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

[ChrisRiley]

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.

 

[Bleve]

On Aug 8, 11:44 am, "ChrisRiley" <[email protected]> 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.

It's a sad joke. Why this isn't manslaugher?

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 8, 12:32 pm, Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 8, 11:44 am, "ChrisRiley" <[email protected]> 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.
>
> It's a sad joke. Why this isn't manslaugher?

Or at least careless driving (riding?) occasioning death.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

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

 

[Stomper]

On Aug 8, 12:57 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Aug 8, 12:32 pm, Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 8, 11:44 am, "ChrisRiley" <[email protected]> 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.
>
> > It's a sad joke. Why this isn't manslaugher?
>
> Or at least careless driving (riding?) occasioning death.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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.

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

OR

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

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

Karl aka Stomper

 

[MikeyOz]

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

I don't see how you can blame everyone for it, no one forced him to do what he did, he was riding in that group of his own choice and made a decision to keep riding, I rode that ride when it was very large as on this occasion and you know where traffic lights and plenty of times I have ridden it, I have and other people have indicated they are going to stop with a SHOUT of stopping and people behind stop or slow down if they hear that. He decided he DID NOT want to lose the peleton and killed someone.

but chose to do nothing

They were regularly policing the ride because of complaints from locals, with patrol cars and motor bikes. However, I am in total agreement about the law not being changed so that a cyclist CAN be charged with the manslaughter charges or whatever they need to be so someone can go to jail for this. That is the really criminal part about it nothing being done by people in charge so he effectively gets off FREE.

The only losers are the family of the victim.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 07 Aug 2007 19:32:03 -0700
Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It's a sad joke. Why this isn't manslaugher?

Manslaughter is when you do something that you could easily have forseen
would cause death I believe.

from wikipedia:
"Voluntary manslaughter cases where the defendant may have an intent
to cause death or serious injury, but the potential liability for the
person is mitigated by the circumstances and state of mind."

"Involuntary manslaughter, sometimes called criminally negligent
homicide in the United States, Gross negligence manslaughter in the UK
or culpable homicide in Scotland, occurs where there is no intention
to kill or cause serious injury but death is due to recklessness or
criminal negligence."

It would come down to convincing a jury that the cyclist's action was
so reckless that death was a likely result. As Gould died because he
was frail and a less frail person would likely not have died, that
would be a very hard call.

Face it - if the ped had been a fit 25yo man, would he have died? Or
just picked himself up and thumped the guy?

Should the cyclist be punished because the man was old, a thing he had
no way to forsee?

(Even a fit 25yo could, of course, have died. Just needs to hit his
head on the kerbing. Again, is this forseeable? People fall down all
the time and don't die of it.)

Zebee

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 8 Aug 2007 11:08:46 +0800
Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
>

If Mr GOuld had been 20 years younger, he might not have died. If
he'd been healthier he might not have died.

Is the health and age of a random person the cyclist's sole
responsibility? Yes, what he did was wrong. It was only lethal
because of special circumstances outside his control.

It's a dreadful thing, but it's also not quite so black and white.

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.

I won't see that mind you, but if I did, then it would be worth far
more than howls about this sentence.

Zebee

 

[ghostgum]

It's a sad joke. Why this isn't manslaugher?

Yes it is sad that it comes down to a small fine. A custodial sentence would be a more appropriate response to cyclist's actions.

Would you charge a car driver with manslaughter for doing the same thing? There are motor vehicle car specific laws that sit between "failing to stop at a red light" and manslaughter. Culpable driving etc. But these don't apply to cyclists. So I suspect that the DPP had to choose between "failing to stop at red light" with a likely successful prosecution, and manslaughter which would have been much harder to get a conviction and not comparable with the treatment of a driver in a similar situation.

So perhaps the law should be changed so that car drivers who kill are charged with manslaughter, or an intermediate offence is created that also applies to cyclists. Then the law could be seen to be treating cyclists and drivers fairly. IANAL.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> 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.

