'Hell Ride' cyclist fined $400 over man's death

[cfsmtb]

I'd be very impressed if this lead to some really serious policing by
police, bike clubs, bike shops, and riders of riders who run red
lights under any circumstances. Police hanging out at city
intersections with radios to call head to intercept, bike clubs and
Bicycle Victoria and equivalents goingn all out in campaigns, bike
shops with posters and talking to cyclists, other cyclists making a
big deal of it.

You'd have to be living under a rock to have missed all the meedya discussion of this tragic incident, including VicPOL scheduling choppers to monitor the ride. Ditto all the continuing work by local councils, Bike Now (Code of Conduct), VicRoads, TAC, Police etc etc. Over the last few years riders on Beach Rd have already had to deal with intercepts, mainly done by tv crews after a story. Of which, the resulting effect did nothing but further polarise the issue of bunch behaviour/busting reds.

For starters, try this simple tip: google: "Hell Ride"
Click linky >> http://tinyurl.com/ypo6ex

 

[Jock]

well, the rest of the HR group can breath easier they weren't the unlucky
killer that was caught out.
Any one of the whole group with their (by all appearances) M.O. of ignoring
lights and laws could have equally been the one in the wrong place at the
wrong time. To stop when a pack is on your **** would not be an option.
Perhaps an undersatanding that they stop on a red would be good. This
doesn't lend itself to a race scenario like HR so do it (race) on a country
road with supervision if oights & laws anren't for them. It aint TDF -
these guys are really asking for trouble.
Just hope when their dog gets creamed by a truck, their kiddie gets run over
by a pensioner that they don't expect justice and don't complain when it's
not forthcoming.
What goes around comes around.
Jock

"ChrisRiley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
A cyclist who hit and killed an elderly pedestrian during Melbourne's 'Hell
Ride' has pleaded guilty and been fined for failing to stop at a red light.

31-year-old William Raisin-Shaw struck 77-year-old James Gould on Beach Road
in Mentone in August last year.

Mr Gould died in hospital the next day.

The cyclist was one of about 100 riders taking part in the regular training
ride from Black Rock to Mount Eliza and back.

He pleaded guilty to failing to stop at a red light, and was fined $400.

Magistrate Charlie Rosenthal said many people would consider the $400 fine
"pathetic".

But he also said it was important the community remember that Mr Raisin-Shaw
was not being sentenced for the death of Mr Gould, only that he didn't stop
when he should have.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 8 Aug 2007 22:30:29 +1000
cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>>
>> I'd be very impressed if this lead to some really serious policing by
>> police, bike clubs, bike shops, and riders of riders who run red
>> lights under any circumstances. Police hanging out at city
>> intersections with radios to call head to intercept, bike clubs and
>> Bicycle Victoria and equivalents goingn all out in campaigns, bike
>> shops with posters and talking to cyclists, other cyclists making a
>> big deal of it.
>
>
> You'd have to be living under a rock to have missed all the meedya
> discussion of this tragic incident, including VicPOL scheduling
> choppers to monitor the ride. Ditto all the continuing work by local

Not "the ride". "The ride" isn't the problem or the point. Cyclists
run red lights everywhere and all the time. If they didn't then there
would have been a hell of a lot more people on that ride stopping for
lights.

While cyclists think the rules don't apply to them if the rules are
inconvenient, then you will get people running reds and there's the
chance to hit someone or cause some other crash.

Focusing on "the ride" is predictable but useless, as it means all the
other red light runners will continue to say "I'm OK, it's those jerks
over there".

Zebee

 

[EuanB]

ChrisRiley wrote:
> A cyclist who hit and killed an elderly pedestrian during Melbourne's
> 'Hell Ride' has pleaded guilty and been fined for failing to stop at
> a red light.
> 31-year-old William Raisin-Shaw struck 77-year-old James Gould on
> Beach Road in Mentone in August last year.
>
> Mr Gould died in hospital the next day.
>
> The cyclist was one of about 100 riders taking part in the regular
> training ride from Black Rock to Mount Eliza and back.
>
> He pleaded guilty to failing to stop at a red light, and was fined
> $400.
> Magistrate Charlie Rosenthal said many people would consider the $400
> fine "pathetic".
>
> But he also said it was important the community remember that Mr
> Raisin-Shaw was not being sentenced for the death of Mr Gould, only
> that he didn't stop when he should have.

