Lycra-clad cycling psychos kill 77-year-old



A

Arthur Brain

Guest
By Emily Power

August 08, 2007 02:39pm
Article from: Herald Sun

A MAGISTRATE who today fined a cyclist who ran a red light in an
incident that killed an elderly pedestrian admitted it was a
"pathetic" penalty.

William-Raisin Shaw, 30, of St Kilda, pleaded guilty in Melbourne
Magistrates Court to a charge of failing to stop at a red light.

A pack of cyclists taking part in a Hell Ride slammed into 77-year-old
James Gould as he crossed Beach Rd at Mentone on a green signal on
August 26 last year.

The Hell Ride is an informal Saturday morning ride from Black Rock to
Mt Eliza and back.


Defence lawyer Michael Sharpley said Raisin-Shaw found himself in the
middle of a pack, some who yelled "rolling, rolling" to indicate their
intention to run the red light.

"One must not underestimate group dynamics and group pressure," Mr
Sharpley said.

At an inquest into Mr Gould's death, coroner Graeme Johnstone said the
Hell Ride was not suitable for suburban streets or main roads. He
highlighted a police submission which said the Hell Ride had
"degenerated into a disorganised race''.
 
Arthur Brain wrote:
> By Emily Power
>
> August 08, 2007 02:39pm
> Article from: Herald Sun
>
> A MAGISTRATE who today fined a cyclist who ran a red light in an
> incident that killed an elderly pedestrian admitted it was a
> "pathetic" penalty.
>
> William-Raisin Shaw, 30, of St Kilda, pleaded guilty in Melbourne
> Magistrates Court to a charge of failing to stop at a red light.
>
> A pack of cyclists taking part in a Hell Ride slammed into 77-year-old
> James Gould as he crossed Beach Rd at Mentone on a green signal on
> August 26 last year.
>
> The Hell Ride is an informal Saturday morning ride from Black Rock to


If "A pack of cyclists taking part in a Hell Ride slammed into" why
was only one charged?

Usual redtop rubbish?
 
Arthur Brain wrote:
>
> William-Raisin Shaw, 30, of St Kilda, pleaded guilty in Melbourne
> Magistrates Court to a charge of failing to stop at a red light.
>

What has this got to do with uk.rec.cycling unless Arfur Brain is doing
a lame attempt at a troll?

Tony
 
On Aug 8, 10:45 am, Arthur Brain <[email protected]> wrote:
> By Emily Power
>
> August 08, 2007 02:39pm
> Article from: Herald Sun
>
> A MAGISTRATE who today fined a cyclist who ran a red light in an
> incident that killed an elderly pedestrian admitted it was a
> "pathetic" penalty.
>
> William-Raisin Shaw, 30, of St Kilda, pleaded guilty in Melbourne
> Magistrates Court to a charge of failing to stop at a red light.
>

I wonder just how many threads could be started on here each day about
speeding, red-light running, drunken, drugged, mobile phone using and
other wise anti-social drivers who have killed someone and escaped
with fine if people started scanning the world's media for examples?
 
Howard wrote:
> On Aug 8, 10:45 am, Arthur Brain <[email protected]> wrote:
>> By Emily Power
>>
>> August 08, 2007 02:39pm
>> Article from: Herald Sun
>>
>> A MAGISTRATE who today fined a cyclist who ran a red light in an
>> incident that killed an elderly pedestrian admitted it was a
>> "pathetic" penalty.
>>
>> William-Raisin Shaw, 30, of St Kilda, pleaded guilty in Melbourne
>> Magistrates Court to a charge of failing to stop at a red light.
>>
>
> I wonder just how many threads could be started on here each day about
> speeding, red-light running, drunken, drugged, mobile phone using and
> other wise anti-social drivers who have killed someone and escaped
> with fine if people started scanning the world's media for examples?

Not on here - this is uk.rec.CYCLING. Try uk.rec.driving if /that/ is
your interest.

As a cyclist you should welcome reports, good and bad, of cycling news.
We can surely all benefit from hearing the experiences of others,
and that story conveys an important point.

--
Matt B
 
[x-posted twonkery removed]

In news:[email protected],
Tony Raven <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

> What has this got to do with uk.rec.cycling unless Arfur Brain is
> doing a lame attempt at a troll?


I think he's trying to tell World+Dog that this is indeed all he has
upstairs.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
My only hope in life is to die before I get my comeuppence.
 
Matt B wrote:

> that story conveys an important point.

The point being don't travel to Australia , take part in "hell ride"
and don't knock over any 77 year olds.

--
'S rioghal mo dhream.

www.cheesesoup.myby.co.uk
 
$ Australian 215 = £91.0298

Per life, this is more than double the amount a UK driver was fined
for killing four cyclists.
 
