The death of James Gould has been much on my mind since I first heard the news on the weekend. As with any senseless road trauma, I am horrified at Mr Gould's death and I have found the eyewitness accounts of Mr Gould's dying moments particularly harrowing. My condolences go to his friends.
With regard to the cyclist, I feel sympathy for anyone who inadvertently takes a life but this incident occurred as a direct result of his own recklessness and he will need to reconcile his conscience to that as best he can. Certainly a fine for failing to stop at a red light is not sufficient penalty for the loss of life.
The broader implications—for the Hell Ride specifically and Melbourne cyclists in general—is likely to be profound, and without wishing to disrespect Mr Gould's memory I would like to discuss some of these things here.
Before I go any further, I should clarify that I am not a competitive road cyclist, and I've never been on (or even seen) the Hell Ride. This means that I can only comment on this Melbourne tradition from what I know through reputation and report.
Then why am I qualified to comment at all? Because everything any cyclist does in this town seem to reflect in some way on me and every other cyclist. The non-cycling public does not differentiate: to them, all bloody cyclists are the same.
Furthermore, I consider myself a considerate and law-abiding cyclist, which means that I ride a roadworthy machine, ride with consideration for other road users, and obey the road rules as they apply to cyclists. I do not under any circumstances run red lights. That's not about taking the high moral ground, it's about getting home safely in the evening and living to see my child grow to adulthood.
The collision
More information about the collision may or may not emerge. But at the moment more than a few questions remain, among them:
1. Why didn't Mr Gould see the danger in time?
This isn't about blaming the victim but Mr Gould was a local who regularly walked in the area, so he must have been familiar with how pack riders travel on Beach Rd. So what was peculiar about the conditions when he stepped out onto the road on Saturday? And what are the implications for someone who is not familiar with the Beach Rd pack riders?
2. Why didn't the cyclist see Mr Gould?
At first, the answer seems obvious: pack riders watch the wheel in front of them—to do otherwise is to risk bringing down the whole bunch. But Simon Johanson said in his eyewitness account that There were cries of "slowing" and "lights" from several riders
, so the riders at the head of the bunch had seen the lights change and were trying to stop the bunch. If a rider didn't have a clear view, why wouldn't they stop? And it sounds like several riders continued through the red light.
3. Is the penalty sufficient?
We are appalled when we hear of lightweight penalties handed out to drivers who are responsible for the deaths of cyclists. We should be equally appalled if this rider is punished only with the fine that applies to failing to stop at a red signal. I'm not interested in lynch-mobs or example-making, merely that natural justice should be done. The Herald Sun reckons that
under the right circumstances, cyclists could be charged with manslaughter, which carries a maximum 20-year jail term.
Conduct endangering life could carry a 10-year jail term.
Are either of these the appropriate charges for this cyclist? I really don't know, but I think any fair-minded person would consider a fine of a few hundred dollars a woefully inadequate penalty for negligently causing the death of another human being.
Cyclists demand to be treated as equals on the road, and (as I'm fond of saying) certain responsibilities come with the privilege of using the road, so the cyclist should be appropriately charged. The media seems to be implying that cyclists are to blame for inadequacies or loopholes in the law that don't allow the cyclist to be charged with culpable driving. However, if this cyclist is to be charged under another law (such as conduct endangering life) then as a society we must be prepared to accept that drivers could be similarly charged.
The Hell Ride
By its very name and 'hardcore' reputation, the Hell Ride probably does tend to attract a thrillseeker element, not just those like Timboy who think of it as an important part of the training regime of many racing cyclists
.
In commenting on the behaviour of the Hell Ride, we need to be careful not to over generalise. It seems likely to me that in the same way non-cyclists generalise about cyclists, cyclists who do not participate in the Hell Ride could demonise those who do. There probably are a goodly number of responsible riders in the Hell Ride pack and they have been unfairly tarred with the one brush.