I'm trying to imagine how Mr Gould's family feels at this decision. I
wouldn't be riding a bike in their street for a while.

Theo

Mr Gould was not survived by any living relatives.

That doesn't diminsh what you're saying, just pointing out a fact.

 

[EuanB]

In all fairness the entire peleton, or at least those that didn't
stop, should have also been charged.

Unfortunately for Mr Raisin-Shaw he was the one that hit the
pedestrian - but the others were just as responsible.

Probably because he was one of the only ones who ran a red light.

It seems that in all the hyperbole that's surrounded this case the facts have been lost. Mr Raisin-Shaw rode past several cyclists who had stopped for the red light. Mr Raisin-Shaw collided with Mr Gould as Mr Gould stepped past the cyclists stopped at the red light.

Several cyclists who were stopped at the red light rendered what assistance they could.

Mr Raisin-Shaw, with no good reason, deliberately ran a red light despite there being traffic stopped at the red light.

There is only one criminal here, Mr Raisin-Shaw. He's been tried and found guilty under our justice system. If you don't like the results of that, work to change the system.

But please, stick to the facts eh?

Personally I believe the Victorian Police are culpable too - for years
they have known the pattern of behaviour - but chose to do nothing
about it. They could have, either -

1. policed the route - ie had a car at the head of the peleton
stopping for the lights

They've done that several times. They've also put helicopters in to the sky to track the `Hell Ride'. That's been reported in this very newsgroup.

2. worked with the group to make sure the ride was safe

The Police have been working with Beach Road cyclists for years and have effected many positive changes.

The fact that they did nothing is nothing short of negligence.

The facts, I would suggest, exonnerate the police.

This is the first pedestrian death occaisioned by a cyclist in over five years. There is no other mode of transport, including walking, as benign as cycling. The reason this is such big news is because it is an extremely unusual event.

That's not to diminish the culpability of the offender or the tradgedy of the loss but please, get some perspective about the relative risks posed by the `Hell Ride' compared to every other ordinary person who drives a car.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> I don't think he should have run the red. However neither do I think
> that he should be treated differently to any other red light runner
> because of these particular circumstances.
>
> So, what should the penalty be for cyclists who run red lights?
>
> Should only cyclists who hit people suffer penalty?
>
> Should only those who hit people who are hurt by that suffer penalty?
>
> Is the offence running the light, or hitting someone? If it's hitting
> someone, then presumably there has to be intent of some kind, else
> it's not hitting someone, it's running the light knowing hitting it
> likely. Did he know that?

Come on Zebee, you know very well that running a red in a car when no-one
else is around, has different legal consequences than running a red light
and hitting another vehicle, and different consequences again if someone is
seriously injured or dies as a result of your "Running a red but it's only a
$400 fine".

Theo

 

[Plodder]

"Donga" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Aug 8, 5:23 pm, TimC <[email protected]
> astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> As long as it was no different to your typical sentence dished out to
>> motorists who should otherwise be charged with manslaughter in a
>> perfect world. Ie, 6 months, suspended, and a $2300 fine.
>>
>> Any different and it starts to look like you are punishing bike riders
>> more than car drivers for breaking the law, and we wouldn't want that.
>
> Allow me to point out the fundamental, risk-based difference: mass of
> unit. The law needs to be based on the risk posed.

I disagree. I think the law should be based on behaviours and (if possible)
on intention. Knock down the behaviours that create a risk and risk across
the board is mitigated. If, for example, EVERYONE can be dissuaded from
running red lights, the whole risk of collisions is reduced. To treat
behavious differently depending on (your thought) assumes that a person
risking themselves (a cyclist or a pedestrian, for example) is less
important that a person risking another.

A death is a death. If I were to run a red light my action (running a red)
could be said to have contributed to my death or inury (I "brought it on
myself") that doesn't mean I DESERVE the outcome, just that the fault lies
with me.

The purpose of road rules, I think, is about creating predictable behaviour,
which mitigates risk. Traffic flow, and all the other aspects of traffic
control and rules comes second to lowering behavioural risk.

