director criminally liable for Competitor's death
Send it to Pantani. He might want to have his lawyers check out the
1995 Milano-Torino race promotion literature and race bible. It would be nice to see him on the attack again instead of having to weave and dodge the seemingly never ending enquiries and investigations that the Italian authorities seem to be deluging him with. (Snoopy) te**yson@caverock.*et.*z.*is'n' writes: 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 -- -- le vent a Dos Davey Crockett |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Event Director criminally liable for Competitor's death
"Snoopy" te**yson@caverock.*et.*z.*is'n' wrote in message
... 9th August 2003, Christchurch, New Zealand I'm surprised that the prosecution thought they needed to establish that the instructions were confusing as to whether the road was closed or open to traffic during the race. If I was on the jury, I probably would have convicted just on the fact that the director was so negligent as to organise a cycle race on an open public road - whether competitors knew it or not. What if the cyclist managed to kill someone else as well? What a dick (the director). He should be gaoled just to protect the rest of humanity from his stupidity. Imagine what other stupid stuff this dick got up to before this event. Reminds me of that drag race meet that raced the wrong way down the strip towards a concrete wall. The outcome is entirely predictable (if not inevitable). -- Falkon |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Event Director criminally liable for Competitor's death
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Event Director criminally liable for Competitor's death
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. If the regulations said the cyclists could disobey the rules of the road, then the person who drafted these rules and approved them guilty. Makes me think of the police who allowed a public nuisance and said it was all-right for protesters at Lyttelton to stand in the middle of the road and impede legal travel. The police who allowed and arranged the protesters to stand in the way of law abiding citizens should have been found guilty. Placard molesters who abuse and impede people who are obeying the laws of the land should be charged with obstruction. Rules are rules and should be obeyed. People who break the rules should pay the consequences. Still the women who aided Gay Oakes in burying her husband who she MURDERED were never even charged, so why should I expect the innocent not to be abused by the CHCH police. They are too busy arresting and abusing the innocent. Segeant Joker is still waiting to be given the royal femalr command "Arrest Peter Ellis". Just waiting until Fool Goof has to finally give in to pubic embarrassment and allow an INDEPENDENT FULL INQUIRY because the Eichelbaun bribe failed to appease the people. Pontious Pilate only washed his hands, Fool Goof paid out $400,000 or whatever. Still he can always ask for the blinkers to be returned. Or failing that he could arrange conducted tours through the various SECRET CAVATIES at 404 Hereford Street that the police paid $12000 to have the plans for the jury to see. Does anyone know if these secret cavaties are still able to be viewed. Perhaps they could be put on view alongside the CCC ladder that was long enough to stretch between two buildings and support the children as they travelled across out of sight up in the clouds and of course the cages that the children were kept in and subjected to the horrible indecencies that were only in the mind of the sensational Sally's. Perhaps someone would like to pay for Andrews tombstone and then the coffin as well could all be put in Christchurch's 'waxworks' of horror. Roger McClay could give guided tours and his account of events. He could then of course be employed by the CCC as the CHCH joker. Who needs a town crier with Roger McClay venting forth. Defective Colin Eade could be employed again to give his account of events, but a warning would need to be given to all females. This warning would be necessary so the council would not be sued for the consequences employing a person who believed that anyone was fair game when the urge for sex arose. Perhaps we could have the Sally corner, not to be confused with the Salvation Army, and Gen Crossan could show the tripe from "Breaking the circle of 'Satanic Ritual abuse' and Pamela Hudson's 'Ritual Child's Abuse.' Perhaps the City Council could copy the laundry chute into their QE2 entertainment. Gary Moore could have a field day organising this museum. Think of the revenue that could be gained, and its daily entry would far surpass Te PAPA. All our own talent, he could claim. Liars incorporated, liars protected. The innocent beware because if you are wanting an apology you can be sure even if one is given it will be posthumously. Fears * On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 13:27:28 GMT, "Kyle Legate" wrote: Falkon wrote: "Snoopy" te**yson@caverock.*et.*z.*is'n' wrote in message ... 9th August 2003, Christchurch, New Zealand I'm surprised that the prosecution thought they needed to establish that the instructions were confusing as to whether the road was closed or open to traffic during the race. If I was on the jury, I probably would have convicted just on the fact that the director was so negligent as to organise a cycle race on an open public road - whether competitors knew it or not. 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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Event Director criminally liable for Competitor's death
"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. If the regulations said the cyclists could disobey the rules of the road, then the person who drafted these rules and approved them guilty." Individual responsibility is a thing of the past. Responsibility always falls now on those with the deepest pockets. -- -------------------------- Posted via cyclingforums.com http://www.cyclingforums.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Event Director criminally liable for Competitor's death
If I was on the jury, I probably would have convicted just on the fact that
the director was so negligent as to organise a cycle race on an open public road - whether competitors knew it or not. What a dick (the director). He should be gaoled just to protect the rest of humanity from his stupidity Maybe the dead cyclist thought the road was closed but he still crossed the line and got hit. The race director bears minimal responsibility. The rest of the course was on open roads so all participants should use their noggins and be extra careful. Even when roads are "closed" it pays to be alert for pedestrians and vehicles who may want to disregard the closure. I guess the lack of personal responsibility has taken hold in Australia too. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Event Director criminally liable for Competitor's death
"Jkpoulos7" wrote in message ... If I was on the jury, I probably would have convicted just on the fact that the director was so negligent as to organise a cycle race on an open public road - whether competitors knew it or not. What a dick (the director). He should be gaoled just to protect the rest of humanity from his stupidity Maybe the dead cyclist thought the road was closed but he still crossed the line and got hit. The race director bears minimal responsibility. The rest of the course was on open roads so all participants should use their noggins and be extra careful. Even when roads are "closed" it pays to be alert for pedestrians and vehicles who may want to disregard the closure. I guess the lack of personal responsibility has taken hold in Australia too. It happened in NZ--there is a difference. Ask any Aussie or Kiwi! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Event Director criminally liable for Competitor's death
It happened in NZ--there is a difference. Ask any Aussie or Kiwi!
What difference? Same people. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Event Director criminally liable for Competitor's death
Snoopy wrote: [..] 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? Troublesome is the fact that Police elected to prosecute - and therefor 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 - sometimes may even be governed by rules/requirements from outside the organisation putting on the particular 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. 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. 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. 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." 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. 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 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. 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. A trial by Judge alone (if available in NZ) may well have produced a different outcome totally. This looks like having grounds for an appeal as well. -- SIR - Philosopher unauthorised ----------------------------------------------------------------- The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled. ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|