My reaction to this initial report on Coroner Johnstone's findings about the death of James Gould is…disappointment.
While I certainly agree with his finding that Mr Gould's death was "unnecessary and preventable", I was hoping (perhaps forlornly) that the Coroner might include some innovative suggestions in his findings. Perhaps some creative idea on the traffic management along Beach Rd on weekends?
But no, we get this:
Unless riders changed their behaviour and stopped running red lights, it was "only a matter of time" before a "catastrophic event" between a car and a group of cyclists occurred, Mr Johnstone said.
Of course he's right but this ignores the fact that the Hell Ride and other packs on Beach Rd are not going to go away—quite the reverse with increasing popularity of cycling. What are his thoughts on managing these growing numbers? If he's got any ideas, they remain unreported.
Numbed by numbers
And what about this:
In delivering his findings, Mr Johnstone quoted "troubling" statistics which showed there were 220 deaths from cycling since 2000.
That's a bit vague, but it certainly doesn't reflect the reality within the Coroner's jurisdiction: road toll statistics show that the five year average for cyclists killed on Victoria's roads annually is 8 (or about 70-80 since 2000). Of course, he could be including other bicycle-related deaths and/or deaths in other jurisdictions, but neither are really relevant to his findings. It just makes cycling look more dangerous than it really is.
I'd like to read the full text of the Coroner's findings, but I'm not particularly satisfied by what's been reported so far.
Improved response
On the other hand, it's good to see Cyclesport Victoria being far more proactive than they were in September last year. The Age quotes some quality comments from Klaus Mueller, including:
it would be a "double tragedy" if Beach Road did not become the world's safest road for cyclists and pedestrians after Mr Gould's death.
Mueller also notes that behaviour on the Hell Ride has improved and that cyclists can't avoid individual responsibility when riding in packs. Too bloody right they can't—and shouldn't expect to do so either.
But most importantly of all:
"In statistical terms, it's an extremely rare event for a cyclist to kill or hurt another road user. It's the cyclists themselves who are far and away the most vulnerable when they break the road rules."
Yes, let's keep it in perspective.
Brilliantly summed up, I referred to it in my blog. Thank you! :)
The Coroner has missed an opportunity to bring sanity and sense to the management and conduct of road bicycle riding. However according to the limited media reports only the sensationalised out of context aspects of unrelated history are dramatised, both by the Coroner and the media. One glaring aspect seemingly being mixed up here is the confusion between recreational riders who partake in Beach Road riding in groups for safety and social sport and a small number of riders who abuse the law. The so called "packs" of 200 do not exist these days, and this continued assertion by the Media and alluded to by the Coroner is in error factually and is to be corrected, if not by the Corner then by all commentators and advocates. Klaus Miller certainly did attempt to explain the current useage by bicyclists on Beach Rd and other popular riding locations. This was largely missed ( purposely?) by the media. Without a thorough examination of the report we cannot say much more. I have been promised a copy of the findings by the Coroner and will report on the Wheels of Justice website in coming days.
What is overdue is a clear acceptance by the media that bicycle riding is a responsible activity by a massive majority of riders. That responsible transport choices involve greater adoption of bicycle riding in our communities and thus the need for a change of attitude by policy makers to the responsibility of all road users for the price of access to roads.
Despite the clamour surrounding the Hell Ride, I think we are seeing a trend towards more positive stories about cycling, such as this one, Catherine Deveney's op-ed and also overseas.
Of course Rob & Co. at WoJ follow this more closely under the positive spin heading, so they would have a better idea than I of whether there actually is a trend.
My sense of it is that as cycling becomes more mainstream, reporting about it will become more sophisticated and nuanced.
Get over it and take responsiblity. It's not a matter of comparing stats to car accidents and so forth. Its about taking responsibility for arsehole behaviour.
The man killed someone through irresponsible riding. And here you all are saying boohoo to cyclists. You seem to show no compasion. Quite disgusting really.
It is a pity the law is so lax in this case. He should have been charged with manslaughter and or at least what drivers get charged with - negligence thorugh dangerous driving.
I was a pedestrian in Sydney for over ten years and on a number of occasions I saw bikes mount curbs and plough into people. The aggressive and sanctimonious attitude of cyclists really got to me.
