Postby ben on Mon 11/Aug/03 11:26am

Tama wrote:
Spacemonkey wrote:It apears to me that Ingrid Anderson got done because she misslead the competitors into thinking that the summit road was closed.....which apears to have been no more than a ruse to keep out unentered riders from the road.
a home video of the prestart anouncement's showed her Stating that the
summit road was a closed road. :eh:

Oh - shows how much I know... That's a pretty fucking stupid thing to do.


My (previous) understanding was the start of the sumit road about 200 meters was closed, to keep out non paying entrants.
ben
Member for: 14 years 7 months

Postby fraserb on Mon 11/Aug/03 11:32am

ben wrote: Even if you have a MAGIC disclaimer, you still expect there be some compedncy of of the people who you singed it with.



isnt that ment to be sung it with? :eh:
or am i getting too carried away with this grammer/bad proof reading topic
fraserb
User avatar
Member for: 14 years 4 months

Postby Henry Dorset Case on Mon 11/Aug/03 11:35am

Tama wrote:
faceplant wrote:Well fellas, let's put it this way. I'm VERY carefully contemplating pulling ANY plans to organise any more downhill races after this ruling.

Agreed - after having my hand in 35+ events over the past years I can tell your three important things about organising MTB events:
* You make no money
* You lose part of your sanity
* You do it for love of the sport

I'm not putting my life on the line because people take risks in competitive situations - a piece of well known common-sense which seems to have been forgotten by a whole bunch of people in Christchurch.

It's a tragedy that Vanessa Caldwell died, but prosecuting Astrid Anderson will not bring her back, it will just mean there are less people who are willing to put their time and sanity into running events.


I must say I am surprised also that she was convicted. The video clip I saw was of her saying the road wasn't closed, but none of us here sat through three weeks of evidence.

A note too, about waivers etc. Remember this is a criminal prosecution brought by the police (i.e. you and I) and that the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. The waiver (if worded correctly) probably would be effective against a claim by a punter (or their estate) against event organisers because it is a civil claim, the threshold is lower (balance of probabilities) and ACC "no fault" regime. Hard to argue on behalf of an estate that the person didnt know of the risk when the waiver says "I understand there is a risk and I choose to compete anyway"

Very interesting article on outside.com which I cant now find from a US perspective....

Interesting it will be to see if (in the event that any events are organised) the entry fee goes through the roof, because of insurance etc.

I remember at the rainbow rage this year, in the pre race briefing Mike Gane making the point that the road was open (about three times) It was also on the entry form in big bold letters.
Henry Dorset Case
User avatar
"[b]DO THEY SPEAK ENGLISH IN WHAT?[/b]"
Member for: 15 years 6 months

Postby E Dogg Capizzle on Mon 11/Aug/03 11:41am

Henry Dorset Case wrote:I remember at the rainbow rage this year.


Every time I hear that name I think: queer dance party. :eh:
E Dogg Capizzle
User avatar
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."
Member for: 15 years 1 month

Postby ben on Mon 11/Aug/03 11:45am

fraserb wrote:
ben wrote: Even if you have a MAGIC disclaimer, you still expect there be some compedncy of of the people who you singed it with.



isnt that ment to be sung it with? :eh:
or am i getting too carried away with this grammer/bad proof reading topic


haha :> sung is the past tense of sing, it'd be funni to sing a disclaimer before an event. Maybe the correct word is signded

Yep bu i think my grammer could be better.

How about...

Even if you have signed an 'imaginary MAGIC disclaimer', you would still expect there be some compedncy of of the organizer.
ben
Member for: 14 years 7 months

Postby fraserb on Mon 11/Aug/03 11:45am

but do you then get your dancing pants on doc?
:D

not that there is anything wrong with that of course :paranoid:
fraserb
User avatar
Member for: 14 years 4 months

Postby ben on Mon 11/Aug/03 11:48am

Evil Dr Capek wrote:
Henry Dorset Case wrote:I remember at the rainbow rage this year.


Every time I hear that name I think: queer dance party. :eh:


Yep just another gay Nelson event eh ;) I almost went to this year thanks for telling me ;)
ben
Member for: 14 years 7 months

Back on topic

Postby ben on Mon 11/Aug/03 11:55am

http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail ... -7,00.html

"The jury decided Anderson had failed to take reasonable care as director of a Christchurch cycle race..."
ben
Member for: 14 years 7 months

Re: Back on topic

Postby Henry Dorset Case on Mon 11/Aug/03 12:32pm

ben wrote:http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,212316-1-7,00.html

"The jury decided Anderson had failed to take reasonable care as director of a Christchurch cycle race..."


don't confuse the intention required with the level of proof required to meet the charge.

The Crimes act 1961 says

145.Criminal nuisance—



(1)Every one commits criminal nuisance who does any unlawful act or omits to discharge any legal duty, such act or omission being one which he knew would endanger the lives, safety, or health of the public, or the life, safety, or health of any individual.