But people freely choose to go on the Hell Ride, and as such they bear some common responsibility for what the group does. I'm not saying the group as a whole is responsible for the death of Mr Gould; but I do not find convincing claims by Hell Ride regulars that it's being spoiled by a new ratbag element. A group that size has the social influence to make everyone play by its rules or go away, but it clearly has not been exercising that influence.
The Hell Ride needs to clean up its reputation. And it needs to do so for the good of all Melbourne cyclists.
Media feeding frenzy
The manner in which the media has reported this incident is not irrelevant. The mainstream media plays a critical role in shaping public opinion and attitudes, including the attitude of the non-cycling majority toward the cycling minority.
As expected the Herald Sun has had a bit of a feeding-frenzy on this issue, with lurid headlines that include such balanced phrases as "bike bullies", "left for dead by speeding cyclists", and "renegade cyclists". Without reading any further, it's easy to see what the editorial line is over at News Ltd.
Nice hook
I can't help but conclude that the prominence given to this death is in large part due to the involvement of the Hell Ride. By way of contrast, on July 10 a 37-year old man was stuck by a cyclist while walking across a street in Brisbane; he later died in hospital. News.com.au dedicated four whole sentences to that death (and they were taken from the AAP feed). There was no other follow-up in the media on that equally tragic case.
What made the death of James Gould so much more newsworthy was a juicy, eye-grabbing hook: The Hell Ride was to blame.
Emotional
And there has been some emotional language used to describe the Hell Ride:
a speeding cyclist in an unofficial race called the "Hell Ride"
Speeding, eh?
The notorious Hell Ride is an unsanctioned weekly race in which up to 200 cyclists ride along Beach Rd and Nepean Highway at speeds of up to 60km/h.
Since when was travelling "at speeds of up to 60km/h" in a 60km/h zone considered speeding?
the controversial "Hell Ride", a thrillseekers' weekend tradition along Beach Road since 1984
Anyone who has ever encountered the Hell Ride will know it has been a whirring accident waiting to happen.
With no regard for the rule of law, it roars around the bay with adrenalin-charged abandon, the riding equivalent of bungy jumping with a frayed rope.
But to be fair, this isn't new. An account of the Hell Ride from The Age in 2002 is equally emotive, saying that it:
tears down Beach Road and the Nepean Highway at speeds of up to 60 kmh.
This is the Hell Ride, Melbourne's most famous and controversial cycling tradition…
…the Hell Ride has transformed into a heart-thumping, ferocious race, which at the height of summer attracts up to 200 cyclists.
Cyclists are heartless bastards
My favourite example of extremely emotive reporting of this issue is the claim by the Herald Sun that Mr Gould was "left for dead by speeding cyclists":
Dozens of speeding cyclists failed to help a dying man knocked down by a rider during a dangerous bayside race.
Witnesses said up to 50 cyclists continued their 60km/h charge in the so-called Hell Ride after the elderly man was struck.
But in the same article we learn that:
only the 30-year-old cyclist from St Kilda who hit Mr Gould and a handful of others stopped.
And from an eyewitness account in The Age:
Another bystander and I rushed to the man's side…Other riders pulled up to help, including a casualty doctor and nurse.
This is absurd. How many people does it take to provide first aid and call an ambulance? A maximum of three first-aiders and one person to make a call. Why do we not criticise all the motorists who drive past the scene of a road accident? It's obvious: once there are enough people to render assistance, anyone else is just a sightseer and in the way.
Absolutely no benefit would be served by "up top 50 cyclists" stopping at the scene. This is pure malicious spin on the part of the Herald Sun and it's a disgrace.
Cyclists react
Hell Ride participants
In general, I think participants in the Hell Ride have done a pretty bad job of managing their media image, in particular their tendency to duck collective responsibility and blame a small ratbag element is not convincing. For example, Robert Crowe was quoted in the Herald Sun:
We've all been worried about something tragic happening for a long time
Which prompts the question: if regular Hell Ride participants knew that this was an "accident waiting to happen", why was nothing done to stop it? Maybe it was. Maybe the dangerous riders have been told to fuck off but they just kept coming?
