James Gould coronors hearing in the age today

If the reporting is accurate, it seems the hellride is culpable.

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

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?

Brendo

In aus.bicycle on 28 Mar 2007 16:07:30 -0700
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?


He didn't say conclusion, he said reporting. If those are indeed the
facts, then someone was culpable. If they aren't...

Zebee
- 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.

On Mar 29, 10:56 am, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
In aus.bicycle on 28 Mar 2007 16:07:30 -0700

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?

He didn't say conclusion, he said reporting. If those are indeed the
facts, then someone was culpable. If they aren't...

Zebee
- 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.

In aus.bicycle on 28 Mar 2007 18:08:11 -0700
Bleve wrote:
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.



I can see it is a cultural thing, but then I also believe that each
person makes his own decisions. Crowds do develop madness, but you
also can't speak to them or deal with them.

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.

Zebee

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".

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 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, 8:56 am, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
In aus.bicycle on 28 Mar 2007 16:07:30 -0700

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?

He didn't say conclusion, he said reporting. If those are indeed the
facts, then someone was culpable. If they aren't...

Zebee
- 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.

I was referring to the Age report, where a gentleman was charged with
failing to stop at pedestrian lights on the day of the incident. Do I
mean the Hell Ride is culpable. Legally, no. Morally, yes. Everybody
who crossed the red light, or encouraged someone to cross when the
light was red is MORALLY responsible for that death. If you encourage
a young guy to race a car, and he crashes into a group and kills
someone, you are not legally resposible, but you are morally
responsible. Cyclists whine like hell when someone drives a car in
their bike lane, or overtakes too close, or backs out of a driveway
without looking, or walks with friends on a cycleway. When other
people actions infringe on their 'rights' and safety, they get their
back up. In this case, the actions of the cyclist infringed upon the
rights and safety of a pedestrian. I dont see how you can defend this
action with all this 'hell ride isn't incorporated' or 'was the speed
excessive' crap. Someones father, brother, uncle is dead because of
the actions of members of this ride, actions which deliberately
breached the laws of the road, and which were encouraged by many
members of the group. Only one cyclist struck Mr Gould. Legally, the
problem is his, and "Failing to stop at pedestrain lights" is a
pathetically small charge IMO. But every member of this ride who
either participated or encouraged the blatant breaking of the rules of
the road (designed for the safety of ALL road users) should have this
mans death sitting heavy on their heart.

Brendo

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