Now I live in Brisbane and cyclists are continually using pedestrian paths on which they should not. They do not alert pedestrains when they come up quickly behind them and generally treat pedestrian like cars treat cyclist. With complete disdain.
You should have a rethink about your attitudes.
With that being said, cycling - when it is not done by morons who think it is their god given right to behave how they want on the roads - is a great sport.
You should have a rethink about your attitudes.
Well if I wasn't in such a jovial mood I'd say that was black humour on your behalf. No one, for a moment, is saying the tragic death of Mr Gould is excusable. The police charged Raisin-Shaw with a traffic offence, which sadly, under the current road laws, is all they could charge him with.
If anything this tragic, totally avoidable incident illustrates the total disconnect between road rights and responsiblities between road users, be they bike rider, motorist or pedestrian.
If there was true equality, cyclists wouldn't be on the back foot, fighting for their rights when incidents occur. For example, type the name of 'Ian Humphrey', 'Matthew Cole or 'Scott Peoples' into the search engine of your choice. Have their loved ones had real justice served yet? No.
Did Raisin-Shaw leave the scene of the incident? No he didn't. Although his defense in court for collective responsibility over personal responsibility is something I find personally abhorrent.
The death of James Gould should of never occured, although in the last 12 months, how many Victorians have been killed on our roads? How many hundreds, if not thousands, have been injured and suffered massive declines in their quality of life? Do we hear all their names, their stories in the media?
Actually, maybe we should, but until then, why not attempt to put this incident into some intelligent perspective over accepting media hyperbole and subjective perceptions as truth.
I'm not exactly sure how I should "take responsibility" for what happened on the Hell Ride last year. I am on record as saying 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.
I have no connection with the Hell Ride, and therefore feel no inclination to "take responsibility" for what happens on that event. Furthermore I have never attempted to excuse the action of the individual rider concerned or the Hell Ride as a whole.
As to the claim the I "show no compasion", at the time of Mr Gould's death I said:
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.
I respectfully submit that I have not lost sight of the fact that an innocent person lost his life.
On the matter of statistics, I was merely responding to the statistics that the Coroner used.
In respect of the law and punishment, last year when the media was suggesting the cyclist could be charged with manslaughter or conduct endangering life I said:
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.
For the record, I still consider that a mere fine is a woefully inadequate penalty.
I accept that suzanne h visited here on the same day that the "pathetic" penalty was imposed on William Raisin-Shaw, and therefore may have been a bit emptional about that. However suzanne h appears to be applying exactly the same broad generalisations and assumptions that some parts of the media and other commentators used this time last year:
1. The Hell Ride, is practically the same as
2. any other pack ride on Beach Rd, is practically the same as
3. any pack ride anywhere, is practically the same as
4. road cyclists generally, is practically the same as
5. all cyclistsOr more likely, many people would jump straight from 1 to 5: all bloody cyclists are the same.
Hence the bizarre connection with curb-jumpers in Sydney and pedestrian path riders in Brisbane. Am I supposed to "take responsibility" personally for them as well? That's a mighty big ask. But for what it's worth I certainly don't endorse or encourage that sort of behaviour, indeed my message is consistently one of polite and considerate sharing.
If I am guilty of "boohoo-ing" for cyclists, it's because of attitudes like suzanne h's that wants to lump all cyclists—including careful and responsible cyclists like me—into the same category as the reckless and careless. And when people act on such attitudes, the outcome is unlikely to be good.
Unfortunately, it is the same "careful and responsible" cyclists like you that did nothing to stop the ride from deteriorating into the free-for-all that it did. You did nothing to dissuade the 'rolling rolling' mentality that you apparently believe gave you the right to disregard traffic signals. NOTHING. And now a pedestrian is dead, a family is without a grandad, and Mr. Raisin-Shaw is still with the St. Kilda Cycling Club and happily making the team for the Phillip Island Grand Prix in May 2010.
Shameless pack of bastards, aren't you?
Comments
Too many cyclists who continue to break road laws If they think it is too dangerous on Beach Road the simple solution is "Ride on Nepean Highway" No Parked cars there & Early morning rides on weekends have minimal traffic on road