But regular participant Timboy defends the Hell Ride on his blog:
Let's get the facts straight. The Hell ride does not travel at 60km/h, the average speed is more like 40km/h. The Hell ride bunch doesn't run red lights and takes up one lane of traffic for the majority of the ride. Furthermore, the ride rarely ever contains 100 riders let alone 200.
…the way the incident has been reported in the media suggests that a phalanx of 200 cyclists ran this poor man down running a red light at 60km/h.
Bicycle Victoria
I don't think the comments made by Bicycle Victoria General Manager Harry Barber were particularly helpful:
These are the cyclists' equivalent of illegal drag racers…A small group have started up this illegal activity. Their priority is to stick together and so they ignore traffic signals. The Hell Ride is the despair of the responsible riders. They are a tiny minority and they give all cyclists a bad name.
The drag racing analogy is a bit extreme, and the problem with it is that (as quoted) Barber doesn't clarify what is actually illegal. Pack riding is not illegal. Ignoring traffic signals is. The trouble is, his comments make it sound like Bicycle Victoria thinks that pack riding is inherently a problem.
I'm inclined to agree with Timboy:
Likening the Hell Ride to illegal drag racing is irresponsible, and does nothing to improve the relationship between cyclists, pedestrians and other road users.
As pedaller rightly points out, Bicycle Victoria is not the only (or even most appropriate) body that could comment on this, but CycleSport Victoria is eerily silent about it: there's absolutely no mention of this on their web site, although they have posted a number of other news items since the weekend. Although the Hell Ride is not endorsed by them, you'd think it would be in their interests to come out with some kind of statement.
The Hell Ride web site looks like it's not currently active, but it looks like there's been no special effort to publish some kind of comment there.
Better responses from cycling organisations have been made by the St Kilda Cycling Club, who have placed a short and sincere notice on their home page, and Wheels of Justice, who roundly condemned cyclists who break the law. Comments from the Amy Gillett Foundation were also reported in the Herald Sun.
Bike bloggers
Naturally, cycling bloggers have all had something to say:
With her Wheels of Justice helmet off, cfsmtb called for calm responses and good behaviour on the roads. Likewise, itemisation calls for riders to adhere to the road rules and laments that bike/car relations in Melbourne are reaching some sort of crisis point
.
pedaller lambasted the media and then Harry Barber, and Damian M lambasted asshole cyclists
(and took a swipe at pedaller as well). Surly Dave was equally scathing of Melbourne's legions of cafe racer nobodies
in the Hell Ride.
Interestingly, Sydney roadie Phil Gomes notes that a minority who seem to take particular delight in running the reds
can also be found in other large pack rides—so it's not just the Hell Ride that needs to get on top of this.
And from Chicago, bicycle diaries described the Hell Ride as a lycra critical mass fuled [sic] by amphetamines
—surely he means adrenaline!
After the accident, the bikers gathered, not unlike massers after a bad confrontation with a cager, to blame their irresponsible colleagues and claim that these few idiots don't represent the majority.
Hmm, this similarity to Critical Mass hadn't escaped me either.
Other cyclists
From the letters page of The Age, Matthew Webber puts much of the blame on the police, and bugger personal responsibility:
Not once have I seen a red-light-runner nabbed by police, nor have I ever seen a policeman pull over a bunch for disobeying the two abreast rule.
This is, of course, pure bullshit.
More reasonably, Anthony Siepolt cautions that
the Hell Ride should not be confused with the thousands of other riders who safely and courteously ride on Beach Road every day of the week, getting together for fitness, training and camaraderie.
Or indeed, confused with cyclists getting their exercise on roads and trails anywhere.
Public perceptions
Apart from the media and cyclists, others have taken this opportunity to surface their antipathy towards cyclists, not all of them as hilariously as professional shit-stirrer Andrew Landeryou.
