Australia and New Zealand · Public discussion

Hell Ride crash 'inevitable'

Started by Friday · · Last activity · 26 posts · 1,964 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Australia and New Zealand
Published
1 May 2007
Last activity
4 May 2007
Original author
Friday
Posts
26
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,964
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 26
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. From the Age.

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/hell-ride-crash-inevitable/2007/05/01/1177788114967.html

    A "Hell Ride" cyclist found himself "between a rock and a hard place"
    when he made the fatal decision to run a red light, killing an elderly
    pedestrian, the cyclist's lawyer told an inquest today.

    State Coroner Graeme Johnstone today heard final submissions on the
    death of James Gould, 77, who was struck by cyclist William Raisin-Shaw
    as he tried to cross a pedestrian crossing at Beach Road, Mentone, in
    August last year.

    Mr Raisin-Shaw, 30, of St Kilda, was one of up to 200 cyclists
    participating in the "Hell Ride" - a weekly 75 kilometre high-speed ride
    through Melbourne's bayside suburbs.

    He has been charged with failing to stop at a red light, a charge that
    carries a maximum fine of $215.

    His lawyer, Michael Sharpley, today told the court his client had found
    himself "between a rock and a hard place" with riders behind him yelling
    at him to continue through the crossing, despite the fact the light had
    already turned red.

    "His view was that to brake heavily, in circumstances where those behind
    had clearly signalled their intentions, would inevitably cause an
    accident - potentially a serious one, involving a number of cyclists,"
    Mr Sharpley said in his submission.

    "The alternative of proceeding through the red signal appeared to be the
    lesser of the two evils, on the basis that it was unlikely that a
    pedestrian would walk out in front of cyclists approaching at speed," he
    said.

    Mr Sharpley said Mr Gould had been hidden from Mr Raisin-Shaw's view by
    the cyclists in front of him.

    Mr Raisin-Shaw's decision proved to be wrong, but in the circumstances
    it "was not unreasonable", Mr Sharpley said.

    Mr Sharpley accepted that his client had contributed to Mr Gould's death
    but argued his actions were "not indicative of any significant degree of
    negligence."

    Mr Sharpley said Mr Gould had walked "into a wall of cyclists," and
    would have been struck by another cyclist if Mr Raisin-Shaw had missed him.

    In another submission, Gerard Mullaly, representing CycleSport Victoria
    and the Amy Gillett Foundation, suggested a cyclists' code of conduct be
    distributed with all new bikes sold.

    He argued it was not practical nor was it desirable to control the size
    of groups of cyclists, as danger came from the behaviour of individual
    cyclists.

    He emphasised that cyclists must obey the road rules at all times and
    use adequate lighting when riding at night so they could be seen by
    motorists.

    Mr Johnstone will deliver his finding on July 25.

    theage.com.au

  2. "Friday" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    From the Age.

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/hell-ride-crash-inevitable/2007/05/01/1177788114967.html

    A "Hell Ride" cyclist found himself "between a rock and a hard place" when
    he made the fatal decision to run a red light, killing an elderly
    pedestrian, the cyclist's lawyer told an inquest today.

    State Coroner Graeme Johnstone today heard final submissions on the death
    of James Gould, 77, who was struck by cyclist William Raisin-Shaw as he
    tried to cross a pedestrian crossing at Beach Road, Mentone, in August
    last year.

    Mr Raisin-Shaw, 30, of St Kilda, was one of up to 200 cyclists
    participating in the "Hell Ride" - a weekly 75 kilometre high-speed ride
    through Melbourne's bayside suburbs.

    He has been charged with failing to stop at a red light, a charge that
    carries a maximum fine of $215.

    His lawyer, Michael Sharpley, today told the court his client had found
    himself "between a rock and a hard place" with riders behind him yelling
    at him to continue through the crossing, despite the fact the light had
    already turned red.

