Coroner lashes cyclists

FYI

http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...761567956.html

STATE coroner Graeme Johnstone has lashed out at the "pack mentality" of
rogue cyclists in an inquest into the death of an elderly man who was
struck by a rider as he crossed a street.

Pedestrian James Gould, 77, was trying to cross Beach Road, Mentone when
he was hit by a cyclist participating in the notorious Hell Ride, a
weekly high-speed ride through Melbourne's bayside suburbs.

One rider, William Kelsall, told the inquest he was alarmed to see
riders speed through the pedestrian crossing where Mr Gould was trying
to cross, four or five seconds after the light had turned red.

He said cyclists routinely defied traffic controls to avoid being
separated from the main pack.

Mr Kelsall was riding with a group of five friends when they were swept
up in a group of about 100 Hell Ride cyclists.

"We have frequently observed members of the group ignore red lights and
have remarked to ourselves that they are going to kill somebody some
day. Sadly this has happened, yet this death was entirely preventable,"
he said in witness statement tendered to the court.

In an extraordinary outburst, Mr Johnstone interrupted Mr Kelsall's
testimony to demand the leaders of the ride change their ways. "This
group, this bunch, this pack needs to modify its behaviour," he said.

Mr Johnstone said that in his 18 years in the job it was "very rare" for
him to make comment during an inquest, but "it just needed to be said".

He thanked members of the public who had taken time off work or study to
give evidence, but noted the absence of ride leaders.

"Those who run the pack don't give evidence. They're not game enough,"
he said.

Earlier, apprentice carpenter Daniel Keely told how he witnessed the
incident in his car while he waited at the crossing for the traffic
lights to change.

He described seeing one cyclist strike Mr Gould "at excessive speed".

"The sickening noise of the head clash with the ground was horrific," Mr
Keely said in a witness statement tendered to the court.

The inquest heard from another witness that seconds earlier, Mr Gould
had raised his hand and yelled "It's a red light" at about 20 cyclists
as they rode through the crossing.

Another rider, public relations consultant Hugh Martin, said there was
"mass confusion". The court heard that Mr Martin had told police soon
after the accident that riders behind him had called on him to continue
through the red light.

"The guys behind us were calling out, 'roll, roll, roll,' which more or
less means, keep going."

"When you have got everyone behind you and the pressure of everyone
behind you, you make your choice and you roll," the statement said.

Earlier, the court viewed video footage of another Hell Ride in February
2005 which showed cyclists run a red light.

William Raisin-Shaw, 30, of St Kilda, who has been charged with failing
to stop at pedestrian lights on the day of the incident, was in court
yesterday but has not given evidence.

He is due to appear at the Melbourne Magistrates Court on April 16.

The inquest continues.


--
Bean

"I've got a bike
You can ride it if you like
It's got a basket
A bell that rings
And things to make it look good
I'd give it to you if I could
But I borrowed it" Pink Floyd

Remove "yourfinger" before replying

On 2007-03-28, Bean Long (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
FYI

http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...761567956.html

"Mr Kelsall was riding with a group of five friends when they were
swept up in a group of about 100 Hell Ride cyclists."

Isn't that the kind of rider frequently complained about in the hell
ride? I do hope he stayed back from the group. And I do hope that
the guy who hit Mr Gould was not of like mind, as has been alledged in
the past.

"He described seeing one cyclist strike Mr Gould "at excessive
speed".

and

http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...761535017.html

"The cyclist was one of a large group participating in a so-called
'Hell Ride', a weekly 75-kilometre high speed ride through
Melbourne's bayside suburbs."
...
"He told the court that as he faced south he saw a group of about
100 cyclists ride four abreast down the hill towards him at an
estimated speed of 50 km/h."
...
"Three or four riders behind them braked as the cyclists behind them
swerved around them "at excessive speed."

I'm not quite sure whether all these "excessive speed" and "they were
going fast" comments are made because anything faster than 0 is
excessive when a red light is involved (TRUE; same could be said of
anyone, driver or not, running a red light; but that's usually put
down to "red light running", not "excessive speed"), or the riders
were allegedly speeding. If they are trying to make a point of the
latter, then they're bull****ting (yes, even The Age is capable of
bull****ting).

They've already mentioned "estimated speed of 50 km/h". As far as I
am aware, that's 10km/h lower than the speed having been prior judged
as being excessive for that road. If they feel 50km/h is excessive,
I'm fully expecting the speed limit for that road to be changed to
40km/h next week. FOR ALL ROAD USERS.

