Cycle Event Director criminally liable for Competitor's death



Status
Not open for further replies.
And I thought we had problems with ridiculous liability actions in the US.

--
Mike Murray

"Snoopy" <te**yson@caverock.*et.*z.*is'n'> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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
>
> --
 
Snoopy wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 13:27:28 GMT, "Kyle Legate" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Whereabouts are you posting from?
>
> What is the situation regarding road closures with professional cycling events where you
> come from?
>
I'm speaking from the perspective of Canadian events. Professional events--what are those?
 
"Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:URtZa.78240$cF.24406@rwcrnsc53...
> And I thought we had problems with ridiculous liability actions in the US.

This was a criminal case; I see the US as having a civil liability problem more than criminal.
>
> --
> Mike Murray
>
> "Snoopy" <te**yson@caverock.*et.*z.*is'n'> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > 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
> >
> > --
 
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 16:28:14 GMT, Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:

> Snoopy wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 13:27:28 GMT, "Kyle Legate" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Whereabouts are you posting from?
>>
>> What is the situation regarding road closures with professional cycling events where you
>> come from?
>>
> I'm speaking from the perspective of Canadian events. Professional events--what are those?
>
Interestingly, if it was a professional event, the course would have been regarded as a workplace,
and the OSH investigative policy is geared toward identifying and prosecuting a single person in the
management structure who is "responsible". a.k.a. buck-hunting :)

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
 
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 15:51:16 GMT, "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>And I thought we had problems with ridiculous liability actions in the US.
>

In what way do you consider the case ridiculous?

SNOOPY

--
Join the fight against aggressive, unrepentant spammers 'china-netcom'. E-mail me for more details

--
 
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:10:45 GMT, "Sam" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:URtZa.78240$cF.24406@rwcrnsc53...
>
>
>>And I thought we had problems with ridiculous liability actions in the US.
>
>This was a criminal case; I see the US as having a civil liability problem more than criminal.
>

Indeed it was a criminal case. However, the police waited almost a year before deciding to
prosecute. In other words it took some time for them to figure out if indeed there was a case
to answer.

SNOOPY

--
Join the fight against aggressive, unrepentant spammers 'china-netcom'. E-mail me for more details

--
 
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 16:28:14 GMT, "Kyle Legate" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Snoopy wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 13:27:28 GMT, "Kyle Legate" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>> Whereabouts are you posting from?
>>
>I'm speaking from the perspective of Canadian events.
>
>> What is the situation regarding road closures with professional cycling events where you
>> come from?
>>
>Professional events--what are those?
>

Do I detect a taste of sarcasm in this response? I think you are saying that Canada doesn't really
have 'professional cycling events' whatever that means to you.

Certainly you cannot make a living racing bikes only in New Zealand. Is this the case in Canada?

What about professional event organizers? Do they exist in Canada?

SNOOPY

--
Join the fight against aggressive, unrepentant spammers 'china-netcom'. E-mail me for more details

--
 
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:07:27 +1200, Richard Grevers <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 16:28:14 GMT, Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Snoopy wrote:
>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 13:27:28 GMT, "Kyle Legate" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>I'm speaking from the perspective of Canadian events. Professional events--what are those?
>>
>Interestingly, if it was a professional event, the course would have been regarded as a workplace,
>and the OSH investigative policy is geared toward identifying and prosecuting a single person in
>the management structure who is "responsible". a.k.a. buck-hunting :)
>

Why do you imply 'Le Race' wasn't a professional event? Wasn't Astrid Anderson a professional event
organizer?

SNOOPY

--
Join the fight against aggressive, unrepentant spammers 'china-netcom'. E-mail me for more details

--
 
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:32:37 +1200, Joe <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:30:39 +1200, (Snoopy) te**yson@caverock.*et.*z.*is'n' wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 03:40:17 +1200, Joe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>The crown case is that the 'culture of cycling' allows people to ride all over the road, if the
>>road is closed.
>>
>>This means that a cyclist who *believes* the road is closed may consider that they may legitmately
>>ride all over the road, if there is not enough information in the race instructions to dispell
>>such a false belief. The crown argued that there was sufficient ambiguity in the pre race printed
>>material and verbal briefing that a reasonable person might conclude that 'the Summit Road' (the
>>second one) was indeed closed. The Crown produced a series of credible witnesses who testified
>>that by their reading of the race publicity material they believed the Summit Road (the second
>>one) to be closed. Of course, the defence was able to produce an equal number of witnesses that
>>believed the pre race instructions were not ambiguous.
>>
>>The fact that several competitors 'misread' the instructions and that their misinterpretation of
>>the rules was not dispelled by the 'on the day' briefing, was enough to convict Astrid Anderson.
>>
>>>
>>>If the regulations said the cyclists could disobey the rules of the road, then the person who
>>>drafted these rules and approved them guilty.
>>>
>>
>>Legally if a road is closed, you *are* allowed to disobey the road rules.
>>
>>
>Thanks for the elucid reply, Snoopy. Cheers *
>
>

So that's it? You are entirely satisfied with my explanation? Apparently the jury weren't so easily
satisfied as they took over twenty hours to concur.

