James Gould coronors hearing in the age today

Brendo Wrote:
On Mar 29, 6:57 am, "Bleve" wrote:
If the reporting is accurate, it seems the hellride is culpable.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...761567956.html

IF... Man crossed when lights indicated he could, and where indicated
he could, and cyclists rode through lights when red, then what other
conclusion can be drawn?

It's one thing to hold an individual responsible for their actions,
it's quite another to hold a group accountable for the actions of an
individual.

This is further complicated when the group in question has no
identifiable leaders, organisation, rules etc.


--
EuanB

Bleve Wrote:
On Mar 29, 10:56 am, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
In aus.bicycle on 28 Mar 2007 16:07:30 -0700
- who isn't sure "the hellride" can be culpable unless it has
incorporation papers. As there are a rather large number of people
in that pack who didn't hit the guy. There is definitely a man who is
culpable, and possible some (the ones who were calling roll) who
contributed.

Pedant. The hellride is a cultural phenomenon. The culture of it
caused James Gould's death. The bloke who actually ran into him was
only one, of dozens, that go through red lights on that ride. Sure,
he's directly responsible for it (and IMO should be done for
manslaugher) but the culture of that particular ride is the core of
the problem. Next time you're in Melbourne, make the time to get up
on a Saturday morning and follow it on a motorbike and see what that
ride does. Then you'll understand.

It's not that simple. The Hell Ride is an idea more than an organised
ride. It has no formal organisation, no formal hierarchy and no
control. It is anarchy.

How do you police that? Frankly you'd have better luck policing CM.


--
EuanB

On 2007-03-29, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
People have to see it is their own actions, their own choices. Were
the people at the front responsible for the actions of those at the
back? I really can't see it.

There are degrees of culpability. At one end of the scale is the one who
chooses, of his or her own accord, to break the road rules, without
encouragement or incitement. At the other end of the scale is the one
who follows the rules assiduously, regardless of any encouragement or
incitement to do otherwise.

Somewhere in the middle lie the people who explicitly encourage others
to break the rules, and the people who implicitly do the same (by not
explicitly encouraging others to *not* break the rules). It can be
argued that the leaders of the ride, by not talking to those following
behind, are implicitly endorsing the culture; however, I don't believe
that that makes them *as* culpable as those who explicitly endorse it,
or those who choose to break the road rules.

Ultimately, though, as you say, it is about taking responsibility for
one's own actions. If anybody has any idea how we can get our society as
a whole to live this, please, by all means, speak up - it's only been a
problem for a few millenia ...

--
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".

On Mar 29, 12:32 pm, EuanB EuanB.2o6...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com wrote:
Bleve Wrote:



On Mar 29, 10:56 am, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
In aus.bicycle on 28 Mar 2007 16:07:30 -0700
- who isn't sure "the hellride" can be culpable unless it has
incorporation papers. As there are a rather large number of people
in that pack who didn't hit the guy. There is definitely a man who is
culpable, and possible some (the ones who were calling roll) who
contributed.

Pedant. The hellride is a cultural phenomenon. The culture of it
caused James Gould's death. The bloke who actually ran into him was
only one, of dozens, that go through red lights on that ride. Sure,
he's directly responsible for it (and IMO should be done for
manslaugher) but the culture of that particular ride is the core of
the problem. Next time you're in Melbourne, make the time to get up
on a Saturday morning and follow it on a motorbike and see what that
ride does. Then you'll understand.

It's not that simple. The Hell Ride is an idea more than an organised
ride.

The hellride is a specific ride that departs the Black Rock clocktower
at 7am on Saturdays, has a clearly defined route and finish line. It
even has a website devoted to it. It is a special case. It is not an
idea or a concept, it is a very specific beast. No-one organises it,
that's true, but in every other respect it is a clearly identifiable
event.

It has no formal organisation, no formal hierarchy and no
control. It is anarchy.

How do you police that? Frankly you'd have better luck policing CM.

IMO, if there was sufficient will, the hellride could be broken quite
easily. Slap a couple of police cars at the front of it and control
the pace, and book everyone (everyone...) that breaks the road rules.
This is possible. There are a certain number of lights and
intersections, and riders are quite identifiable, despite claims to
the contrary. In 3 weeks, the hellride would be no longer. Every
time it got too big when it reforms, do the same thing.

I'm not advocating it, although my views on big bunches on the road
are known here, but it could be done.

On Mar 29, 11:36 am, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
In aus.bicycle on 28 Mar 2007 17:57:45 -0700

Bleve wrote:
But ... the strong riders are the ones at the front driving it, and
there aren't very many of them compared to the size of the bunch, so
there's a leadership of sorts. This is unlike a lot of other big
bunch rides which aren't so fast and so more people are capable of
driving it.

They aren't so much driving it as collecting followers though?

Seems like it's the ones in the middle and possibly towards the back
who are the ones "driving" it, as they are the ones trying to keep up.