The author of the appropriately named Mangled Thoughts moves swiftly from the actual issues surrounding this incident to suicidal
pedestrians on St Kilda Rd, a commie plot to have the roads handed over to the cretins
(that is, cyclists), and his own thinly veiled lycra fetish.
At Diogenes Lamp we're told that
There is no question that the greatest menace on today's roads is the bicyclist. They take absolutely no notice of stop signs, traffic lights, or trams stopping to pick up passengers.
Apparently this is due to political correctness, and cyclists' belief that
their moral superiority to the rest of the population allows them to flaunt every road law in the state
It's nice that someone I've never met has taken such an interest in my psychology and motivations. In respect of my behaviour and attitude, they couldn't be more wrong on all counts.
Quoted in the Herald Sun, motorcyclist Jodie Barret said There's a cycle track along Beach Rd and [pack riders] should use it
—demonstrating a profound misunderstanding of the conditions that racing cyclists need for training. 40+km/h on a bike trail, anyone?!?
In the letters section of The Age, Bruce Love of Kew makes a highly impractical suggestion: It is highly dangerous to have cars and cycles mixing, and the only way to avoid a continuing death and injury toll for cyclists is to have absolute separation of the two modes of transport.
And the Herald Sun has opened up a forum that (as usual) has quickly turned into a troll trap, while The Age has a readers' poll: Should cyclists come under the same laws and penalties as motorists?
Duh!
Why public opinion matters
Non-cyclists do not differentiate: any cyclists is as good (or bad) as any other. When one cyclist does something wrong, it reflects on all of us. Take as a trivial example, this anecdote from the recent "Red means stop, dickhead" thread on aus.bicycle:
…got to an intersection and stopped on the line at the red light. Another cyclist comes along and blows the red quite blatently. Driver in car next to me winds down window and hurls abuse at me.
"It might of escaped your attention mate, but I'm stoped wating for the green same as you."
Here's a possible line of thought for a non-cyclist:
-
The Hell Ride, is practically the same as
-
any other pack ride on Beach Rd, is practically the same as
-
any pack ride anywhere, is practically the same as
-
road cyclists generally, is practically the same as
-
all cyclists
Or more likely, many people would jump straight from 1 to 5: all bloody cyclists are the same.
This is clearly demonstrated in John Ferguson's opinion piece in the Herald Sun:
Beach Rd in particular would be well served by an identification system, maybe involving numbered bibs, which would enable law breakers to be dealt with.
There could be no greater incentive to adhere to the rule of law than charging hell riders who endanger lives.
The same should go for bike paths.
[emphasis added]
See how quickly the hardcore competitive riders training on Beach Rd are equated with bike path trundlers? They are rarely the same people and their riding styles and speeds are completely different. But non-cyclists will probably never appreciate this distinction.
But at least Ferguson has some understanding that the reputation of cyclists is being degraded by a reckless and selfish few:
In the end, however, there is virtually no sympathy for the plight of the cyclist, no matter the age.
For that, you can thank cyclists who break the law.
Those who ride on the footpath, run red lights and swish past pedestrians at break-neck speed.
Or, if I may borrow the conclusion from itemisation:
If you ride a bike, you represent all of us, so do us a favour and don't be an arsehole. At least TRY to follow the road rules and just maybe motorists will start treating us with some sort of respect.
Or at least, stop treating us with open agression and contempt. I live in hope.
That's a pretty comprehensive summation. I think that anyone who rides in the bunch needs to keep their heads down and lay low for a while.
For what it's worth, I see it the rides by St Kilda CC are something that should not go ahead, although at 6 in the morning most motorists will be in bed. It'll be interesting to see if the media is there at that time.
And I'm gonna disagree with Timboy and say there is no defensible position at the moment given the media. I know how bunches work and what speeds are attained but the public does not, 20 cyclists can look like 100 and 40k can look like 400 as far as they're concerned.