Cheers,

Frank

 

[Plodder]

"Zebee Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In aus.bicycle on Wed, 8 Aug 2007 17:51:59 +1000
> Peter <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> If Mr GOuld had been 20 years younger, he might not have died. If
>>> he'd been healthier he might not have died.
>>
>> If Mr Gould had been 3 years old he might have died. Would it be ok for
>> a child of that age to die as the result of cyclist not having the guts
>> to put his own life on the line and stop at a red light?
>
> I don't think he should have run the red. However neither do I think
> that he should be treated differently to any other red light runner
> because of these particular circumstances.
>
> So, what should the penalty be for cyclists who run red lights?
>
> Should only cyclists who hit people suffer penalty?
>
> Should only those who hit people who are hurt by that suffer penalty?
>
> Is the offence running the light, or hitting someone? If it's hitting
> someone, then presumably there has to be intent of some kind, else
> it's not hitting someone, it's running the light knowing hitting it
> likely. Did he know that?
>
> Zebee
>
> Zebee

Agreed - he shouldn't be treated any differently. The circumstances, to me,
show a gap in the law. By all means, change the law but any law change is
too late for this particular event.

Cheers,

Frank

 

[MikeyOz]

get some perspective about the relative risks posed by the `Hell Ride' compared to every other ordinary person who drives a car.

Yeah but trying explaining that to the Lynch Mob.

Common sense dictates what you are saying, but we all know that the communities we live in don't work on common sense.

 

[EuanB]

Yeah but trying explaining that to the Lynch Mob.

Common sense dictates what you are saying, but we all know that the communities we live in don't work on common sense.

Not quite as intangible as logic, cold hard facts and logic if you please Sir!

 

[cfsmtb]

Not "the ride". "The ride" isn't the problem or the point. Cyclists run red lights everywhere and all the time. If they didn't then there would have been a hell of a lot more people on that ride stopping for
lights.

While cyclists think the rules don't apply to them if the rules are
inconvenient, then you will get people running reds and there's the
chance to hit someone or cause some other crash.

To drag in the red light palavar and attempting to extend it to other cyclists is a non sequitur statement and best left for the more inane comments in the Herald Sun. On ABC radio this morning, Victorian Attorney Rob Hull commented at that he is looking at this case and seeing if laws can be reviewed. However I believe it would take a lot more to alter than simply tinkering with legislation at a state level to get a higher level of compliance from road users to follow traffic signals.

Perceptions of the ride are important, as virtually every bunch ride up and down Beach Road (and elsewhere) has ended up branded with the so-called HR, whether participants have behaved legally or not.

And while everyone's getting a tad over excited about the sentencing given to Raisin-Shaw, under the existing road laws, that's all the Police could charge him with. Believe you me, the police went over in fine detail what they could actually bring against him in court. If people have any real interest in this case, extending past the recent bout of meedya hyperbole, for example, they should be observing the Sentencing Advisory Council as well as monitor any proposed changes to the Road Safety Act and the Transport Act.

 

[PiledHigher]

On Aug 9, 11:35 am, cfsmtb <cfsmtb.2v0...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>
> > Not "the ride". "The ride" isn't the problem or the point. Cyclists
> > run red lights everywhere and all the time. If they didn't then there
> > would have been a hell of a lot more people on that ride stopping for
> > lights.
>
> > While cyclists think the rules don't apply to them if the rules are
> > inconvenient, then you will get people running reds and there's the
> > chance to hit someone or cause some other crash.
>
> To drag in the red light palavar and attempting to extend it to other
> cyclists is a non sequitur statement and best left for the more inane
> comments in the Herald Sun. On ABC radio this morning, Victorian
> Attorney Rob Hull commented at that he is looking at this case and
> seeing if laws can be reviewed. However I believe it would take a lot
> more to alter than simply tinkering with legislation at a state level
> to get a higher level of compliance from road users to follow traffic
> signals.
>
> Perceptions of the ride are important, as virtually every bunch ride up
> and down Beach Road (and elsewhere) has ended up branded with the
> so-called HR, whether participants have behaved legally or not.
>
> And while everyone's getting a tad over excited about the sentencing
> given to Raisin-Shaw, under the existing road laws, that's all the
> Police could charge him with. Believe you me, the police went over in
> fine detail what they could actually bring against him in court. If
> people have any real interest in this case, extending past the recent
> bout of meedya hyperbole, for example, they should be observing the
> Sentencing Advisory Council as well as monitor any proposed changes to
> the Road Safety Act and the Transport Act.
>
> --
> cfsmtb

Surely they could have thrown an assault charge at him?