    "His view was that to brake heavily, in circumstances where those behind
    had clearly signalled their intentions, would inevitably cause an
    accident - potentially a serious one, involving a number of cyclists," Mr
    Sharpley said in his submission.

    "The alternative of proceeding through the red signal appeared to be the
    lesser of the two evils, on the basis that it was unlikely that a
    pedestrian would walk out in front of cyclists approaching at speed," he
    said.

    Mr Sharpley said Mr Gould had been hidden from Mr Raisin-Shaw's view by
    the cyclists in front of him.

    Mr Raisin-Shaw's decision proved to be wrong, but in the circumstances it
    "was not unreasonable", Mr Sharpley said.

    Mr Sharpley accepted that his client had contributed to Mr Gould's death
    but argued his actions were "not indicative of any significant degree of
    negligence."

    Mr Sharpley said Mr Gould had walked "into a wall of cyclists," and would
    have been struck by another cyclist if Mr Raisin-Shaw had missed him.

    In another submission, Gerard Mullaly, representing CycleSport Victoria
    and the Amy Gillett Foundation, suggested a cyclists' code of conduct be
    distributed with all new bikes sold.

    He argued it was not practical nor was it desirable to control the size of
    groups of cyclists, as danger came from the behaviour of individual
    cyclists.

    GOOD!

    Quoted message said:


    He emphasised that cyclists must obey the road rules at all times and use
    adequate lighting when riding at night so they could be seen by motorists.

    GOOD!

    Quoted message said:


    Mr Johnstone will deliver his finding on July 25.

    theage.com.au

    High speed ride? Sounds like they are going faster than the cars!

  3. Friday said:

    From the Age.

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/hell-ride-crash-inevitable/2007/05/01/1177788114967.html

    A "Hell Ride" cyclist found himself "between a rock and a hard place"
    when he made the fatal decision to run a red light, killing an elderly
    pedestrian, the cyclist's lawyer told an inquest today.


    <edit>

    Quoted message said:

    Obviously a dodgy situation - that ride doesn't exactly sound like my
    idea of fun, but then I never have understood serious roadies....

    --
    //Adam F

  4. Adam F said:


    Obviously a dodgy situation - that ride doesn't exactly sound like my
    idea of fun, but then I never have understood serious roadies....

    If all this pr*ck gets out of this is just a fine, it is a freakin travesty of justice. He killed someone, yet is just making excuses, the excuse is that he was part of this ride, so therefore I should not have to pay the consequences of killing someone.

    You broke a law and the consequences of that is that you killed someone, Someones partner, father, brother.

    Geesh there is no way I could be a lawyer.

  5. MikeyOz said:

    If all this pr*ck gets out of this is just a fine, it is a freakin travesty of justice. He killed someone, yet is just making excuses, the excuse is that he was part of this ride, so therefore I should not have to pay the consequences of killing someone.

    You broke a law and the consequences of that is that you killed someone, Someones partner, father, brother.

    Geesh there is no way I could be a lawyer.


    agreed.

    How is this any different from any case with a car driver hitting a bike?

    I cant believe that the lawyer states "he would have been hit by another cyclist". Oh well, that makes it ok then. If we are all doing it thats fine.

    Really not happy about reading this. This w*nker is going to get off with nothing.

  6. On May 2, 8:11 pm, byron27 <byron27.2py...@no-

    mx.forums.cyclingforums.com said:

    MikeyOz Wrote:> If all this pr*ck gets out of this is just a fine, it is a freakin

    Quoted message said:

    travesty of justice. He killed someone, yet is just making excuses,
    the excuse is that he was part of this ride, so therefore I should not
    have to pay the consequences of killing someone.

    Quoted message said:

    You broke a law and the consequences of that is that you killed
    someone, Someones partner, father, brother.

    Quoted message said:

    Geesh there is no way I could be a lawyer.

    agreed.

    How is this any different from any case with a car driver hitting a
    bike?

