Cycle Event Director criminally liable for Competitor's deat

[CNZero]

Astrid Anderson, director of the 'LeRace' cycling event over a challenging 100km winding hill course over two hill ranges between
Christchurch City and Akaroa was today found guilty of a 'criminal negligence' charge. The event catered for a wide range of cyclists, from 'semi-professional racing cyclists' right down to 'weekend wheelers'. The charge was laid followed the death of an inexperienced cyclist who had crossed over the centre line of the road, while starting to overtake two other cyclists on a downhill section. The cyclist collided with an oncoming car, with fatal results.

Competitors had signed a waver to the effect that they were competing at their own risk. However, while this waver can legally cover civil litigation, it cannot exhonerate the race director if the police decide to bring a criminal charge against him/her.

The charge was brought by the police because there was doubt that the literature of the event clearly indicated that a section of the course called the 'summit road', where the accident occurred, was not closed.

Both the pre-race literature, and briefing, made reference to a 'road closure' on the 'summit road' to weed out so called 'sneaky cyclists' who had not paid to enter the event. This 'road closure' was in fact a check point to stop support vehicles and unentered cyclists from following event cyclists over the road. The road was not closed to other traffic. Nevertheless 'road closure' was the legally correct term for this check point, according to local council regulations.

Equally importantly for the case there were two completely separate 'summit roads' (the legally correct name for both roads was the same), corresponding to each of the two hill ranges crossed. The accident occurred on the second 'summit road' where there was no check point.

The police alleged that the inclusion of the phrase 'road closure on the summit road' both in ther pre-race literature and the pre-race briefing was confusing. They further went on to say that the race director had identified 'competitors not getting the right information' as a hazard correctly identified in the health and safety plan for the event. This health and safety plan was written and signed off by the race director. Finally the police identified that 'there is a culture within bike racing of using all of the road' when a road is closed, and by not making the information of the road closure clear (there were no 'road open' signs placed along the route)
the event organizer had contributed to the death of the competitor.

The defence contended that the competitor had died as a result of their own carelessness or even recklessness by attempting a passing maneuvre where there was insufficient visibility. Furthermore the defence contended that the written pre-race information was not misleading when read in context. The phrase 'road closure' occurred only in the section of the pre race pamphlet under the sub header of 'sneaky cyclists'. The one sentence that used the words 'road closure', had an adjunct phrase linked by a dash that made this contextual meaning perfectly clear. Furthermore the defence produced evidence that the dead competitor had seen at least three vehicles (one of which was a logging truck) come out of the summit road before they entered it. The defence also produced evidence that the dead competitor would have passed a milk tanker and possibly two or three additional vehicles between the start of the summit road and the accident site. The contention here was that even if the competitor had misread the instructions and believed the road to be closed the presence of occasional vehicles on the road would have dispelled this myth. The defence also contended that other phrases used in the pre-race documentation ('read these instructions carefully', 'keep left' and 'obey the road rules at all times') should have meant that any reasonable competitor should not have placed their bicycle on the road in a position of risk. The defence furthermore contended that 'road open' signs were not required because 'the road is always open'.

Further details are available at these links

http://www.lerace.co.nz/

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2622998a10,00.html

Comments anyone?

[CNZero]

I've strung all your comments together Ross, as I hope that will give a picture of your point of view that I can understand more easily.
I accept your definition of 'professional sport'. Now going back to my question.

You are saying that if you observe a bike rider taking risks, then such 'risky riding' may be an indicator that the rider is a professional. After all, if there was no money at stake why would an amateur rider take such risks in the same circumstances?

Have I read between the lines correctly? Is that how you see the link between 'risky riding' and 'professionalism' Ross?

[CNZero]

Indeed it was a criminal case. However, the police waited almost a year before deciding to prosecute. In other words it took some time for them to figure out if indeed there was a case to answer.

[Aladdin Sane]

Canada used to hold a world cup event (believe it or not) around one of the eastern cities.

[xenobytes]

It wasn't a specific event. Like the judge this time said, no one was supposed to change the whole culture just because someone was being held financially and criminally liable for something that previously they weren't being held liable for. It was more a weird zeitgeist change. About then, for the first time, the US racing assoc got insurance. And racing license fees went up a little bit. I recall a lot of squawk and surprise. Why did we need insurance? Racers would never sue the racing people, would they? That would be cutting off nose to spite face, right? The culture was stunned. It was also our first introduction to a gag order or silence as term of agreement.
No one was talking about what had happened or why. The culture of no one being able to legally discuss terms of settlements was suddenly a public thing. I recall never hearing of such a thing before. The USCF wouldn't tell us why they had to do it but that it was simply needed now. It was a shock.

There were many race events for all kinds of sports before this period, they were cheap and had big prize-purses. I recall $5K-$10K purses most weekends in the midwest for $5 entry fees. Hairnet helmets. At this time there was also a strong civic-public culture happening (growing much bigger since about 1974 as I recall)---the cross-US cycling rage hit as we built up to the US bicentennial and people camped everywhere, lawns were freely given up, there seemed a sense of neighborliness. Hitchhiking was booming as well, but a bit more problematic, being allied with vagrancy, still many thousands were basically wandering the land, having fun freely. Large vacant lots near suburbs frequently attracked trailmakers and dirt-racing of all kinds, bonfires, trash-heaps.