Unfortunately for all of us public and media perceptions rule right now.
As a journalist, I can't see anything wrong with most of the coverage of this story in either of the local papers. The stuff on the op-ed pages is usually rubbish, but there's been some good solid reporting on this one, nothing I'd suggest warranted the tag 'media frenzy'.
There are a more than a few elements which lift this story above the ordinary traffic accident yarn: the innocent and elderly victim, the reknowned poor behaviour of this group of cyclists, the ineffectual police response and the inadequacy of the law. I'm not sure the media's has a culpable role in this, it's a pretty decent yarn and it's been told well.
While I think the sentiment from the St Kilda cycling club is genuine, a memorial ride is very likely to be misunderstood by non-cyclist observers. As someone said on aus.bicycle:
A 'memorial ride' would be like holding a duck hunt in memory of Laurie Levy
Regarding the media, my objection is not so much the media attention per se—Surly Dave identifies several angles that any good journalist would pursue on this story—my beef is that the Herald Sun headlines in particular cast all cyclists in a bad light. Most egregious is the angle taken in the headline and lead paragraphs of the "left for dead by speeding cyclists" article—it's such a non-issue clearly beaten-up to paint cyclists in the worst possible light. Line this up next to the prevailing "all bloody cyclists are the same" attitude, and you see where it leads…
In respect of the Hell Ride or Mr Gould's death, of course the media is not culpable. But the media can take responsibility for the manner in which this story is reported—and the potential effect on public attitudes toward cycling in general. Frankly, I find some of the reporting distasteful because it gives tacit support to the lunatic fringe that would literally drive us off the road.
And reckless though some of its participants may be, there are far greater risks to both pedestrians and cyclists than the Hell Ride.
You're right, the media should take responsibility for the way the story has been reported. But nobody's responsible for public attitudes towards cyclists other than cyclist themelves. The media's only responsibility is to faithfully report the news.
Sometimes our personal biases mean we don't like that way particular issues are covered, but I can assure you the average journalist doesn't have a barrow to push on this one.
But nobody's responsible for public attitudes towards cyclists other than cyclist themelves.
I hate the whole motorist v cyclist thing but does this go for motorists as well? If I see someone in a car do something dumb, or hear of an accident where someone is killed (very rare occurence compared to cyclists causing death...), should I label all motorists as careless and hurl abuse at every one that I see?
The media's only responsibility is to faithfully report the news.
Faith-ful
–adjective
1. strict or thorough in the performance of duty: a faithful worker.
2. true to one's word, promises, vows, etc.
3. steady in allegiance or affection; loyal; constant: faithful friends.
4. reliable, trusted, or believed.
5. adhering or true to fact, a standard, or an original; accurate: a faithful account; a faithful copy.
6. Obsolete. full of faith; believing.
Maybe that will help the relevant media outlets fulfill their responsibilities next time.
A little bit off topic but you know what - I've just realised the hypocrisy here! We, the cyclists, are complaining about the media tarring us all with the same brush, meanwhile we are all doing likewise to the media even though it was only a select few (and the expected ones) that have gone about reporting this incident in a massively irresponsible way. We are talking about it as if the media in general is to blame.
As cyclists we must all thank these particular media outlets for inciting a new wave of road rage against cyclists - I bet there will be no front page stories when a cyclist gets knocked off and killed by an irrational motorist that has been influenced by the ridiculous reporting that I have seen recently...
This whole issue is full of hypocrisy and unfortunately the common motorist in need of some kind of anger release is not going to take enough interest in this issue that they will take notice of anything we do or say and will continue in their ill-illusioned, media-fed, anti-cyclist spree. Time to start taking number plates. Report them all to the police - then watch these same media outlets come up with some story about the rise in anti-cycling hatred. It's a lovely circle for the media vultures. I think I might lump this issue in the "bird flu" basket...
However I do feel that some cyclists do need to take more care and abide by the road rules - after all they are in place to make sure tragedies such as last week's do not occur.
