Herald Sun reader comments on death of James Gould



cfsmtb wrote:

> After awhile we all get sick of this open slander trolling ****, and a
> line has to be drawn, err, "typed".


Keyboards at twenty paces?
Open slander trolling? Hmmm.

Theo
 
Theo Bekkers wrote:

> BrettS wrote:
>
>
>>It's sad that someone has died and I think the guy that rode through
>>the red light should haved the book thrown at him, but if the hell
>>Ride is *such* a dangerous event and if riders are *always* breaking
>>the law and it happens *every* weekend and the old guy walks along
>>that stretch of road *every* day you would think he would know to
>>take a little extra care?

>
>
> Let's blame the victim. Old bloke walked accross the crosswalk after a bunch
> of cyclists stopped for him. How silly is that?
>


Not blaming the victim at all. Simply passing comment that if the Hell
Ride is *so* dangerous, you would think this guy would know about it and
be more careful. Apparently he did not seem to think it was.

Like I said. The guys who ran the red light needs to have the book
thrown at him.

--
BrettS
 
Theo Bekkers wrote:

> cfsmtb wrote:
>>Let alone all the other unpaid work I do for my local BUG. All unpaid
>>voluntary work. WTF do you do Theo? Anything?

>
>
> Hehehehe. Where do you want me to start? The Vinnies, the Keep Oz Beautiful
> Council, the Adult Literacy Council, the Red Cross, the Bush Fire Brigades,
> or just regular monetary donations?


Keep Australia Beautiful Council? Are you one of those guys who dobs in
litterbugs? I thought they got paid. :)

--
BrettS
 
In aus.bicycle on Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:41:36 +0800
BrettS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>
>> Let's blame the victim. Old bloke walked accross the crosswalk after a bunch
>> of cyclists stopped for him. How silly is that?
>>

>
> Not blaming the victim at all. Simply passing comment that if the Hell
> Ride is *so* dangerous, you would think this guy would know about it and
> be more careful. Apparently he did not seem to think it was.


How much more careful can he be than wait for cyclists to stop and
then cross with the green light?

Zebee
 
BrettS said:
T
Not blaming the victim at all. Simply passing comment that if the Hell
Ride is *so* dangerous, you would think this guy would know about it and
be more careful. Apparently he did not seem to think it was.

Like I said. The guys who ran the red light needs to have the book
thrown at him.

--
BrettS
I heard someone called Paul interviewed by Derryn Hinch this afternoon. He was about 200 metres behind the hell ride when the accident happened and stayed to help block traffic. His version of events was that the victim had well and truely waited for the bikes to stop and was about half way across the road when he was hit.
 
Zebee Johnstone said:
In aus.bicycle on Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:41:36 +0800

How much more careful can he be than wait for cyclists to stop and
then cross with the green light?

Zebee
fact is , we ... and all the commentators, the media and other agenda drivers, weren't there and therefore are none the wiser.....

there is to be a coronial enquiry, I will be there, and listen to every word, see every submission and aim to report ( factually) what took place...

Several local and national papers and local Melb radio stations have had "exclusive" eyewitness reports, and they too are not all that conclusive on what took place after the cyclists all stopped at the crossing, and the old gent started to cross...but one thing that is for certain, on all the "eyewitness" reports, the Hell Ride group riders, did everything right, the lead group had a green, the group was stretched, the lights changed mid group and riders then stopped in the Hell Ride for the light ...it was riders behind who passed the stopped riders who hit the old gent, and they too went down on the road....
it is not proven conclusively that the rider/s who collided at the crossing where even part of the Hell Ride group, were just trying to stay with a faster bunch?, or were not looking ahead? , didnt stop, or couldnt stop? !!!!...It is clear no matter what, the rider charged, rode around the stopped bikes at the crossing and struck the old gent, the reason for doing that will no doubt come out. We cannot forsee a reason that justifies it, but you never know till you hear the direct evidence.

The media frenzy against the Hell Ride on the "eyewitness" accounts I've heard and read are unjustified, sensational and hype...until it is conclusively proven this outcome is a direct result of the Hell Ride...the coroner may make that finding, but I doubt it.

I am not justifying the Hell Ride, or the concept of hard training rides on public roads, as personal responsibility and discharge of duty of care are paramount, but the facts do not support a public outrage that the Hell Ride is responsible for this death, no more than any other bunch of a hundred or so bunches who ride Beach Road on a Saturday morning could be. Every rider has to accept the responsibility for actions taken, likewise every rider has to ensure skill, competancy and awareness. It is these things , if lacking inevitably cause trauma.