--
TimC
Just because they are called 'forbidden' transitions does not mean
that they are forbidden. They are less allowed than allowed
transitions, if you see what I mean. --unknown

TimC wrote:
They've already mentioned "estimated speed of 50 km/h". As far as I
am aware, that's 10km/h lower than the speed having been prior judged
as being excessive for that road. If they feel 50km/h is excessive,
I'm fully expecting the speed limit for that road to be changed to
40km/h next week. FOR ALL ROAD USERS.


What a load of crap Tim. Talk about taking a pedantic view on the word
excessive. In the context they are saying excessive in comparison to an
appropriate speed.

Are you saying a safe speed for a bike is the same speed that is safe
for a car? 90kmh cycling is a real buzz (and I know you've at least come
close to that speed on occasion as I have) and the reason it is a buzz
is the fear factor. Hit a slight bump in the road and you are probably
cactus. It's a lot different to 90kmh in a car. Regardless of a speed
limit, is 90kmh an inappropriate speed on a bike? Bloody oath it is.

Now consider any bunch ride (Hell Ride or not). You are cycling within
centimetres of the other bikes. Don't tell me that the appropriate speed
for that type of riding is the same as normal car traffic should be
doing. If I had a bunch drive with cars within 1 foot of me in either
direction, what would be appropriate speed would have nothing to do with
the actual speed limit.

One last point, if one limit applies to all road users, why are there
truck specific speed limits? Because what is safe varies by the vehicle.

DaveB

On Mar 29, 8:31 am, DaveB wrote:
TimC wrote:
They've already mentioned "estimated speed of 50 km/h". As far as I
am aware, that's 10km/h lower than the speed having been prior judged
as being excessive for that road. If they feel 50km/h is excessive,
I'm fully expecting the speed limit for that road to be changed to
40km/h next week. FOR ALL ROAD USERS.

What a load of crap Tim. Talk about taking a pedantic view on the word
excessive. In the context they are saying excessive in comparison to an
appropriate speed.

Are you saying a safe speed for a bike is the same speed that is safe
for a car? 90kmh cycling is a real buzz (and I know you've at least come
close to that speed on occasion as I have) and the reason it is a buzz
is the fear factor. Hit a slight bump in the road and you are probably
cactus. It's a lot different to 90kmh in a car. Regardless of a speed
limit, is 90kmh an inappropriate speed on a bike? Bloody oath it is.

Now consider any bunch ride (Hell Ride or not). You are cycling within
centimetres of the other bikes. Don't tell me that the appropriate speed
for that type of riding is the same as normal car traffic should be
doing. If I had a bunch drive with cars within 1 foot of me in either
direction, what would be appropriate speed would have nothing to do with
the actual speed limit.

One last point, if one limit applies to all road users, why are there
truck specific speed limits? Because what is safe varies by the vehicle.

DaveB

Excessive speed is anything above what is regarded as safe for the
conditions (in my view anyway) IF conditions are the light is red then
approaching in such a way that stopping before the crossing will be
unlikely, then that is excessive speed. True, doing 50kmh, or 70kmh
may be appropriate at times, but this is not one of those times.

Without seeing the incident, obviously we all rely on what other
people saw. But, if light was red, and Mr Gould was crossing within
the prescribed area, then the blame lies only with the gentleman who
struck him.

If you ride with a bunch, you ALWAYS have the choice of following road
rules, or not. If you feel that by riding in this bunch you are
compromising the safety of yourself and others, find some new mates to
ride with. I find it difficult to sympathise with the rider, or riders
responsible.

Feel free to comment otherwise.

Brendo

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:31:46 +1000
DaveB wrote:
Now consider any bunch ride (Hell Ride or not). You are cycling within
centimetres of the other bikes. Don't tell me that the appropriate speed
for that type of riding is the same as normal car traffic should be
doing. If I had a bunch drive with cars within 1 foot of me in either
direction, what would be appropriate speed would have nothing to do with
the actual speed limit.

presumably racers do it.

So I'd say it isn't so much inappropriate for "a bunch", but likely so
for a bunch of riders of varying skill level on a public road with
various hazards rather than a closed course.

It isn't clear how the speeds contributed to this crash, and it isn't
clear if the speeds have contributed to any crash.

The mentality that promotes such speeds probably contributed to the
crash, but that's not reall the same thing.

The problem I see with the coroner's remarks is that he failed the
cardinal rule of problem solving: Find out what the problem is, then
fix it.

Is speed the problem? Only if it's contributing to crashes, and this
crash wasn't caused by or affected by excessive speed.

Is running a red the problem? In this case, yes. And evidence was
tendered that it's not the first time.

Is the general mentality of people who ride in big bunches the
problem? That seems closer but it's not well defined really.