    I cant believe that the lawyer states "he would have been hit by
    another cyclist". Oh well, that makes it ok then. If we are all doing
    it thats fine.

    Really not happy about reading this. This w*nker is going to get off
    with nothing.

    not necessarily, all you've read is his lawyer's argument to the
    coroner, which is not the same thing as a criminal (or civil ... which
    is one potentially interesting area in this case) proceeding.

    The obvious counter-argument is that he made the deliberate choice to
    participate in the ride, knowing full well how it worked and what
    behaviour was likely.

    Quoted message said:


    --
    byron27

  7. ....the statements are selve serving...clearly, and that is what erks us, but in context this submission is part of the process. It's a Coronial Enquiry, not a prosecution for an offence. The Coroner wants to know what happened, and asks for explanations from those involved or connected . This guy has already admitted he impacted with Mr Gould and that caused his death, and we hope for his own sake he will accept the punishment ( regrettably, light as it will be) down the track for failing to stop at a red light ( big deal )...

    ...there is a bit more afoot here if you read into the submission by CSV and AGFs Counsel. They have a lot more at stake, either as 1) a peak body in this State on the sport of cycling and 2) the other being involved in advocacy and aware of the trauma any death causes to those involved. They are the ones who are saying to the Coroner, we have valuable contributions to make to help you look at how we as a society can make sense of this and bring about change.

    A lot of the noise is an over reaction, especially by the feeding frenzy of an overzealous headline hunting print media. One death in Victoria caused by a bike in how many years? . One death here, in the midst of continuous carnage against bicycle riders and pedestrians by motorised vehicles controlled by drunks, drug affected , arrogent or inattentive drivers and the press gleefully unleash hell on everyone who rides Beach Road as a "racing pack of hell raisers". In the opinion of the press they make all bicylce riders guilty by association!

    This rider cannot justify what took place by saying "if it wasnt me it would have been someone else", but the sad fact is, he is right!
    This incident no matter how seemingly insignificant in the scheme of road fatality statistics will likely get a strong and scathing further reaction down the track.

    The guy making this assertion is certainly going to bring that further scathing attack and likely unwanted ( but possibly not unwarranted in the opinion of some) strong enforcement countermeasures upon all riders if the Coroner accepts it.

    I'm inclined to think the Coroner will say to this rider..."no mate it is your personal responsibility to make decisions and choices in how you ride your bike if the consequences mean someone is injured or killed. You made the choice, you accept the consequences of your actions and face the music. As for other riders, all be warned you too have to be responsible and ride accordingly, you cannot hide in a group and accept to get immunity".

    The argument raised by his Counsel is akin with the [censored] we have heard before here, and out riding, that a bunch is the same as an articulated vehicle and everyone has to wait till it passes. Wrong, every individual is responsible for their own actions and must ride accordingly. Riding in a group doesn't abrogate that responsibility.

    That's how I feel anyway...toss the book at him, but sadly its only going to be a softcover!

  8. rooman said:

    That's how I feel anyway...toss the book at him, but sadly its only going to be a softcover!

    I pretty much agree with all this and understand it is a Coronial Enquiry, it is just what is being said that is disappointing me. I want this guy to come out and accept full responsibility for his actions, instead of cowering behind the fact he was riding in a group.

    I know he is not saying it, but its almost like saying, I just have to say my ass, the guy is dead now, I just have to save my ass. Its the same as a car driver hitting a cyclist, "honestly I did not see him", just admit you screwed up, you were not concentrating, not looking for a cyclist. Your actions, its just all about I have to "Save my own ass"

  9. MikeyOz said:

    chomp...

    , "honestly I did not see him",


    translates to:

    didn't look

  10. "MikeyOz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    rooman said:

    That's how I feel anyway...toss the book at him, but sadly its only
    going to be a softcover!

    I pretty much agree with all this and understand it is a Coronial
    Enquiry, it is just what is being said that is disappointing me. I
    want this guy to come out and accept full responsibility for his
    actions, instead of cowering behind the fact he was riding in a group.