On 8 Aug, 10:52, soup <[email protected]> wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
> > that story conveys an important point.
>
> The point being don't travel to Australia

Australia is indeed 2nd most dangerous place in world in terms of
number of UK toursits killed (Grauniad Aug 3rd).
 
spindrift wrote:
> $ Australian 215 = £91.0298
>
> Per life, this is more than double the amount a UK driver was fined
> for killing four cyclists.

Which one was that then - remember you said "for killing four cyclists",
so the conviction must have been for: murder, manslaughter, causing
death by..., or similar.

Please don't attempt to suggest that fines for technical victimless
motoring offences discovered when investigating a fatal crash are or
should be related to any deaths which resulted from /other/ causes.

--
Matt B
 
On 8 Aug, 11:01, POHB <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8 Aug, 10:52, soup <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Matt B wrote:
> > > that story conveys an important point.
>
> > The point being don't travel to Australia
>
> Australia is indeed 2nd most dangerous place in world in terms of
> number of UK toursits killed (Grauniad Aug 3rd).

Plus of course a motorist doesn't even lose their licence permanantly
after deliberately using their car as a weapon against vulnerable road
users:

http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/motorcarnage/baxter.html
 
spindrift wrote:
> On 8 Aug, 11:01, POHB <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 8 Aug, 10:52, soup <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Matt B wrote:
>>>> that story conveys an important point.
>>> The point being don't travel to Australia
>> Australia is indeed 2nd most dangerous place in world in terms of
>> number of UK toursits killed (Grauniad Aug 3rd).
>
> Plus of course a motorist doesn't even lose their licence permanantly
> after deliberately using their car as a weapon against vulnerable road
> users:

So let us get this clear: Do you think that the cyclist in the
Australian case got the correct sentence?

--
Matt B
 
On 8 Aug, 12:48, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
> So let us get this clear: Do you think that the cyclist in the
> Australian case got the correct sentence?

The original article leaves much to the imagination. Including the
minor detail of whether the cyclist being fined was the cyclist (or
one of the cyclists) that hit the pensioner. The implication is that
he was being charged with running a red light and given the nature of
the article (Leading with a comment from the judge about it being
inappropriate), the absence of detail regarding his involvement is
telling.

If he was being charged with running the red light, then what did they
do with the other cyclists? He was clearly not the only one... was he
the only one caught? Were the others being charged with stronger
crimes?

With regard to the more general question that you seem to be posing.
If a "technical" crime results in a death, the charge should change to
manslaughter (or the equivalent). That is to say, that there is a
difference between running a red light and running a red light and
killing someone. This does not mean that the former is not a crime,
just that the latter is a worse one. Extrapolate to the general case
in your own time.

Jon
 
Jon has moved ! wrote:
> On 8 Aug, 12:48, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>> So let us get this clear: Do you think that the cyclist in the
>> Australian case got the correct sentence?
>
> The original article leaves much to the imagination.

Yes, they usually do. That doesn't usually stop many regulars here from
speculating as to how wicked the motorist must have been though,
especially if a cyclists is also involved.

> Including the
> minor detail of whether the cyclist being fined was the cyclist (or
> one of the cyclists) that hit the pensioner.

Ah, so getting "the right man" is important to you too.

> The implication is that
> he was being charged with running a red light and given the nature of
> the article (Leading with a comment from the judge about it being
> inappropriate), the absence of detail regarding his involvement is
> telling.

"Telling", no, just missing.

> If he was being charged with running the red light, then what did they
> do with the other cyclists? He was clearly not the only one... was he
> the only one caught? Were the others being charged with stronger
> crimes?

It doesn't say. What is the point guessing?

> With regard to the more general question that you seem to be posing.
> If a "technical" crime results in a death, the charge should change to
> manslaughter (or the equivalent).

So you'd agree that crimes created specifically to make charging
motorists easier, such as the causing death by... should be repealed,
and that the normal manslaughter charges, available for all other
violent deaths, should be used.

> That is to say, that there is a
> difference between running a red light and running a red light and
> killing someone.

Absolutely, but the "technical offence" tends to distract attention, it
is easier to prosecute as it doesn't need much effort to prove it.

> This does not mean that the former is not a crime,
> just that the latter is a worse one.

A victimless crime is hardly a "crime" really.

> Extrapolate to the general case
> in your own time.

Thank you.

--
Matt B
 
On 8 Aug, 13:38, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
> Ah, so getting "the right man" is important to you too.

More "getting all the right men, for the right reasons".

> "Telling", no, just missing.

No. "Telling". Had the article been simple factual reporting it would
have been "missing", but given that the opening paragraph, the report
is not about the incident, nor the fine, but the opinion of the judge.
It then offers a sketchy background on the case which is notably free
from eye witness reports.