> If Mr GOuld had been 20 years younger, he might not have died. If
> he'd been healthier he might not have died.

Given.

> Is the health and age of a random person the cyclist's sole
> responsibility? Yes, what he did was wrong. It was only lethal
> because of special circumstances outside his control.

No, but it's not OK to run over young healthy people either, and we don't
put up warning signs on crosswalks saying "Beware of cyclists if you're
frail".

My dad's 93 and getting a little frail. Any cyclist that runs over him had
better think of a different excuse than that.

Theo

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 8 Aug 2007 15:38:43 +1000
ghostgum <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Bleve Wrote:
>> It's a sad joke. Why this isn't manslaugher?
>
> Yes it is sad that it comes down to a small fine. A custodial sentence
> would be a more appropriate response to cyclist's actions.

Should every cyclist who runs a red light be jailed for it?

If not, why not?

Zebee

 

[TimC]

On 2007-08-08, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> In aus.bicycle on Wed, 8 Aug 2007 11:08:46 +0800
> Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> If Mr GOuld had been 20 years younger, he might not have died. If
> he'd been healthier he might not have died.
>
> Is the health and age of a random person the cyclist's sole
> responsibility? Yes, what he did was wrong. It was only lethal
> because of special circumstances outside his control.
>
> It's a dreadful thing, but it's also not quite so black and white.
>
> 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.

And every carpark and car salesyard and ...


It would be a lot more fruitful to heavily police people breaking laws
in cars in just about every location, including Beach Road.

In fact, I could help them for them. Eg, I could suggest that if some
with a ticket book sat at the top end of Russell St, Melbourne, any
particular night, it'd be pretty profitable. Especially after 2nd
offense when they can impound and sell off the doof-doofmobiles.

--
TimC
>> Imagine what a tipped over tractor-trailer formerly
>> full of potatoes looks like.
> Not half as messy as a truckload of oranges.
Or a hovercraft full of eels. -- Tanuki on ASR

 

[TimC]

On 2007-08-08, ghostgum (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> Bleve Wrote:
>> It's a sad joke. Why this isn't manslaugher?
>
> Yes it is sad that it comes down to a small fine. A custodial sentence
> would be a more appropriate response to cyclist's actions.

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.

> Would you charge a car driver with manslaughter for doing the same
> thing? There are motor vehicle car specific laws that sit between
> "failing to stop at a red light" and manslaughter. Culpable driving
> etc. But these don't apply to cyclists.

Depends. Just how useful is a 6 month suspended sentence anyway? In
either of the aims of deterance or punishment/revenge?

--
TimC
MacOSX: Sort of like a pedigree persian cat. Very sleek, very
sexy, but a little too prone to going cross-eyed, biting you on
your thumb and then throwing up on your trousers. -- Jim in ASR

 

[lisanne]

I agree that the $400 fine is pathetic, but the judge can only go by what the police have charged the person with.

The fine handed down to the cricket playing person the other day in regards to the death of a cyclist where he fled the scene was also disgusting.

The laws need to be revisited.

 

[Peter]

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?

>
> Is the health and age of a random person the cyclist's sole
> responsibility?

No but the general rule we should all live by is that if you are
undertaking an activity that has the potential to cause harm then you
should take extra care to not cause harm.

> Yes, what he did was wrong. It was only lethal
> because of special circumstances outside his control.

Not at all. It was lethal because he hit the ped. All the rest of your
argument is just speculation.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

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

 

[Donga]

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.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 08 Aug 2007 02:23:59 -0700
Donga <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.

Why? SOmeone just died, so it can obviously happen.

Zebee

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

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

 

[Shane Stanley]

In article <[email protected]>,
Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:

> So why is everyone jumping so hard on the guy?

I don't think "everyone" is -- the knee-jerk is predictable but limited.

--
Shane Stanley