The only redeeming feature of this case is that unlike recent car
related convictions he wasn't tired and emotional/drunk, didn't leave
the scene, didn't disappear to make up a story and sober and
assistance was rendered to the man immediately. He did not contest the
charge but his weasling that he was worried about others behind meant
that he could not stop has damaged all cyclists reputation.

The sadi thing is that all the media fuss taken away from the fact
that over 300 people a year die on victorias roads and in the last 10
years just two have been killed by cyclists.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 9 Aug 2007 11:35:13 +1000
cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>> Not "the ride". "The ride" isn't the problem or the point. Cyclists
>> run red lights everywhere and all the time. If they didn't then there
>> would have been a hell of a lot more people on that ride stopping for
>> lights.
>>
>> While cyclists think the rules don't apply to them if the rules are
>> inconvenient, then you will get people running reds and there's the
>> chance to hit someone or cause some other crash.
>>
>
> To drag in the red light palavar and attempting to extend it to other
> cyclists is a non sequitur statement and best left for the more inane
> comments in the Herald Sun. On ABC radio this morning, Victorian

Care to expand rather than just assert? Like umm.. refuting the
argument or something?

No, I am interested. Why is running the light on Beach Rd so
different to it anywhere else that there's no connection between
them?

> Attorney Rob Hull commented at that he is looking at this case and
> seeing if laws can be reviewed. However I believe it would take a lot
> more to alter than simply tinkering with legislation at a state level
> to get a higher level of compliance from road users to follow traffic
> signals.

Absolutely. Major education campaign plus prosecutions. Difficulty
being that it costs a lot to prosecute as you have to have human
beings doing the nabbing rather than cameras.

It takes a fair while too. It took a long time to turn the perception
of drink driving around for example. Time and money.

I don't think anyone gets on a bike or in a car and thinks "I will go
and kill someone today". They tend to think "I can do this manouver
and get where I'm going faster", some even add "safely" in there
somewhere. Few think "but I won't cos it is wrong".

I have 3 traffic lights on my current commute. Two cross very
busy roads, little to no chance of light running there, so cyclists
don't. The other has a couple of chances and sure enough the weirdo on
the 'bent is the only one who waits for the lights. Until the idea
that cyclists are special is stomped on it will keep happening.

Zebee

 

[Stuart Lamble]

On 2007-08-08, TimC <[email protected]> wrote:
> Depends. Just how useful is a 6 month suspended sentence anyway? In
> either of the aims of deterance or punishment/revenge?

My understanding of suspended sentences is that they aim to deter repeat
offences: "yes, ok, you made a mistake, we understand that you are
sorry, so we're giving you a suspended sentence. Don't do it again."

If the offender *does* do it again, they get sentenced for the second
offence, and the suspended sentence is added on to the sentence for that
second offence. In other words, suspended sentences are like warnings
for first offences with a few added teeth.

So somebody who makes a genuine mistake won't be punished harshly for
it, but somebody who fails to learn from that mistake (or who *didn't*
make a mistake, they just said they did) will (hopefully) get the lesson
they need.

--
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".

 

[ProfTournesol]

On Aug 9, 11:35 am, cfsmtb <cfsmtb.2v0...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:

Surely they could have thrown an assault charge at him?

The only redeeming feature of this case is that unlike recent car
related convictions he wasn't tired and emotional/drunk, didn't leave
the scene, didn't disappear to make up a story and sober and
assistance was rendered to the man immediately. He did not contest the
charge but his weasling that he was worried about others behind meant
that he could not stop has damaged all cyclists reputation.

The sadi thing is that all the media fuss taken away from the fact
that over 300 people a year die on victorias roads and in the last 10
years just two have been killed by cyclists.

He could have said "I didn't see him" - that usually gets you off when you kill a cyclist with a car.

 

[TimC]

On 2007-08-09, Stomper (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Mr Raisin-Shaw could have been one of many - unfortunately for him
> (and Mr Gould) he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

.... and overtaking already stopped riders. Which makes him stupider
than everyone else who stopped that he rode around.

> How many of us here can put our hands on our hearts and say we haven't
> ran a red light in our time????

Not in such stupid circumstances.

I did dramastically reduce the number of occasions I ran red lights
when I found out about the social reasons for stopping even at 2am
when nobody is around, but the length of my patience typically only
lasts 5 minutes before I give up and go through after checking all
directions that there is absolutely nothing about.