> It doesn't say. What is the point guessing?

The point is to demonstrate how much information the article lacks.

> So you'd agree that crimes created specifically to make charging
> motorists easier, such as the causing death by... should be repealed,
> and that the normal manslaughter charges, available for all other
> violent deaths, should be used.

Absolutely. I think I'm already on record as suggesting that deaths
caused by dangerous driving should be classified as manslaughter or
murder according to the circumstances.

> Absolutely, but the "technical offence" tends to distract attention, it
> is easier to prosecute as it doesn't need much effort to prove it.

The "technical offence" is still a crime however. Whether or not it is
easy to prosecute with a camera does not change the fact that it was a
crime before cameras were introduced. It distracts nothing.

> A victimless crime is hardly a "crime" really.

And here we leave the world of "society". Society has elected (through
various systems) to classify red-light running, traveling faster than
the speed limit, parking outside the designated areas etc. as crimes.
That in any given situation it may be hard to identify the victim,
does not change the statutes. The crimes are not new, they are not
hard to avoid, to complain that they are unfair is missing the point.
Despite driving for many years I have no points on my licence, this is
partly due to good luck, but after a few years and some experience,
due to following the rules.

If I jump a red light and kill someone I would expect to be charged
with both the "technical crime" and manslaughter.

I would apply the same standards to the cyclist in the original
report.

Jon

> > Extrapolate to the general case
> > in your own time.
>
> Thank you.
>
> --
> Matt B
 
Jon has moved ! wrote:
> On 8 Aug, 12:48, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>> So let us get this clear: Do you think that the cyclist in the
>> Australian case got the correct sentence?
>
> The original article leaves much to the imagination. Including the
> minor detail of whether the cyclist being fined was the cyclist (or
> one of the cyclists) that hit the pensioner. The implication is that
> he was being charged with running a red light and given the nature of
> the article (Leading with a comment from the judge about it being
> inappropriate), the absence of detail regarding his involvement is
> telling.

The cyclist was charged with jumping a red light, and
given the maximum possible fine for that. Although the
cyclist admitted hitting the pedestrian, his was not
charged directly for this (which IMHO was wrong).

> If he was being charged with running the red light, then what did they
> do with the other cyclists? He was clearly not the only one... was he
> the only one caught? Were the others being charged with stronger
> crimes?

From the article I read, some of the cyclists at the
front passed on a green, some to the left stopped for the
red, and some to the rear shouted their intent to run the red.

Unless individual cyclists admitted to jumping the red, I
think it would be hard to prosecute them.
 
"marc"

>
> If "A pack of cyclists taking part in a Hell Ride slammed into" why was
> only one charged?



** As he was the one who hit the elderly gentleman - he of course stopped.

No other charge was laid by the police.



........ Phil
 
"Martin Dann"

> A quick search of the web shows that this story is over four months old.


** No - the story is about what happened in court a few hours ago.




........ Phil
 
Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

> Howard wrote:
> > On Aug 8, 10:45 am, Arthur Brain <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> By Emily Power
> >>
> >> August 08, 2007 02:39pm
> >> Article from: Herald Sun
> >>
> >> A MAGISTRATE who today fined a cyclist who ran a red light in an
> >> incident that killed an elderly pedestrian admitted it was a
> >> "pathetic" penalty.
> >>
> >> William-Raisin Shaw, 30, of St Kilda, pleaded guilty in Melbourne
> >> Magistrates Court to a charge of failing to stop at a red light.
> >>
> >
> > I wonder just how many threads could be started on here each day about
> > speeding, red-light running, drunken, drugged, mobile phone using and
> > other wise anti-social drivers who have killed someone and escaped
> > with fine if people started scanning the world's media for examples?
>
> Not on here - this is uk.rec.CYCLING. Try uk.rec.driving if /that/ is
> your interest.
>
> As a cyclist you should welcome reports, good and bad, of cycling news.
> We can surely all benefit from hearing the experiences of others,
> and that story conveys an important point.

matt meet kettle, kettle meet matt.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
'Lycra-clad cycle-fascists'
Replies
2
Views
2K
UK and Europe
DSK
DSK
B
Lycra poseurs needed in London tomorrow morning
Replies
3
Views
223
UK and Europe
Dan Gregory
D
H
I do not... (was Re: Wafflycat slammed as "nutter" in Obs article on Lycra Louts)
Replies
2
Views
294
UK and Europe
Tim Downie
T
D
Wafflycat slammed as "nutter" in Obs article on Lycra Louts
Replies
116
Views
2K
UK and Europe
Rob Morley
R
S
Lycra lout "killer" reply.
Replies
10
Views
548
UK and Europe
Alan Braggins
A
Top Bottom Back