In bunch rides, if the aim of the bunch is cohesion, when a bunch
splits due to lights etc, the leaders slow down and the bunch
regroups. A simple call of 'splitting' or 'stopping' is how it's done,
and the message passes up the line to the front to the leaders of the
bunch. By leaders I mean the people at the front, and to further
dejargonise, to 'drive' a bunch is to be on the front making the pace
and letting the bunch slipstream.

You have to understand the culture of the hellride (or fast bunches in
general) to really grasp it. Some bunch rides are training rides
(north road 6am as it was 3 years ago for example) but some are
essentially unorganised races, and the hellride is one of the latter.

If the message gets passed up the line when the bunch splits, then the
leaders can slow it down and wait for the others to regain the bunch.

Bleve wrote:

IMO, if there was sufficient will, the hellride could be broken quite
easily. Slap a couple of police cars at the front of it and control
the pace, and book everyone (everyone...) that breaks the road rules.
This is possible. There are a certain number of lights and
intersections, and riders are quite identifiable, despite claims to
the contrary. In 3 weeks, the hellride would be no longer. Every
time it got too big when it reforms, do the same thing.

I'm not advocating it, although my views on big bunches on the road
are known here, but it could be done.

I recall that the Qld government tried the similar, although probably
more forceful, tactics in the 1960s, 70s, 80s and 90s to control
dissent. Locking up 4000 in a day or rushing people with truncheons
didn't seem to work then, probably never will.

Bleve Wrote:
It has no formal organisation, no formal hierarchy and no
control. It is anarchy.

How do you police that? Frankly you'd have better luck policing CM.

IMO, if there was sufficient will, the hellride could be broken quite
easily. Slap a couple of police cars at the front of it and control
the pace, and book everyone (everyone...) that breaks the road rules.
This is possible. There are a certain number of lights and
intersections, and riders are quite identifiable, despite claims to
the contrary. In 3 weeks, the hellride would be no longer. Every
time it got too big when it reforms, do the same thing.

I don't agree. Those tactics have been used by the New York police in
an attempt to control Critical Mass. It didn't work there, I don't see
why it would work here in Melbourne for the Hell Ride.


--
EuanB

On Mar 29, 1:40 pm, EuanB EuanB.2o6...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com wrote:
Bleve Wrote:

It has no formal organisation, no formal hierarchy and no
control. It is anarchy.

How do you police that? Frankly you'd have better luck policing CM.

IMO, if there was sufficient will, the hellride could be broken quite
easily. Slap a couple of police cars at the front of it and control
the pace, and book everyone (everyone...) that breaks the road rules.
This is possible. There are a certain number of lights and
intersections, and riders are quite identifiable, despite claims to
the contrary. In 3 weeks, the hellride would be no longer. Every
time it got too big when it reforms, do the same thing.

I don't agree. Those tactics have been used by the New York police in
an attempt to control Critical Mass. It didn't work there, I don't see
why it would work here in Melbourne for the Hell Ride.

I'm going to have to shake you, Euan

The hellride is not CM. Different beast. Vastly different.... CM is
a fluid entity pretty much designed to be impervious to any sort of
control by anyone, but the hellride is not the same thing. CM can
route around disruptions, start and stop anywhere and doesn't care how
fast it goes. Half the ratbags* at a CM probably want to get involved
with the police anyway. Slap 2 policecars on the front of the
hellride and keep it at 40km/h and stop at every light, and it ceases
to be a fast training ride. It's only so big and has some much
prestige (and thus, so much pressure within it to keep up) because
it's 'the' hellride, and it could be broken down if there was a
serious and determined desire to do so.

Again, I'm not advocating this course of action, but it could be done
if there was sufficient desire to kill it off. A lot of it would move
around, but the ride itself and the cultural problem it exacerbates
can be, at a bare minimum, considerably altered.

Anti-hoon car laws seem to be working pretty well, bike confiscations
for people shooting reds etc on beach rd would probably have the same
effect. These people shooting reds and generally treating the road
laws as 'not applicable to me' are hoons too, they're just on bikes,
not driving cars.

* - I mean the ratbags, not everyone that does a CM. If you've done
one or seen one, you can tell the difference pretty easily.

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:40:25 +1000
EuanB wrote:

I don't agree. Those tactics have been used by the New York police in
an attempt to control Critical Mass. It didn't work there, I don't see
why it would work here in Melbourne for the Hell Ride.


Because what the riders want is different?

The object of the riders is to go in a certain direction at speed in a
group.

Control any of those things and you make the proposition less
attractive, control more than one and you break the whole thing.

CM wants something different. They want to be on their bikes in a
group, but the group can be slow, it can be separated into little
chunks, it can stop and wait and reform and generally mill about
without damaging the idea that draws people.

Zebee

On 2007-03-29, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
IMO, if there was sufficient will, the hellride could be broken quite
easily. Slap a couple of police cars at the front of it and control
the pace,

OK, and what will they do when cyclists get sick of the pace, and pass
the police car (legally, since they will most likely be going below
the legal limit) in the other lane?

Do the same thing they did a few weeks ago when the luser copper
darted in front of the bunch to "direct" them up hopes rise?

--
TimC
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would
it?" -- Albert Einstein