    I know he is not saying it, but its almost like saying, I just have to
    say my ass, the guy is dead now, I just have to save my ass. Its the
    same as a car driver hitting a cyclist, "honestly I did not see him",
    just admit you screwed up, you were not concentrating, not looking for
    a cyclist. Your actions, its just all about I have to "Save my own
    ass"

    --
    MikeyOz

    "...I just have to save my ass"...

    Picky bit: It's "[censored]" here in Oz. The septics might have a problem
    distinguishing their donkey from their derriere, but here we know the
    difference and that knowledge is reflected in our language.

    Sorry - it's just one of my many pet peeves :-P

    me

  11. In aus.bicycle on Thu, 3 May 2007 09:07:07 +1000

    MikeyOz said:


    rooman said:

    That's how I feel anyway...toss the book at him, but sadly its only
    going to be a softcover!

    I pretty much agree with all this and understand it is a Coronial
    Enquiry, it is just what is being said that is disappointing me. I
    want this guy to come out and accept full responsibility for his
    actions, instead of cowering behind the fact he was riding in a group.

    Dunno.. it is an interesting problem.

    You are coming to a red light. you know it is common for riders in
    the hell ride to run it so it's likely there's a bunch of bods going
    to be coming up beside you maybe even hitting you. You yourself can't
    see any reason to stop (as you can't see the ped).

    Do you stop and risk someone crashing into you? Especially as people
    are yelling loudly?

    Risking an almost certain crash compared to a minor naughtiness which
    is all it would have been if that bod (the one you didn't know was
    there) wasn't crossing?

    How many people have made the decision to run the red and not hit
    someone?

    I can see it as a difficult decision for someone who would ride in the
    Hell Ride in the first place. Not easy for them at all. What's
    "right" is clear, but how many make the "right" decision given the
    fact that running the light has happened many times without mishap?

    What would be an equivalent decision for non-HellRide cyclists to show
    the dilemma? Not sure, what is a common cyclist thing that's
    theoretically illegal but is often done and almost never causes a
    problem?

    Zebee

  12. "Zebee Johnstone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In aus.bicycle on Thu, 3 May 2007 09:07:07 +1000

    MikeyOz said:


    rooman said:

    That's how I feel anyway...toss the book at him, but sadly its only
    going to be a softcover!

    I pretty much agree with all this and understand it is a Coronial
    Enquiry, it is just what is being said that is disappointing me. I
    want this guy to come out and accept full responsibility for his
    actions, instead of cowering behind the fact he was riding in a group.

    Dunno.. it is an interesting problem.

    You are coming to a red light. you know it is common for riders in
    the hell ride to run it so it's likely there's a bunch of bods going
    to be coming up beside you maybe even hitting you. You yourself can't
    see any reason to stop (as you can't see the ped).

    Do you stop and risk someone crashing into you? Especially as people
    are yelling loudly?

    Risking an almost certain crash compared to a minor naughtiness which
    is all it would have been if that bod (the one you didn't know was
    there) wasn't crossing?

    How many people have made the decision to run the red and not hit
    someone?

    I can see it as a difficult decision for someone who would ride in the
    Hell Ride in the first place. Not easy for them at all. What's
    "right" is clear, but how many make the "right" decision given the
    fact that running the light has happened many times without mishap?

    What would be an equivalent decision for non-HellRide cyclists to show
    the dilemma? Not sure, what is a common cyclist thing that's
    theoretically illegal but is often done and almost never causes a
    problem?

    Zebee

    There's the key: "...compared to a minor naughtiness". We still (I include
    myself) regard running a red as a minor naughtiness when it suits us then
    bay for blood when we don't like the consequence.

    me

  13. In aus.bicycle on Wed, 02 May 2007 23:33:32 GMT

    Plodder said:


    There's the key: "...compared to a minor naughtiness". We still (I include
    myself) regard running a red as a minor naughtiness when it suits us then
    bay for blood when we don't like the consequence.

