According to Dr John Reid of Monash Uni:
"The only condition under which the Hell Ride would be relatively safe would be if the route was cleared of all other road users and dedicated to the event, much as Albert Park is dedicated to the formula one Grand Prix…It is not, and never can be safe to conduct a competitive event, in effect a race, on a public road being used by other traffic … because the attention of the competitors is fixated on the others against whom they are competing. They are oblivious to extraneous objects, such as … traffic lights and other road users."
I respect his expertise and I certainly see what he's driving at but I'm sure this will come as news to CycleSport Victoria who, I understand [correct me if I'm wrong here], regularly run competitive road events without the benefit of full road closures. Sure the Hell Ride isn't under CSV's auspices and doesn't have any of the same controls in place, but if he's going to ban the Hell Ride simply because it's a competitive event
on a public road, then by the same argument Dr Reid has just laid waste to CSV's calendar of road races.
The comparison to the Grand Prix is unfortunate too: the kind of precautions necessary to keep bystanders safe from racing cars are several orders of magnitude higher than what's needed for public safety near racing cyclists. To most I'm sure the difference is obvious. If he had trouble appreciating the difference Dr Reid could have tuned in to coverage of the Tour de France (but here's a clue: in that event spectators and their dogs are more of a hazard to riders than vice versa).
But he clearly doesn't see the difference, because he's prepared to take his argument to ridiculous lengths:
Dr Reid said the weekly ride…was as dangerous as car drag racing and should not be allowed to continue.
"Everyone would accept and understand why it is illegal to drag-race high-powered cars along, say, Dandenong Road. The only essential difference between drag racing and racing bicycles is the vehicle."
Utter drivel. That line of argument is simply not sustainable. This essential difference
is an enormous difference in terms of speed, weight and potential impact. Meanwhile, no one has ever shown that the Hell Ride even exceeds the speed limit on Beach Rd—it is simply not the same thing as illegal drag racing.
And (to get really petty about it) the "drag racing" comparison is not even an original line: Harry Barber used it last year, and it was just as ludicrous then.
While I'm bitching about pettiness, how about yesterday's reader poll in The Age: Should the notorious Hell Ride be banned?
Hardly a neutral question that.
Anyway, go ahead and ban the Hell Ride—maybe it should be shut down. But I can't see that it will make the slightest difference—those riders along with all the others taking up cycling as a sport will continue to use Beach Rd as a training route. They'd probably just drop the "Hell Ride" tag and continue to ride as normal.
Banning the Hell Ride won't make it go away. All the more reason why 'they' need to find a way to manage it.
well said, couldn't agree more, and I go further to question what research Dr John has to support his claim that his thesis applies to this case. On the evidence it was a failure by a rider to accept his responsibility to observe road laws, it will be his defence that he was "between a rock and a hard place"..I don't accept that, so I disqualify my self as his trial juror already... Every road user has to accept responsibility for actions they take. A rider in a group is no different to a commuting line of traffic racing to get to work...if they are distracted ( by coffee, the blonde in the next car etc) they have an accident and pay the price... James Gould didn't have to die, neither did Amy Gillett, Luke Harrop, Allan Scott Matty Cole, Russel Mockridge, Scott Peoples, Ian Humphrey and countless others at the hands of distracted or angry or tired or substance abused motorists....
I called on Dr John to explain his thesis and the ABC news article today. I'll let all know if he does.
Meantime, when will the media get it right and stop misleading us, even the ABC news photo accompanying Dr John's article claimed it was riders going through a red light, examination shows the riders behind the red light have stopped and those ahead of the red light are leaving the intersection as required by law... enough already... embellishment is one thing, lying is another... thank heavens for Blogs, Twitter and the Internerd.
I presume Rob means this ABC News article and photo.
Yeah, I'd noticed this also used in a previous article with a similar caption and it struck me as odd on a few counts.
- Why is there a clear gap between the riders at the red light and those in the intersection?
- Because the riders at the lights are slowing to a stop while the continuing riders are clearing the intersection.
- Why are a number of riders sitting upright, not in a hunched 'racing' position?
- Because they are stopping.
- Conclusion?
- This photo does not show the Hell Ride running a red light.
I'm not pretending that some riders on the Hell Ride haven't run red lights and for all I know some still do. The point is this photo is not evidence that do. In fact you can only prove that with video or a suitable sequence of photos.
And I will be very keen to hear how Dr Reid responds to Rob's enquiry. I doubt that there is any empirical reseach on this topic.
Comments
Well said!