Group riding skills are not all that well known by many riders, there is a clear protocol, and a reason for groups, they enhance visibility, they offer protection, they reduce individual effort and thus preserve mental awareness, and they minimise individual attack from errant rogue motorists.

To derive these skills and competancies is not easy for most, and thus there is a problem in itself, that riders think they can join a group anywhere and all will be well...they do not have training, and likewise there are few trainers or facilities where this is available. (Just ask your LBS, they too may not be able to help you out)

It is way past time for all this to be just a problem solved by banning the Hell Ride...that will solve nothing...there is a need across Australia to provide a level of skill and competency assessment to all cyclists, commencing in our schools, and extending to when a bike is purchased, and that certified training courses be part of the road cycling awareness/competency skillset that is required to ride on the road (and I would extend that to drivers as well).

So, perhaps we should all stop speculating, commenting and ranting and be clear on the points that matter for future safe road sharing...and untill we have a holistic approach to road skill competencies, we all:-
  • obey the law
  • keep a proper lookout
  • be predictable, visible and
  • accept responsibility as a road user and become competant and skilled, & above all, always, when on or near a road ( as drivers, pedestrians or cyclists) expect the unexpected !
 
In aus.bicycle on Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:39:28 +1000
rooman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>> In aus.bicycle on Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:41:36 +0800
>>
>> How much more careful can he be than wait for cyclists to stop and
>> then cross with the green light?
>>
>> Zebeefact is , we ... and all the commentators, the media and other agenda

> drivers, weren't there and therefore are none the wiser.....
>


No, but there doesn't seem to be any argument that he was crossing at
a green light with riders stopped, and that one rider did not stop.

Whether the rider was an official part of an group that apparently has
no official parts isn't relevant. I have said nothing about the "hell
ride", just that I don't think it right to say the man should have
been more careful.

What could the ped have done to be "more careful" except not cross the
road at all?


Zebee
 
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:39:28 +1000, rooman wrote:

> It is way past time for all this to be just a problem solved by banning
> the Hell Ride...that will solve nothing...there is a need across
> Australia to provide a level of skill and competency assessment to all
> cyclists, commencing in our schools, and extending to when a bike is
> purchased, and that certified training courses be part of the road
> cycling awareness/competency skillset that is required to ride on the
> road (and I would extend that to drivers as well).


What are you smoking?

This is a rather nasty accident, the cause of which we don't currently
know. It may have been rider error, and at this stage looks as though it
is - but it could just as easily have been a snapped brake cable. We don't
know.

To go from that to requiring a license (which is what you're
advocating, as proof that training and assessment has taken place) is
ridiculous. What about my 3 year old son? He's not on the road yet, but he
has ridden in "road related areas" (aka an empty carpark), and the current
NSW legislation says that the rules apply equally there.

Your scheme is along the lines of registering bicycles - possible, but
impractical. Yes, education schemes would be nice, but they're hardly
necessary. There are quite a few deaths of people riding in a dangerous
manner, but there are also lots of deaths of people driving cars in a
dangerous manner. Education isn't a panacea, especially when there are
young males involved (Guys are dumb like that - I know I've done a few
things that I was lucky to get away with and any male (heck, anyone) who
says they haven't is lying, at least to themselves).

s
--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
"When all you've got is a nailgun, every problem looks like a messiah."
- Iain Chalmers
 
Cycling development in Brisbane has been interesting. In the 90s the
major ride was from Park Road on Wednesdays and Saturdays, around the
river. It was fast but reasonably sane. As more riders of greater and
lesser skill turned up, it got faster and wilder, plus the road got
more difficult in some places with 'traffic calming'. A rider Nick F
began a new ride starting across the river at Southbank, going on
different routes - the 'Star Coffee' ride. The key difference was Nick
stood up and emphasised control and discipline. The Star ride has
become an institution itself. It usually has three groups of different
pace, and still has discipline emphasised, which the riders welcome.
New riders quickly form into the culture and not often have to be told
to shape up or bugger off. There are now many more riders than in the
early 90s, in many new bunches starting at all sorts of places and
doing many different routes. The main Park Road ride remains a little
wilder than most, but really there is quite a good culture of control,
so you rarely see a bunch that is riding other than two abreast and
stopping at lights etc.

Donga
 
Dave Hughes said:
To go from that to requiring a license (which is what you're
advocating, as proof that training and assessment has taken place) is
ridiculous. What about my 3 year old son? He's not on the road yet, but he
has ridden in "road related areas" (aka an empty carpark), and the current
NSW legislation says that the rules apply equally there.