    That's what I was thinking.

    Everyone - driver, cyclist, motorcyclist, pedestrian - does minorly
    naughty things. And sometimes there's someone or something unexpected
    and pain ensues.

    Think about the recent tragedy on the Cotter - a rider does something
    they shouldn't have done but maybe did many times before without
    incident but this time there was a car.

    There's a stop sign near my place, a T junction where one side of the
    crossbar is a dead end with one dead end road leading off it. So 99.99%
    of traffic coming out of the stem is turning into the non-dead end of
    the crossbar, and 99.99% of traffic along the crossbar is turning into
    the stem.

    On the pushie I might do either (the dead end also leads to a cycle
    path) but coming out of the stem I and most traffic roll right through
    because no one ever seems to cross the stem, always turning into it.

    One day (on the motorcycle) I realised that a car was going straight
    ahead, so I stopped. Had I been a little less awake (and he a bit
    closer when I got there) then nastiness might have ensued. All my
    fault for sure, but still....

    I use that intersection twice a day every working day and usually at
    least twice over a weekend. For 4 years now. I think I've seen one
    straight-ahead vehicle - that one - in that time. So I have been
    conditioned to not bother about it really. As, I suspect, many people
    are conditioned to commit their minor naughtinesses to make their
    lives more convenient.

    Zebee

  14. In aus.bicycle on Thu, 3 May 2007 09:22:32 +1000

    rooman said:


    MikeyOz said:

    chomp...

    , "honestly I did not see him",


    translates to:

    didn't look

    Not always.

    can translate to "Looked, but there was a physical obstruction in
    the way". I've seen a rather worrying film of a driver's view of a
    roundabout from inside a late model car. The driver's side pillar was
    big enough to completely obscure a motorcycle entering the roundabout.
    The converging speeds and the angles were such that the bike was hidden
    all the way.

    It can also translate to "looked but did not expect, so did not process".
    It's happened to me at an intersection where there was never any traffic.
    Once day I came to the give way sign, slowed, looked (as in turned my
    head) and then realised the brakes had gone on. It wasn't till I had
    thought "why are the brakes on" that I saw the car. My subconscious had
    put them on, the conscious mind was still sure there was nothing there
    because it expected to see nothing.

    I have seen the same thing in a car I was a passenger in. Similar
    intersection - never any traffic there. I saw on the left a small bright
    yellow panel van (with its headlights on even!) but my housemate who was
    driving breezed through the intersection and was startled by the brakes
    and horn of the aggrieved van. I *saw* him turn his head. But he didn't
    expect to see, so he didn't. "Where did he come from?" and I had to say
    "he's been there all the time."

    There is a big difference between can't see, didn't look, and didn't see.
    The didn't see is the hardest to deal with because really honestly they
    did look and they didn't see. Not because bikes (or Commodores or yellow
    vans) are hard to see, but because expectations are hard to change.

    Zebee

  15. Zebee Johnstone said:

    In aus.bicycle on Thu, 3 May 2007 09:07:07 +1000

    MikeyOz said:
    rooman said:

    That's how I feel anyway...toss the book at him, but sadly its only
    going to be a softcover!

    Quoted message said:

    I pretty much agree with all this and understand it is a Coronial
    Enquiry, it is just what is being said that is disappointing me. I
    want this guy to come out and accept full responsibility for his
    actions, instead of cowering behind the fact he was riding in a group.

    Dunno.. it is an interesting problem.

    You are coming to a red light. you know it is common for riders in
    the hell ride to run it so it's likely there's a bunch of bods going
    to be coming up beside you maybe even hitting you. You yourself can't
    see any reason to stop (as you can't see the ped).

    Do you stop and risk someone crashing into you? Especially as people
    are yelling loudly?

    Risking an almost certain crash compared to a minor naughtiness which
    is all it would have been if that bod (the one you didn't know was
    there) wasn't crossing?