Perhaps I might switch careers to become a crown prosecutor. I might be good at it!

SNOOPY

--
Join the fight against aggressive, unrepentant spammers 'china-netcom'. E-mail me for more details

--
 
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 12:41:30 +1200, Snoopy <te**yson@caverock.*et.*z.*is'n'> wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:07:27 +1200, Richard Grevers <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 16:28:14 GMT, Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Snoopy wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 13:27:28 GMT, "Kyle Legate" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm speaking from the perspective of Canadian events. Professional events--what are those?
>>>
>> Interestingly, if it was a professional event, the course would have been regarded as a
>> workplace, and the OSH investigative policy is geared toward identifying and prosecuting a single
>> person in the management structure who is "responsible". a.k.a. buck-hunting :)
>>
>
> Why do you imply 'Le Race' wasn't a professional event? Wasn't Astrid Anderson a professional
> event organizer?
>
The cyclists were not being paid to ride in the race, therefore it was not their workplace. Of
course there are no professional cycle races in NZ, but if you think about it, OSH would have
jurisdiction at a Super 12 game.

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
 
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:21:45 +1200, Richard Grevers <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Why do you imply 'Le Race' wasn't a professional event? Wasn't Astrid Anderson a professional
>>event organizer?
>>
>The cyclists were not being paid to ride in the race, therefore it was not their workplace. Of
>course there are no professional cycle races in NZ, but if you think about it, OSH would have
>jurisdiction at a Super 12 game.
>

If you accept that Super Twelve Rugby Football matches are professional, because the players are
being paid a retainer, what about cyclists who are on some kind of money deal? I am sure that
there were some cyclists in 'Le Race' that were receiving Hilary commission support for example.
Given that they are being paid to cycle (albeit not in that specific event), does not that make
'Le Race' a professional event? After all, there was even prize money for the first male and
female rider home.

SNOOPY

--
Join the fight against aggressive, unrepentant spammers 'china-netcom'. E-mail me for more details

--
 
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:35:41 +1200, Snoopy <te**yson@caverock.*et.*z.*is'n'> wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:21:45 +1200, Richard Grevers <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you imply 'Le Race' wasn't a professional event? Wasn't Astrid Anderson a professional
>>> event organizer?
>>>
>> The cyclists were not being paid to ride in the race, therefore it was not their workplace. Of
>> course there are no professional cycle races in NZ, but if you think about it, OSH would have
>> jurisdiction at a Super 12 game.
>>
>
> If you accept that Super Twelve Rugby Football matches are professional, because the players are
> being paid a retainer, what about cyclists who are on some kind of money deal? I am sure that
> there were some cyclists in 'Le Race' that were receiving Hilary commission support for example.
> Given that they are being paid to cycle (albeit not in that specific event), does not that make
> 'Le Race' a professional event? After all, there was even prize money for the first male and
> female rider home.

No, even if the cyclists are eraning money for cycling, it is coming from someone other than the Le
Race organizers, so there isn't an employer- employee relationship between the event company and the
cyclists. (And prize money doesn't count). But the rugby players are full time employees. Jockeys, I
think, are mostly contractors, althogh the DOL defines the difference between employer and
contractor on who has most control over the terms and conditions of work.

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
 
Hi there,

Snoopy wrote:
> 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.

Yes, but there are very mixed emotions on the outcome.

For sure it was a tragic accident to have happen, and my sympathies go to the family of the
cyclist, but to think that the race organiser will be held criminally negligent seems a little
harsh. It would be a harrowing enough experience for Anderson to deal with a death during an event
she has organised, let alone to face criminal charges as a result of the death. Perhaps a harsh
judgement IMHO...

The talked about 'opening of the floodgates' with regard to liability in future sports events held
on public roads is another topic under the microscope. Those who think this case paves the way for
future events will be interested to know that the Police Traffic Management Plan rules that
currently exist have seen the demise of many popular road based events already. The 'Rangiora 20', a
20 mile road-running race from Christchurch to Rangiora is one example of a popular event that now
is not run because of the cost and logistics involved in seeking Police approval of a Traffic
Management Plan. Athletics Canterbury has its annual road-running championships around the Avon loop
usually...I do believe that recently that event has been moved off the roads due to the cost of
running it being too prohibitive...hardly could call it a 'road-running' championships if it was on
grass could we?!