You've created a incorrect assumption there.

Was licensing or rego mentioned ONCE? No, it wasn't.

'roo is directly refering the WoJ line:
http://www.woj.com.au/2006/08/29/wheels-of-justice-media-release/

Education, Enforcement, Accountability

What you are trying to read into 'roo's statement is completely spurious. How can developing suitable courses for returning adult cyclists be a push for licensing? Wheels of Justice DO NOT support registration licensing schemes for cyclists.

WoJ supports behaviour modification, awareness, and enhanced training courses for all road users.

Please do not attempt to start a spurious discussion at what you've apparently perceived, as it simply isn't there for starters.
 
On 2006-08-30, dave (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Terryc wrote:
>> BrettS wrote:
>>
>>>Just like when you push a stroller across a zebra crossing, you can't
>>>assume anything...

>>
>> Well, can you explain what all those mothers who blindly push them onto
>> busy roads are doing?

>
> I actually picked upa kid once whose mum had just pushed the stroller
> out the front of a bus. Saw the whole thing. The cab driver had not
> the slightest chance of missing or stopping and if he hadnt slowed down
> to aa cautious crawl the kid wouldnt have had a chance.


A few days ago, a young mother walked across the road, and let her
toddler toddle along down the middle of a road, not watched. Gave an
"oops" look when I rode past slowly.

--
TimC
The Unixverse ends on Tue, 19 Jan 2038 03:14:07 +0000
 
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:48:10 +1000, cfsmtb wrote:

> Dave Hughes Wrote:
>>
>> To go from that to requiring a license (which is what you're
>> advocating, as proof that training and assessment has taken place) is
>> ridiculous.


> You've created a incorrect assumption there.
>
> Was licensing or rego mentioned ONCE? No, it wasn't.


Read my statement again, specifically the bit in parentheses.
Here's 'roo's :

>>> there is a need across Australia to provide a level of skill and
>>> competency assessment to all cyclists, commencing in our schools, and
>>> extending to when a bike is purchased, and that certified training
>>> courses be part of the road cycling awareness/competency skillset that
>>> is required to ride on the road


How can you have a requirement for certified training courses as a
requirement to ride on a road without requiring some form of documentary
proof (aka a license)?

If you're saying that training and assessment should be undertaken to
develop those skills which are required to ride on the road, your
statement needs to be reworded to remove the ambiguity. Taking offense
when someone reads your sentence in a grammatically reasonable manner [1]
is indicative of your passion. It's also not a particularly good way to
win friends and influence people. If I sound narky, it's because I'm a
pedantic *****, but I am trying to offer constructive advice here.

You're welcome to take my phrasing above if you wish. It still leaves the
question of how one proves that one has undertaken such training and
assessment to develop those skills.


[1] Arguably the last "is" should be "are", depending on whether you take
road cycling awareness and competency skillset as a pair of requirements,
or whether the awareness forms part of the skillset
--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
God was my co-pilot, but we crashed in the Andes,
and I had to eat him - adferraro
 
"cfsmtb" wrote:

> You've created a incorrect assumption there.
>
> Was licensing or rego mentioned ONCE? No, it wasn't.


Well the way I read it:

"rooman" wrote:
>
> the Hell Ride...that will solve nothing...there is a need across
> Australia to provide a level of skill and competency assessment to all
> cyclists, commencing in our schools, and extending to when a bike is
> purchased, and that certified training courses be part of the road
> cycling awareness/competency skillset that is required to ride on the
> road (and I would extend that to drivers as well).


This training and assessment system, while perhaps desirable, does sound
pretty much like a licecing structure to me.
>
> 'roo is directly refering the WoJ line:
> http://www.woj.com.au/2006/08/29/wheels-of-justice-media-release/
>
> Education, Enforcement, Accountability


Agree with these principles, but Australian cyclists are nowhere near ready
for a certified training structure "that is required to ride on the road"

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)
 
Dave Hughes said:
Taking offense
when someone reads your sentence in a grammatically reasonable manner [1]
is indicative of your passion.

No, you replied in an offensive manner in your first sentence, by implying someone was on drugs. That's hardly an intelligent response to any discussion, and then later attempting to salvage some high moral ground in your second reply. Pot, kettle, black. :p
 
"cfsmtb" wrote:
>
> Peter Signorini Wrote:
>>
>> Well the way I read it:

>
> Nope, this isn't licensing and it certainly isn't a new or novel
> concept.