    How many people have made the decision to run the red and not hit
    someone?

    I can see it as a difficult decision for someone who would ride in the
    Hell Ride in the first place. Not easy for them at all.

    They made the decision earlier, when a cyclist decides to participate
    in that ride. What happens in that ride is no secret.

  16. Zebee Johnstone said:

    In aus.bicycle on Thu, 3 May 2007 09:22:32 +1000

    rooman said:
    MikeyOz said:

    chomp...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    , "honestly I did not see him",


    translates to:

    Quoted message said:

    didn't look

    Not always.

    can translate to "Looked, but there was a physical obstruction in
    the way". I've seen a rather worrying film of a driver's view of a
    roundabout from inside a late model car. The driver's side pillar was
    big enough to completely obscure a motorcycle entering the roundabout.
    The converging speeds and the angles were such that the bike was hidden
    all the way.

    A pillars (the part of a car you're describing as a vision blocker,
    there's 3, A pillar, B pillar and C pillar, in most car designs) are
    big. If you can't see the drivers face, they can't see you.

  17. Plodder said:


    Picky bit: It's "[censored]" here in Oz.

    as in "You are a pain in" ? :p

    I can't be assed writing [censored], so I write ass..... ooops sorry.

  18. Zebee Johnstone said:

    What would be an equivalent decision for non-HellRide cyclists to show
    the dilemma? Not sure, what is a common cyclist thing that's
    theoretically illegal but is often done and almost never causes a
    problem?
    Zebee

    I understand what you are saying, but you missed my point.

    My point was take responsibility for your actions, instead of hiding behind the guise of "I was riding in a group, it was going to happen, it just happened to be me, but because I was riding in a group, nothing should happen to me"

    Total bullsh*t

    Put your hand up and say, it was my fault I decided to run the red light and I Killed someone, not the group, not the person behind me or in front of me. But me because "I" decided to run the red light.

  19. On 2007-05-03, MikeyOz (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

    Quoted message said:
    Zebee Johnstone said:

    What would be an equivalent decision for non-HellRide cyclists to show
    the dilemma? Not sure, what is a common cyclist thing that's
    theoretically illegal but is often done and almost never causes a
    problem?
    Zebee

    I understand what you are saying, but you missed my point.

    My point was take responsibility for your actions, instead of hiding
    behind the guise of "I was riding in a group, it was going to happen,
    it just happened to be me, but because I was riding in a group, nothing
    should happen to me"

    Total bullsh*t

    Put your hand up and say, it was my fault I decided to run the red
    light and I Killed someone, not the group, not the person behind me or
    in front of me. But me because "I" decided to run the red light.

    Particularly since there are (unsubstantiated) allegations he rode
    around a part of the bunch that had already stopped. Of course, they
    are going to say that to get themselves out of trouble, but who do you
    believe?

    My other point of view is that I really hope the coroner doesn't place
    any weight on that particular argument of this cyclist, since we would
    be absolutely screwed if such an argument was ever made at a coroner's
    court for cars in a line of traffic -- you'd never stop a line of
    traffic at a red light or for any obstacle on the road.

    --
    TimC
    Error in operator: add beer

  20. In aus.bicycle on Thu, 3 May 2007 16:35:17 +1000

    MikeyOz said:


    Zebee Johnstone said:

    What would be an equivalent decision for non-HellRide cyclists to show
    the dilemma? Not sure, what is a common cyclist thing that's
    theoretically illegal but is often done and almost never causes a
    problem?
    Zebee

    I understand what you are saying, but you missed my point.

    Yes, I was riffing on it really.

    IN that there is certainly personal responsibility but why are people
    "not responsible"? Do they think "I will be irresponsible"? Do they
    think "I'll kill someone but I don't care"?

    Nope... more likely to be normal people doing something that has
    ceased to be "wrong" because there have been no consequences. TIll
    now.

    Zebee

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.