Define the Hell Ride "problem" as closely and carefully as possible.
Preferably without emotive words. And in a form where you can say
"fixed or not fixed" meaning "they are irresponsible" isn't useful
unless you can say "and we can tell when they are being responsible by
these actions".

Of course if the problem is a mindset, then that's notoriously hard to
change. Meaning that the practical solution is likely to be something
that will deal with the problem by banning the activity completely.

Zebee

On Mar 29, 10:53 am, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
In aus.bicycle on Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:31:46 +1000

DaveB wrote:
Now consider any bunch ride (Hell Ride or not). You are cycling within
centimetres of the other bikes. Don't tell me that the appropriate speed
for that type of riding is the same as normal car traffic should be
doing. If I had a bunch drive with cars within 1 foot of me in either
direction, what would be appropriate speed would have nothing to do with
the actual speed limit.

presumably racers do it.

So I'd say it isn't so much inappropriate for "a bunch", but likely so
for a bunch of riders of varying skill level on a public road with
various hazards rather than a closed course.

It isn't clear how the speeds contributed to this crash, and it isn't
clear if the speeds have contributed to any crash.

The mentality that promotes such speeds probably contributed to the
crash, but that's not reall the same thing.

The problem I see with the coroner's remarks is that he failed the
cardinal rule of problem solving: Find out what the problem is, then
fix it.

Is speed the problem? Only if it's contributing to crashes, and this
crash wasn't caused by or affected by excessive speed.

Is running a red the problem? In this case, yes. And evidence was
tendered that it's not the first time.

Is the general mentality of people who ride in big bunches the
problem? That seems closer but it's not well defined really.

Define the Hell Ride "problem" as closely and carefully as possible.
Preferably without emotive words.

It's actually pretty easy, and is mentioned in one of the parts of the
article. It's the pressure in it to stay with the leaders. The
pressure in a big bunch to stay together is enormous, and if it's a
bunch that has a lot of history and prestige, even moreso.

Read the article again ...

On 2007-03-29, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
It isn't clear how the speeds contributed to this crash, and it isn't
clear if the speeds have contributed to any crash.

The mentality that promotes such speeds probably contributed to the
crash, but that's not reall the same thing.

The problem I see with the coroner's remarks is that he failed the
cardinal rule of problem solving: Find out what the problem is, then
fix it.

Is speed the problem? Only if it's contributing to crashes, and this
crash wasn't caused by or affected by excessive speed.

Is running a red the problem? In this case, yes. And evidence was
tendered that it's not the first time.

Yup. Zactly.

Is the general mentality of people who ride in big bunches the
problem? That seems closer but it's not well defined really.

Define the Hell Ride "problem" as closely and carefully as possible.
Preferably without emotive words. And in a form where you can say
"fixed or not fixed" meaning "they are irresponsible" isn't useful
unless you can say "and we can tell when they are being responsible by
these actions".

Thankyou. As usual, you stated this much more eloquently than I can.

--
TimC
Entropy requires no maintenance. -- Markoff Chaney

Bleve wrote:

It's actually pretty easy, and is mentioned in one of the parts of the
article. It's the pressure in it to stay with the leaders. The
pressure in a big bunch to stay together is enormous, and if it's a
bunch that has a lot of history and prestige, even moreso.

Maybe they all need to be sent to the hills for bunch rides. Then the
only person killed due to the pressure to keep up are the backmarkers
themselves (a feeling I know all too well).

DaveB

In aus.bicycle on 28 Mar 2007 18:01:06 -0700
Bleve wrote:

It's actually pretty easy, and is mentioned in one of the parts of the
article. It's the pressure in it to stay with the leaders. The
pressure in a big bunch to stay together is enormous, and if it's a
bunch that has a lot of history and prestige, even moreso.

I am not sure that's a problem that is solvable. It's a mindset,
changing those is notoriously difficult.

Two ways to deal that I can see - make it official requiring numbers
and entry and give escorts and block lights, or make it illegal to
ride in such bunches (defining them as something like more than 2
abreast, and no one to ride less than 2 bike lengths behind another
bike) and make it a requirement for riders to carry ID. Then use
video and cars blocking the road to continually catch and fine riders.

Zebee

DaveB wrote:

One last point, if one limit applies to all road users, why are there
truck specific speed limits? Because what is safe varies by the vehicle.

Nope, it is arse covering by the gummint sonny.
Too many trucks went "out of control", so gummint instituted lower heavy
vehicles speed in places where a HV "might get out of control".

Surely "safe relates to more than the vehicle. Factors like driver
skill, driver experience,alcohol content, weather,etc, etc, etc