We'll have to agree to disagree, as I'd reckon that having "certified
training courses" that are "part of the road cycling awareness/competency
skillset that is *required to ride* on the road" without some form of
documentation that one has met the requirement (a.k.a a licence) would be a
waste of time.

> Had this excellent piece of bicycle advocacy history sent to us today
> by one Alan Parker:
>
> Freewheeling No 46 November /December 1987
> The Struggle for the Melbourne Bikeplan 1975/1987
> http://www.woj.com.au/HistoryMelbBikeplan.cwk [v6.pdf


Yes I was beginning to become active in cycling myself at this time, and had
a bit to do with Alan. He sold me Freewheeling's first issue at the 1977
Melbourne BikeWeek Rally. I still save the full set of Freewheeling in a
box under the bench. But the Geelong and Melbpourne Bike Plans had nothing
about a required cycling skillset for all cyclists that Rooman was
advocating. They only addressed primary students skills via the BikEd kit.
Good training for juniors, but not the sort of thing that will sharpen up
the behaviour of the Hell Ride peleton.
--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)
 
Peter Signorini wrote:

> We'll have to agree to disagree, as I'd reckon that having "certified
> training courses" that are "part of the road cycling awareness/competency
> skillset that is *required to ride* on the road" without some form of
> documentation that one has met the requirement (a.k.a a licence) would be a
> waste of time.



So why do you think is any difference to the WoJ proposal, to the very
issue you discussed in the previous (lengthy) Adult Bike Ed threads on
BV forums?

http://www.bv.com.au/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1406

Even the BFA has informed us that cyclist training is one of their key
projects at the moment.
 
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 21:39:18 +1000, cfsmtb wrote:

> No, you replied in an offensive manner in your first sentence, by
> implying someone was on drugs. That's hardly an intelligent response to
> any discussion, and then later attempting to salvage some high moral
> ground in your second reply. Pot, kettle, black. :p


I'd consider a call for mandatory licensing for bike riders to be evidence
of schedule 1 drug use, or listening to MMM (who were talking about this
subject as I flicked through looking for something to listening). My
misread of what you were saying lead to that comment. If offense was
taken I apologise, but "what are you smoking" is normally a tongue in
cheek way to say that you believe a statement to require considerable
justification.

Remember, you're the one acting as a voice for WoJ (AFAICT), which behooves
you to be careful with your words. I'm just a random **** stirrer on the
internet so I can say whatever I want.

--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
Oh, loneliness and cheeseburgers are a dangerous mix.
- Comic Book Guy
 
"cfsmtb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Peter Signorini wrote:
>
>> We'll have to agree to disagree, as I'd reckon that having "certified
>> training courses" that are "part of the road cycling awareness/competency
>> skillset that is *required to ride* on the road" without some form of
>> documentation that one has met the requirement (a.k.a a licence) would be
>> a
>> waste of time.

>
>
> So why do you think is any difference to the WoJ proposal, to the very
> issue you discussed in the previous (lengthy) Adult Bike Ed threads on
> BV forums?
>
> http://www.bv.com.au/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1406


:0

Point taken - where's that humble pie!

But, even though I did talk of possible mandated training, I do seem to
recall that this thread started off about providing a recognised cycle
training course for newbies to cycling or for people who are scared of the
perceived traffic risks that they only want to ride on the
bikepath/footpath. The aim being to boost their skills and road confidence,
not a "requirement for cycling". It is a bit of a step from that to
instituting a mandatory training course, that would I expect require
licencing. This, as we both agree, is not a goer in Victoria at the moment.

> Even the BFA has informed us that cyclist training is one of their key
> projects at the moment.


Great to hear.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)
 
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 05:20:14 -0700, cfsmtb wrote:

> So why do you think is any difference to the WoJ proposal, to the very
> issue you discussed in the previous (lengthy) Adult Bike Ed threads on
> BV forums?


Pete and I are reading that you're asking for mandatory training for
cyclists before they're allowed to ride on the road. That's licensing,
whether you call it that or not. Your follow up comments imply that you're
actually trying to push for easily available and strongly recommended
training programs for riders at all ages, which is considerably different.

The difference is that you don't need enforcement and associated
infrastructure with the second proposal. That's effectively impossible.

I'm not going to comment on the linked discussion, since I'm not entirely
sure to what extent Mr Signorini is playing devil's advocate with that
question.

--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
"When all you've got is a nailgun, every problem looks like a messiah."
- Iain Chalmers
 

Similar threads