I ask the question, '...was the Traffic Management Plan implemented for 'LeRace' adequate?..', as it
seems there is too little focus on other issues in Astrid Andersons case...

Kind regards,

Chris Wilkinson, Christchurch.
 
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 21:06:07 +1200, Chris Wilkinson <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>there are very mixed emotions on the outcome.
>
>For sure it was a tragic accident to have happen, and my sympathies go to the family of the
>cyclist, but to think that the race organiser will be held criminally negligent seems a little
>harsh. It would be a harrowing enough experience for Anderson to deal with a death during an event
>she has organised, let alone to face criminal charges as a result of the death. Perhaps a harsh
>judgement IMHO...
>

The operation of the law in a case such as this cannot consider emotion. For sure if the convicted
person shows genuine remorse, that may be taken into account at the time of sentencing. But just
because someone was 'emotionally traumatized' can't be taken into account when you are considering
whether to charge that person or not.

>
>The talked about 'opening of the floodgates' with regard to liability in future sports events held
>on public roads is another topic under the microscope. Those who think this case paves the way for
>future events will be interested to know that the Police Traffic Management Plan rules that
>currently exist have seen the demise of many popular road based events already. The 'Rangiora 20',
>a 20 mile road-running race from Christchurch to Rangiora is one example of a popular event that
>now is not run because of the cost and logistics involved in seeking Police approval of a Traffic
>Management Plan.
>

Now, now Chris be fair. Isn't it the local councils and/or Tranzit New Zealand (in other words those
directly responsible for the roads) that have to approve these plans? I would suspect that if you
went to the police directly for 'approval' of your plan you would get a blank look. Rightly so I
think because it is the job of the police to enforce the law. Not approve Traffic Management Plans
for sporting events! IMO it is very doubtful that the police would be able to do a better job of
identifying the hazards of a running race than the committee putting on the race itself. If,
however, something went wrong with your event, at -that- point the police might suddenly become very
interested in the detail of your Traffic Management Plan!

>
>Athletics Canterbury has its annual road-running championships around the Avon loop usually...I do
>believe that recently that event has been moved off the roads due to the cost of running it being
>too prohibitive...hardly could call it a 'road-running' championships if it was on grass could we?!
>

Was that the 'road running' event that was moved to the Ruapuna motor racing track?

>
>I ask the question, '...was the Traffic Management Plan implemented for 'LeRace' adequate?..', as
>it seems there is too little focus on other issues in Astrid Andersons case...
>

An important question to ask.....

At no time during the trial was the Traffic Management Plan itself considered inadequate. Indeed it
was praised as being if anything ahead of its time in the detail. It was suggested at the time of
the trial that few if any event organizer in the country was working to a plan of as high a
standard. Evidence was given that Ms Anderson consulted with safety experts and all suggestions were
enthusiastically taken up. However, There was some suggestion that the implementation of the plan
was not up to scratch in particular areas.

For example the traffic management plan identified cattle grids as a road hazard and the solution to
this problem was to cover them with boards for the day. However, the Sky video of the event clearly
showed competitors going over a cattle grid with no flat board across
it. I don't think it was suggested that this oversight in this instance was dangerous. The
particular cattle grid concerned was on a flat or even an uphill section of the course.
Nevertheless the fact that this mistake was captured 'on film' may have resulted in 'the
missing cattle grid board' batting above its weight.

A question mark over the real need for a check point on the summit road at all, and its practical
efficacy, was also raised. Apparently the safety manager of the event was not consulted over this.

Crucially Ms Anderson identified 'competitors getting the wrong information' as one of the hazards
to guard against in the traffic management plan. The crown contended that many did, including the
fatally injured Mrs Caldwell. However, the fact that at least half the competitors got the correct
message from the information that the crown considered was 'wrong' does not seem to have been
adequately explained.

SNOOPY

--
Join the fight against aggressive, unrepentant spammers 'china-netcom'. E-mail me for more details

--
 
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 20:45:37 +1200, Richard Grevers <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:35:41 +1200, Snoopy <te**yson@caverock.*et.*z.*is'n'> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:21:45 +1200, Richard Grevers <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> After all, there was even prize money for the first male and female rider home.
>
>No, even if the cyclists are eraning money for cycling, it is coming from someone other than the Le
>Race organizers, so there isn't an employer- employee relationship between the event company and
>the cyclists. (And prize money doesn't count).
>
>
Why doesn't prize money count?

