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

--

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

"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

In article ,
says...
"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.

That was the whole case. If the competitor knew the course was open to
traffic and then crossed the center line, he is completely at fault.

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.

Why would a race on a public road be dangerous? It safely happens all the
time. As long as there are course marshalls properly placed, it is a safe
way to have a race.


What if the cyclist managed to kill someone else as well?

Highly unlikely.

What a dick (the director).

pot, kettle, black.

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).

You can't compare a car race with a bike race. bike race speeds are
substantially slower and the mass of a car is usually 150 times more than
the weight of a car. In this instance, as in most, it is usually the
participants in the race, not spectators, that get hurt in accidents.
--------------
Alex

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.

"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

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.

"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!

It happened in NZ--there is a difference. Ask any Aussie or Kiwi!


What difference? Same people.

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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------