Cheers,
Baz LEFT FOR DEAD?
The rego palavar has been raised again. Surprise, surprise. For my humble opinion, peruse page 7 of the Insight section (Saturday Age 2/9). This time I'm wearing my YarraBUG helmet (even though it's not in shot).
An attempt to put some perspective on this, whether you agree or not.
Cyclists of all types are currently perceived as an "out group". That lumps us in with other notable outgroups of late, remember the Paxtons? Ditto being apparently "UnAustralian" and being a member of Australia's Muslim community blahblah.
Quote from Transport Research Laboratory, courtesy of Wikipedia's "Bicycle Safety" entry:
.. A key finding which should be noted was that, when commenting on the scenarios it was usually the behaviour of the cyclist that was criticised – no matter how small the misdemeanour. Few links were made between the cyclist's behaviour and any external influences that could be affecting their choice of behaviour; i.e. the respondents' comments indicated that they thought the cyclist's actions were inherent and dispositional behaviours.
In contrast, the motorists' misdemeanours were excused or justified in terms of the situational influences. As this tendency seemed to continue across the groups and the individual depth interviews and was unprompted, it is unlikely that group dynamics had any significant effect on this finding. […] This aligns with the psychological prediction of targeting of members of an "out group' …
My POV is don't despair at current attitudes. Obviously, peoples opinions and choices towards transportation, (including us) are in a state of confusion/flux, and the greater community is undergoing radical changes due petrol prices, peak oil (?) and other associated economic nasties.
Longterm cycling will become yet again a "normalised" activity but we're going through a silly phase on the road towards it. ;))
The out group problem is a persistent one, but it is only really a problem when it leads to completely impractical "solutions" like the "all cyclists should obey all the laws all the time" proposed above. When Critical Mass tries this we get pilloried both by the press *and* the cycling community, so I hardly think it's a practical solution for individual cyclists. Even if it was, cyclists are (mostly) human beings just like you and I, and they too break rules and laws all the time.
Yes Chris, motorist lawbreaking is "situational" - they only break traffic laws while driving. Hence the complaint that speed cameras are a tax - almost all motorists speed, almost all the time, so yes, speed cameras are effectively taxation. But "everyone" just accepts that motorists are scofflaws and that's ok. How we resolve that difference I'm not sure - I'm sure we don't really want it accepted that jumping red lights is ok when motorists do it, but the "simple equality" of accpeting that it's ok for cyclists to speed, not pay rego, ride drunk and talk on the phone while riding would obviously not help either.
But if you ever want a real laugh, try riding completely legally. It's a lot more dangerous than flouting the laws. Things to watch are motorists who change lanes in intersections - you might have the right of way, but you can easily be "dead right"; motorists who equate "cyclists are entitled to a whole lane" with suicide and remember, just because you're indicating a turn doesn't mean the motorist behind you will notice and slow down.
I agree with most of the points you've raised Moz, although I'd keep in mind the prevailing perception about cyclists is at a extremely hypersensitive, volatile stage and that does tend to shove commonsense and practical realities right outta of the media spotlight ...
I must have missed the time when commonsense and practical realities were in the media spotlight - I thought the point of the media was to make sure everyone is scared of the bad things, and had someone to take that fear out on. Any out group will always be at a sensitive stage, that's what being an out group is all about. When I was involved in the queer struggle in NZ we regularly got told by closets that we shouldn't make a fuss, that just makes it worse for everyone. Ditto the native forest logging protests (hint: making a fuss was crucial to winning that battle. But so was having good media strategies and sitting down with the various bureaucrazies).
I'm in favour of a "same crime, same time" approach with the media at the moment - make the sod who killed that pedestrian pay the same penalty as a motorist would, but not a worse one. Say, half of what Eugene McGee got sentenced to.
Haha, I was being just a smidgen sarcastic regarding the media!