SNOOPY

--
Join the fight against aggressive, unrepentant spammers 'china-netcom'. E-mail me for more details

--
 
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 12:41:32 +1200, (Snoopy) te**yson@caverock.*et.*z.*is'n' wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:32:37 +1200, Joe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:30:39 +1200, (Snoopy) te**yson@caverock.*et.*z.*is'n' wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 03:40:17 +1200, Joe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>The crown case is that the 'culture of cycling' allows people to ride all over the road, if the
>>>road is closed.
>>>
>>>This means that a cyclist who *believes* the road is closed may consider that they may
>>>legitmately ride all over the road, if there is not enough information in the race instructions
>>>to dispell such a false belief. The crown argued that there was sufficient ambiguity in the pre
>>>race printed material and verbal briefing that a reasonable person might conclude that 'the
>>>Summit Road' (the second one) was indeed closed. The Crown produced a series of credible
>>>witnesses who testified that by their reading of the race publicity material they believed the
>>>Summit Road (the second one) to be closed. Of course, the defence was able to produce an equal
>>>number of witnesses that believed the pre race instructions were not ambiguous.
>>>
>>>The fact that several competitors 'misread' the instructions and that their misinterpretation of
>>>the rules was not dispelled by the 'on the day' briefing, was enough to convict Astrid Anderson.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>If the regulations said the cyclists could disobey the rules of the road, then the person who
>>>>drafted these rules and approved them guilty.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Legally if a road is closed, you *are* allowed to disobey the road rules.
>>>
>>>
>>Thanks for the elucid reply, Snoopy. Cheers *
>>
>>
>
>So that's it? You are entirely satisfied with my explanation? Apparently the jury weren't so easily
>satisfied as they took over twenty hours to concur.
>
>Perhaps I might switch careers to become a crown prosecutor. I might be good at it!
>
>SNOOPY
>
I only said thanks for your elucid reply. In no way does that I accepted the juries decision. Too
often I have been astounded at the decision the juries have a arrived at. This applies to cases i
have sat through and heard all the same evidence as they have. I did not attend the trial of the
sports organisation, so I admit to being vague on that one. Still no harm in acknowledging what I
don't know about. Cheers *
 
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 00:01:18 +1200, Snoopy <te**yson@caverock.*et.*z.*is'n'> wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 20:45:37 +1200, Richard Grevers <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:35:41 +1200, Snoopy <te**yson@caverock.*et.*z.*is'n'> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:21:45 +1200, Richard Grevers <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> After all, there was even prize money for the first male and female rider home.
>>
>> No, even if the cyclists are eraning money for cycling, it is coming from someone other than the
>> Le Race organizers, so there isn't an employer-employee relationship between the event company
>> and the cyclists. (And prize money doesn't count).
>>
>>
> Why doesn't prize money count?
>
Ask OSH. Probably because if I said to you "Please come and paint my house and I'll give you a 1 in
100 chance of receiving $5000 for it", that wouldn't be considered as me employing you.

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
 
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 02:57:10 +1200, Joe <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 12:41:32 +1200, (Snoopy) te**yson@caverock.*et.*z.*is'n' wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:32:37 +1200, Joe <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:30:39 +1200, (Snoopy) te**yson@caverock.*et.*z.*is'n' wrote:
>>>
>>>>The crown case is that the 'culture of cycling' allows people to ride all over the road, if the
>>>>road is closed.
>>>>
>>>>This means that a cyclist who *believes* the road is closed may consider that they may
>>>>legitmately ride all over the road, if there is not enough information in the race instructions
>>>>to dispell such a false belief. The crown argued that there was sufficient ambiguity in the pre
>>>>race printed material and verbal briefing that a reasonable person might conclude that 'the
>>>>Summit Road' (the second one) was indeed closed. The Crown produced a series of credible
>>>>witnesses who testified that by their reading of the race publicity material they believed the
>>>>Summit Road (the second one) to be closed. Of course, the defence was able to produce an equal
>>>>number of witnesses that believed the pre race instructions were not ambiguous.
>>>>
>>>>The fact that several competitors 'misread' the instructions and that their misinterpretation of
>>>>the rules was not dispelled by the 'on the day' briefing, was enough to convict Astrid Anderson.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If the regulations said the cyclists could disobey the rules of the road, then the person who
>>>>>drafted these rules and approved them guilty.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Legally if a road is closed, you *are* allowed to disobey the road rules.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Thanks for the elucid reply, Snoopy.
>>
>>So that's it? You are entirely satisfied with my explanation? Apparently the jury weren't so
>>easily satisfied as they took over twenty hours to concur.
>>
>I only said thanks for your elucid reply. In no way does that mean I accepted the juries decision.
>Too often I have been astounded at the decision the juries have a arrived at. This applies to cases
>I have sat through and heard all the same evidence as they have. I did not attend the trial of the
>sports organisation, so I admit to being vague on that one.
>

I didn't attend the whole trial either. But I did attend all the summing up and the two sessions
featuring the two defence expert witnesses and the Sky Sport coverage of the event. This included a
follow up video link interview with the prosecution expert witness, where it emerged he had given
misinformation about the sporting organizations he claimed to be a member of, and had never had any
experience of being in charge of a cycle race!