(2)Every one who commits criminal nuisance is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year


So the legal duty was to take reasonable care to ensure that competitors knew the road was open, and that there might be oncoming traffic. "He" also had to know that by failing to take that reasonable care then the life, safety or health of an individual might be endangered.

It seems obvious that if the first leg was proved, then the second leg was a given.

Hence the evidence from competitors (what they heard or understood), the organiser (what she said, what was on the entry form), and independent experts. (what should have been said or signed or organised), and the question for the jury was therefore "was what was done reasonable in all the circumstances". Once they decided that more should have been done (beyond a reasonable doubt) then conviction is a given. Like I said earlier, none of us sat through the evidence, or was in the jury room, so we really are speculating in a vacuum.

Did anyone here do the event in the year in question? Or this year? If both, what were the organisational differences if any?

Fascinating.
Henry Dorset Case
User avatar
"[b]DO THEY SPEAK ENGLISH IN WHAT?[/b]"
Member for: 15 years 6 months

Postby Henry Dorset Case on Mon 11/Aug/03 1:00pm

Evil Dr Capek wrote:
Henry Dorset Case wrote:I remember at the rainbow rage this year.


Every time I hear that name I think: queer dance party. :eh:


a queer dance party would have been WAAAAAY more fun than the event. I did not have a good time.

oh no.
Henry Dorset Case
User avatar
"[b]DO THEY SPEAK ENGLISH IN WHAT?[/b]"
Member for: 15 years 6 months

Postby Spacemonkey on Mon 11/Aug/03 8:46pm

fraserb wrote:
ben wrote: Even if you have a MAGIC disclaimer, you still expect there be some compedncy of of the people who you singed it with.



isnt that ment to be sung it with? :eh:
or am i getting too carried away with this grammer/bad proof reading topic


*ahem*......If one was to give GRAMMAR advise, one would do well to at
the very least spell GRAMMAR correctly. :rolleyes:

Oh yes and .......Start new sentences with capital Letters, also I think that "I" needs to be a Capital as well.
Or am I just being a Prozac swallowing Simian about all this? :eh:


ps The grammar / proof reading thing was a different thread. :hmmm:
Cross thread contamination is a sin young man. :angry:
Spacemonkey
Member for: 15 years 5 months

Postby spg on Mon 11/Aug/03 9:03pm

It will be a sad thing if this, and the similar motor sport case, causes events not to be run due to fears of possible future court cases.
But having said that it appears that if you ensure you cover your bases and state the race conditions and possible hazards then you should be OK, and it appears most people do this. :thumbsup:
And people who enter owe it to themselves to play their part in this too.
spg
Member for: 14 years 10 months

Postby Spacemonkey on Mon 11/Aug/03 9:17pm

Henry Dorset Case wrote:
I must say I am surprised also that she was convicted. The video clip I saw was of her saying the road wasn't closed, but none of us here sat through three weeks of evidence.



Hmmm :hmmm: Possibly I missheard that segment of the News report on One. :eh:


But I would still like too know what is the legal status of the Road Code, in regards to roads temporarily closed for races.
If the various government laws are legaly suspended for the duration of
the event or not and Who is authorised to suspend them.

If you just get the local council to approve it I would be worryed given what has happened with all the people arrested and fined in Mt Maunganui.
Due to a public drinking bylaw from the local council.
It now turns out that they were not allowed to do this. The Crown has
stated that they will not oppose anyone who seeks to have this criminal
conviction overturned.



ps Many apologys to Frazerb and others for any Grammatical or otherwise errors that have unwittingly be introduced into the post
Spacemonkey
Member for: 15 years 5 months

Postby Percy Pig on Mon 11/Aug/03 9:47pm

spg wrote:It will be a sad thing if this, and the similar motor sport case, causes events not to be run due to fears of possible future court cases.
But having said that it appears that if you ensure you cover your bases and state the race conditions and possible hazards then you should be OK, and it appears most people do this. :thumbsup:
And people who enter owe it to themselves to play their part in this too.


This is a big part of any event,all entrants must read and understant the conditions of entry.
When I did the Molesworth muster I was under no illusions that the road was open,and there could be punters driving up Jollies pass while I was fanging down at warp factor 11!! :0
But that was all part of the "fun"!! :crazy:
Percy Pig
User avatar
"Got a bone?"
Member for: 15 years 5 months

Postby Friendly Llama on Mon 11/Aug/03 10:14pm

OK
Friendly Llama
Member for: 14 years 2 months

Crime | Cycling | Events | Road Cycling | Road Racing | Sifting - Latest Posts

Who is online

44 Users browsing this website: DotBot, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 40 guests

REMEBER TO CLICK THE LINKS WHEN BUYING FROM VORB SUPPORTERS


  • Vorb Shop
  • Wiggle
  • Chain Reaction Cycles
  • GT Bicycles
  • Merlin Cycles
  • ProBikeKit
  • Torpedo7