Australia and New Zealand · Public discussion

Coroner lashes cyclists

Started by Bean Long · · Last activity · 31 posts · 2,039 views

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
28 March 2007
Last activity
30 March 2007
Original author
Bean Long
Posts
31
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
2,039
Views / 30 days
0

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

Showing posts 1–20 of 31
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. FYI

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/coroner-lashes-cyclists/2007/03/28/1174761567956.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

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

    Quoted message said:

    FYI

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/coroner-lashes-cyclists/2007/03/28/1174761567956.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/national/cyclists-rode-at-excessive-speeds/2007/03/28/1174761535017.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 bullshitting (yes, even The Age is capable of
    bullshitting).

    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

  3. TimC said:

    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 [censored] 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

  4. Bleve said:

    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

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

    Bleve said:


    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

  6. DaveB said:

    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 [censored] 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

  7. Brendo said:

    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.

    This tells me that thr bunch was broken anyway; obviously he had time to
    walk onto and part way across the crossing and thus the cyclist who
    deliberately struck him was in a group trying to catch up to the bunch

  8. Terryc said:
    Brendo said:

    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.

    This tells me that thr bunch was broken anyway; obviously he had time to
    walk onto and part way across the crossing and thus the cyclist who
    deliberately struck him was in a group trying to catch up to the bunch

    Which, again, is concluded by what I have heard. Whether this is the
    case or not,....

    Unfortunately, there is more than one version of the truth in EVERY
    situation. We could rant for days on this and never reach a suitable
    conclusion.

    Obey road rules. Safety for ALL users is the aim.

    Brendo

  9. I think that the public outrage associated with this incident is justified. What I don't understand is the sheer LACK of public outrage whenever a cyclist is hit by a car....

    I've said it before - I refuse to ride in big bunches. Had too many near misses years ago when I used to participate in such rides. I value my life - not to mention my reputation as a cyclist - too much these days.

    Personally, I think bunches of up to 30 riders can be manageable, providing all riders are experienced and of similar fitness levels. Any more than that and I think it's going overboard.

    Just my opinion - feel free to shut me down and/or disagree.

  10. On Mar 29, 1:58 pm, LotteBum <LotteBum.2o6...@no-

    mx.forums.cyclingforums.com said:

    I think that the public outrage associated with this incident is
    justified. What I don't understand is the sheer LACK of public outrage
    whenever a cyclist is hit by a car....

    I've said it before - I refuse to ride in big bunches. Had too many
    near misses years ago when I used to participate in such rides. I
    value my life - not to mention my reputation as a cyclist - too much
    these days.

    Personally, I think bunches of up to 30 riders can be manageable,
    providing all riders are experienced and of similar fitness levels.
    Any more than that and I think it's going overboard.

    Just my opinion - feel free to shut me down and/or disagree.

    Lotte, I'm 100% with you on this.

  11. LotteBum said:

    Personally, I think bunches of up to 30 riders can be manageable,
    providing all riders are experienced and of similar fitness levels.
    Any more than that and I think it's going overboard.

    I'm not convinced that 30 riders is sufficiently small, but otherwise,
    I'm with you all the way. (Mind you, this is coming from somebody who is
    not particularly experienced at bunch riding...)

    --
    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".

  12. Bean Long 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.

    Not condoning what actually happened, but maybe the reason the 'ride
    leaders' weren't there is because, AFAIK, there are none.

    phillip brown

  13. Stuart Lamble said:

    I'm not convinced that 30 riders is sufficiently small, but otherwise, I'm with you all the way. (Mind you, this is coming from somebody who is not particularly experienced at bunch riding...)


    I thought the same, but I usually find the 'problematic' bunches (the ones with no respect for others) are the bunches where you'd swear there are at least 50 riders...

    Whilst it's not only a risk to society in general, I am of the opinion that too many 'intra-bunch' accidents happen in larger, and therefore less controlled bunches.

    Whilst I'm not a car orientated person, I also think that too often large bunches obstruct traffic for prolonged periods. Whilst it wouldn't bother me, personally (duh), it's a sensitive, hot-head inducing subject in Australia, so probably best not done.