The 'Le Race 2001 Video', some of which incorporated in the TV1 'Sunday' current affairs
documentary on the issue, did indeed show different cyclists crossing the centre line on several
occasions. Not all of this behaviour could be classed as 'reckless' though. The defence expert
witness from cycling Canterbury noted that it is OK to cross the centreline if you need to do so to
overtake someone. He further indicated that there are instances where you have at least 100m
visibility and are 'straightlining a corner' by crossing the centerline, which he considered not a
repremandable offence.

My impression was that there was no obvious evidence of crossing the centre line more often on the
'summit road' sections (where there was apparently ambiguity as to the status of the roads) compared
to the other road sections (where there was no doubt that the road was open to all comers). If
indeed there was a 'culture within cycling of riding all over a road when it was closed', would one
not have expected *significantly more* of this behaviour on the summit road(s) where according to
some over 400 people believed the road to be closed?

Another suggestion put forward by the prosecution was that it was dangerous to put on an event which
contained 'semi-professional cyclists' and 'weekend wheelers' in a single massed group. However, I
couldn't figure out how starting off the less experienced cyclists in a group on their own could
have improved the safety of those recreational cyclists.

The suggestion by the prosecution was that a less experienced cyclist, like Mrs Caldwell, would be
less able to get out of trouble if a small group of cyclists riding together came across a car
unexpectedly going the other way. The idea here was that cyclists riding three or four abreast would
all be able to quickly move inwards as a group at the first sign of oncoming traffic *if* they were
all experienced. I can see that this argument would have validity if the cyclists 'inside the
sandwich' failed to move inwards. After all, if you are the most experienced cyclist in the country
and you are suddenly faced with oncoming traffic, you are dependent on the inexperienced cyclist
beside you moving over quickly to give you space to do the same, and avoid ending up dead.

However, the evidence at the trial suggested that Mrs Caldwell was not riding in a bunch at the time
of the accident. She was in fact overtaking two or three cyclists in front of her on a straight 100m
section of road and simply ran out of road to complete the maneuvre. In other words I could not see
how Mrs Caldwell's inexperience of riding in a bunch might have contributed to the accident from the
evidence presented.

SNOOPY

--
Join the fight against aggressive, unrepentant spammers 'china-netcom'. E-mail me for more details

--
 
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 06:06:55 +1200, Richard Grevers <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>>>
>> Why doesn't prize money count?
>>
>Ask OSH. Probably because if I said to you "Please come and paint my house and I'll give you a 1 in
>100 chance of receiving $5000 for it", that wouldn't be considered as me employing you.
>

Thanks for your clarification on what is a 'professional event'.

It would be interesting to hear from Kyle as to whether there is or have ever been any 'professional
cycling event' held in Canada. Perhaps the cycle road race during the Commonwealth games?

If so, it would be interesting to hear what extra precautions were taken over and above 'amateur'
road races.

In New Zealand the standard of the traffic management plan required is not affected by whether the
event is 'amateur' or 'professional'.

SNOOPY

--
Join the fight against aggressive, unrepentant spammers 'china-netcom'. E-mail me for more details

--
 
Snoopy wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 06:06:55 +1200, Richard Grevers <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>Why doesn't prize money count?
>>>
>>
>>Ask OSH. Probably because if I said to you "Please come and paint my house and I'll give you a 1
>>in 100 chance of receiving $5000 for it", that wouldn't be considered as me employing you.
>>
>
>
> Thanks for your clarification on what is a 'professional event'.
>
> It would be interesting to hear from Kyle as to whether there is or have ever been any
> 'professional cycling event' held in Canada. Perhaps the cycle road race during the
> Commonwealth games?
>

Canada used to hold a world cup event (believe it or not) around one of the eastern cities.

> If so, it would be interesting to hear what extra precautions were taken over and above 'amateur'
> road races.
>
> In New Zealand the standard of the traffic management plan required is not affected by whether the
> event is 'amateur' or 'professional'.
>
> SNOOPY
 
Status
Not open for further replies.