Camberwell junction and the top end of Franklin st near RMIT (??) come
to mind as places where I give up after some minutes. Note that both
have detector loops that do detect bicycle.... eventually. Probably
by quantum fluctuations in the timing circuit that vary over the
timescale of millenia. I don't think this is any worse than being a
sole car at those intersections though, so perhaps I am just being
impatient.

--
TimC
This plane is not equipped with vertices.

 

[Donga]

On Aug 8, 9:44 pm, Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Wed, 08 Aug 2007 04:01:36 -0700
>
> Donga <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Aug 8, 8:24 pm, Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> In aus.bicycle on Wed, 08 Aug 2007 02:23:59 -0700
>
> >> Donga <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > Allow me to point out the fundamental, risk-based difference: mass of
> >> > unit. The law needs to be based on the risk posed.
>
> >> Why? SOmeone just died, so it can obviously happen.
>
> > ? I can be hit by a meteor, but that doesn't lead me to live in the
> > cellar. Laws are intended to influence people's behaviour that affects
> > others. Clearly driving a car through a red light poses much a greater
> > risk to others than does riding a bike through a red light. The laws
>
> So why is everyone jumping so hard on the guy?
>
> Zebee

Because the more cynical definition of risk is "Hazard x
outrage" (Peter Sandman)
.... and because they are not thinking of the old adage "there for the
grace of dog go I".

donga

 

[Donga]

On Aug 9, 9:40 am, "Plodder" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Donga" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Aug 8, 5:23 pm, TimC <[email protected]
> > astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >> As long as it was no different to your typical sentence dished out to
> >> motorists who should otherwise be charged with manslaughter in a
> >> perfect world. Ie, 6 months, suspended, and a $2300 fine.
>
> >> Any different and it starts to look like you are punishing bike riders
> >> more than car drivers for breaking the law, and we wouldn't want that.
>
> > Allow me to point out the fundamental, risk-based difference: mass of
> > unit. The law needs to be based on the risk posed.
>
> I disagree. I think the law should be based on behaviours and (if possible)
> on intention. Knock down the behaviours that create a risk and risk across
> the board is mitigated. If, for example, EVERYONE can be dissuaded from
> running red lights, the whole risk of collisions is reduced. To treat
> behavious differently depending on (your thought) assumes that a person
> risking themselves (a cyclist or a pedestrian, for example) is less
> important that a person risking another.
>
> A death is a death. If I were to run a red light my action (running a red)
> could be said to have contributed to my death or inury (I "brought it on
> myself") that doesn't mean I DESERVE the outcome, just that the fault lies
> with me.
>
> The purpose of road rules, I think, is about creating predictable behaviour,
> which mitigates risk. Traffic flow, and all the other aspects of traffic
> control and rules comes second to lowering behavioural risk.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Frank

It's not red-light-running that's at issue, is it? The fine for that
is fairly small, for motorist or cyclist. The issue is "causing death
by dangerous driving/cycling" as far as I can see.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

TimC wrote:
> Stomper wrote

>> How many of us here can put our hands on our hearts and say we
>> haven't ran a red light in our time????

> Not in such stupid circumstances.

Only when the light was not functioning. ie, did not acknowledge my
presence.
By phoning the traffic light people every time I encountered a traffic light
that wouldn't work for me, in a period of less than six months every traffic
light on my various routes to work became bicycle conscious. The traffic
light people were most helpful and quite keen to see their system working
for me. On one occasion they had some difficulties and arranged to meet me
at a particular intersection so I could explain the circumstance in which
the light didn't work for me. What's more, they were happy to meet me there
at 6:30 am, and the lights always worked for me after that. This was in
Perth in the late eighties.

> I did dramastically reduce the number of occasions I ran red lights
> when I found out about the social reasons for stopping even at 2am
> when nobody is around, but the length of my patience typically only
> lasts 5 minutes before I give up and go through after checking all
> directions that there is absolutely nothing about.
>
> Camberwell junction and the top end of Franklin st near RMIT (??) come
> to mind as places where I give up after some minutes. Note that both
> have detector loops that do detect bicycle.... eventually. Probably
> by quantum fluctuations in the timing circuit that vary over the
> timescale of millenia. I don't think this is any worse than being a
> sole car at those intersections though, so perhaps I am just being
> impatient.

No, as a legitimate road user you are entitled to expect the lights to be
working for you.

Theo