    When car and motorbike clubs do 'cruises', you don't see them running red lights continuously, simply for the sake of keeping up - so why should cyclists?

    Lotte

  14. quote='DaveB'TimC said:

    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 [censored] 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[/QUOTE]Load of [censored]

    should we have different speed limits for

    - motorbikes
    -4wds
    -compact cars
    -sedans
    -wagon
    -front wheel drives
    -utes

    etc

    they all handle differently and have their own adv / disadv.

    I can imagine the signage now.

    Or you can forget that [censored] and recognise that the law (even though it is sometimes an ass) applies to all equally.

    Scotty

  15. scotty72 said:

    should we have different speed limits for

    - motorbikes
    -4wds
    -compact cars
    -sedans
    -wagon
    -front wheel drives
    -utes

    etc

    they all handle differently and have their own adv / disadv.

    I can imagine the signage now.

    Or you can forget that [censored] and recognise that the law (even though it
    is sometimes an ass) applies to all equally.

    Scotty

    So did you actually read the whole thread? My comment was about what is
    an appropriate speed for two very different vehicles. Truck speeds were
    an example of a precedent within road rules of that being applied.
    Mtorobikes, 4WDs blah blah blah (sorry Blah) are all designed to operate
    in a similar way and at similar speeds. Do you really think that
    bicycles and motor vehicles are designed to be used in the same way at
    the same speeds.

    Should we have different speeds for wagons and sedans. No that would be
    stupid (as you well know). Should we have different rules for vehicles
    of vastly different design and use? Yes, and from memory tractors used
    to be a good example of this (that may have changed, it's been a while).

    DaveB

  16. DaveB said:

    Should we have different speeds for wagons and sedans. No that would be
    stupid (as you well know).

    DaveB

    Why? They are vastly different. A sedan is desinged to carry a small number of passengers, a wagon is primarily desgned to carry cargo. One is much heavier.

    What about cars that are 30 or 40 years old? They are nothing like the modern motor car in terms of desing, handling and safety. An FJ in a front on crash is far more dangerous than a modern Merc. Same goes for a Hyundai Getz Vs a bently. I know which is designed to take an impact better and which I'd feel safer in...

    Maybe we could have a system of speed limits where the limit is 60km/h minus the age of the car. That would make sense.

    Scotty

  17. "TimC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

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

    Quoted message said:

    FYI

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/coroner-lashes-cyclists/2007/03/28/1174761567956.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/national/cyclists-rode-at-excessive-speeds/2007/03/28/1174761535017.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 bullshitting (yes, even The Age is capable of
    bullshitting).

    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

    That's codswallop. As has been discussed ad nauseum, 60km/h is a speed
    LIMIT; i.e. it's the speed you are allowed to go up to if it's safe to do
    so. That's the part that applies to all road users.

    I can't comment on 50km/h being safe in the circumstance. I wasn't there and
    don't know the conditions.

    Me

  18. "Terryc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Brendo said:

    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.

    This tells me that thr bunch was broken anyway; obviously he had time to
    walk onto and part way across the crossing and thus the cyclist who
    deliberately struck him was in a group trying to catch up to the bunch

    Deliberately? You mean William Raisin-Shaw meant to hit Mr Gould?

  19. Geez - some of us need to be a little more careful with the use of words like "deliberately", and others need a few lessons in CONTEXT. The fact here is, a poor old bugger was cut down in a place where he should have been safe, and not by one of the deadly objects that so often cut US down - but indeed by one of US. Had this been a rider felled by a car we'd all be angry and upset, and rightly so - yet here we are getting angry and upset over the context and/or opinions of safe riding speeds in bunches !

    IMO, a pedestrian felled by an aggressive entity of cyclist is NO DIFFERENT to a cyclist felled by an aggressive entity of motorist. And NO DIFFERENT is the fact that, like some drivers, some of US need to take a good, hard look at the way we operate our machinery.

    gm

  20. scotty72 said:

    Maybe we could have a system of speed limits where the limit is 60km/h
    minus the age of the car. That would make sense.

    How fast is my dad's 1927 Model T Ford allowed to go under those rules?

    Theo

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.