Intriguing how some people falsly believe the best form of advocacy is to merely placate or remain silent? Point blank: it isn't a wise direction. Far as I'm concerned, be tactful, be moderate when necessary, but do not allow merely silence to our response to stupidity.
so if CSV's comment is so feckin great, and SKCC are so damn wonderful for organising a lame memorial ride to (stifles laughter) 'vote on a code of conduct', which was a pisspoor way of basically saying 'We will, um, , err, abide by the ROAD LAWS' that already exist!!!" and why are SKCC and CSV not canceling the git's membership and licence? Rather hypocritcal of them to do a cheap PR stunt for themselves to grab some media attention and not even own up that the perpetrator is a feckin SKCC MEMBER!@#@#!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i guess Melinda Jacobsen somehow forgot to mention THAT one!!!! Chasing Ambulances isn't noble.
Firstly, I didn't say CSV's comments were great—I actually criticised them for taking so long to make any kind of response.
Secondly, I didn't say SKCC were "wonderful" for organising a memorial ride. In fact I had serious doubts about the wisdom of holding such an event, although I later conceded that it had been treated positively by the media.
Thirdly, I don't know who "the git" is, let alone whether he is a member of SKCC or CSV. I'm not connected with either organisation, but for what it's worth (if he is a member) then I think those organisations should take whatever disciplinary steps they can. Presumably expulsion and license cancellation are both available options. But why ask me? Have you taken your query to SKCC and CSV?
And finally, I commended Melinda Jacobson on how well she came across in the media, and that's all. I don't know if her statements at the time were factual or if she deliberately omitted information. If "the git" is a SKCC member and if Ms Jacobsen knew that at that time, then I agree that it would have been wise and honest for her to say so.
All is not necessarily as it seems! Now that the inquest is over, and we are waiting for the coroner's report, something to think about.
My group came upon the James Gould accident shortly after it happened, and the body was 30 meters east of the crossing, on the Mordialloc side - he was apparently (and I say apparently) hit BEFORE the crossing. This might explain why the cyclist has only been charged with running a light, and not manslaughter.
If this is what happened then running the light had NOTHING to do with the accident or the death. In fact, if the accident occurred BEFORE the crossing, then it was the pedestrian who recklessly put his own health and others at risk by walking out, with his hands up saying "red light" - and he paid a high price for it.
I have ridden in the Hell Ride (it used to be called the Frankston Derby), and they are fast and dangerous. BUT there are not 200, and while they do 60 ks at times, that is the speed limit. A friend who was there that day, but didn't see the accident, said they were slowing down for the light when some riders came round the outside, and it looks like Gould was hit then - but BEFORE the crossing. For manslaughter there has to be reckless conduct leading to death. No reckless conduct - then no manslaughter.
Now, the big issue is the media coverage. Sam Elder, the daughter of a good friend, was killed in January, hit from behind by a car travelling too close. She fell, he killed her. A genuine accident. Another young man, Anton Bartlett, was hit from behind the same day and died, and that was culpable driving - but their deaths each got one column inch on page 10.
James Gould's death, apparently caused by his own reckless behaviour, got pages and pages of hysteria, police presence, puffing and blowing from Harry Barber and all the other social cyclists. If a cyclist had been killed as a result of this event, what would have been the reaction - we don't have to wonder at all. One column inch on page 10.
We need balance. Two pedestrians, to my knowledge, have died being hit by a bicycle. One was a stupid person who stepped in front of a racing triathlete (I think Dean Woods from memory); the other was James Gould, and his facts are yet to come out. I think his story will fade away, and we will never hear the facts becuase it doesn't make a good story. It will become an urban myth - but a completely wrong urban myth that does none of us any good whatsoever. All the time cyclists are being killed by cars - and on Beach Road we had people winding the window down and calling us "murderers"!!!
Pip
Comments
As a coach, who works with racing & training cyclists, maybe you'd be interested in my position on this issue :
http://www.aboc.com.au/tips-and-hints/bunch-ride-safety/
cheers
Carl