Then the insurance fee announcement hit.

A couple years later the fee threatened to become huge. A hue and cry went up. It was knocked back but still sizeable and has been with us since. The liability culture hit about 1982, approx. That is, I don't recall it being noticeable in, say, 1981 and was definitely here in '85. So it was around the early 80's.

Race organizing shifted radically. At first huge numbers cancelled, then there was a comeback as organizers adapted somehow. My other outdoor activities involve things like hunting, fishing, camping and hiking. I noticed about then that there was a total clampdown on landowners giving permission for people to be harmlessly on their land, citing liability. Lands were posted heavily and it seemed like casual use of vacant land dropped way off.

When it's something definite, obvious, intentional, ec., sure that's not fair. But what about the unpredictables?
Even in terms of organization? Heck, I recall real race routes and official routes deviating quite often, lead vehicles taking riders off course. An organizer tries to get everything lined up but 'stuff' easily happens. Once the gun goes off the real race starts and everyone is obliged to be heads-up. Oh well I suppose it's all a matter of what's reasonable to expect from an organizer. Perfection? No. How much imperfection? The culture decides, I guess.

This kind of thing is far more easily enforced than what happens on the ground at all points of a course. Or even than making sure all paperwork instructions to every staffer on the course matches up with what is desired. Or that staffers follow thru with all paperwork. Whew.

But today I suspect that organizers are held liable for everything regarding this. It would not have had to be a paper instruction gaffe to wreck this lady. Or are events more immune to harm from lawsuit or threat thereof than
I'm thinking? Well, I'm thinking that if they are then it's only because they've paid out about 1,000X more in overhead costs than was done in 1980, raising the $ barrier to both organizing and participating and hugely impacting other public culture as well. So even if organizers can protect themselves what is the price we've all paid?

I wonder if we'll see a reduction of injury. Hope so! Serious injuries are fairly low and quirky anyway. Maybe a couple a year. Hard to imagine that changing. The whole pro culture gets to enjoy more heat, weight and sweat though. Have fun, boys!

At least it's not a fullface helmet. Ouch---> of the maybe 6 top riders I know well, 3 have had serious face-caving injuries. Yuck. Fullface helmets would've protected them all.

OK, there are organizer changes that do help safety, of course. Riders advocate for them and sometimes get them.

[CNZero]

Just ride through the check point. No problem if you were an official entrant :-)

Oh, you are talking about the so called 'sneaky cyclists'. You could get yourself in the middle of a large group of official entrant cyclists and hope the spotters did not see you.

The point I was making though, was that if you knew exactly where the check point was, it would be much easier to devise a plan to avoid it, even if it meant missing out that section of the road entirely (by carrying straight on at the 'Sign of the Kiwi' and rejoining the course at 'Gebbies Pass'). But yes there are legitimate walking tracks on the Port Hills and I am sure that if you knew exactly where the check point was going to be it wouldn't be too difficult to avoid, by going 'cross country'.

Indeed I have. In fact, I was turned back at the check point on the fateful day in question!

[CNZero]

No there wasn't. The 'closed' section of road was only a short 200m section remember. It wasn't exactly a 'swat team' operation. Just some orange cones on the road and a couple of burly security guards with radios.

Plenty of people go mountain biking on tracks in the Port Hills. It is not unusual to get off and walk bits of the track. However, I do agree that you would lose a lot of time if you tried to pull such a maneuvre.

I knew a couple of participants in Le Race 2001. So I decided to do an early morning trek up to the top of the hill to watch the racers go by.

After all the racers had gone by, except for a few stragglers, a couple of us decided that since we had gone all the way up there, we might as well go for a bit of a ride along the top. Not with the intention of joining 'Le Race', of course, just for the view. I thought that once all the 'Le Racers' had gone through they would immediately dismantle the check point. But no such luck, and we even waited for the tail end charlie vehicle to arrive. It wasn't a great surprise. We half expected to be turned back anyway.

[CNZero]

I didn't attend the whole trial either. But I did attend all the summing up and the two sessions featuring the two defence expert witnesses and the Sky Sport coverage of the event. This included a follow up video link interview with the prosecution expert witness, where it emerged he had given misinformation about the sporting organizations he claimed to be a member of, and had never had any experience of being in charge of a cycle race!

The 'Le Race 2001 Video', some of which incorporated in the TV1 'Sunday' current affairs documentary on the issue, did indeed show different cyclists crossing the centre line on several occasions.
Not all of this behaviour could be classed as 'reckless' though. The defence expert witness from cycling Canterbury noted that it is OK to cross the centreline if you need to do so to overtake someone. He further indicated that there are instances where you have at least
100m visibility and are 'straightlining a corner' by crossing the centerline, which he considered not a repremandable offence.

My impression was that there was no obvious evidence of crossing the centre line more often on the 'summit road' sections (where there was apparently ambiguity as to the status of the roads) compared to the other road sections (where there was no doubt that the road was open to all comers). If indeed there was a 'culture within cycling of riding all over a road when it was closed', would one not have expected *significantly more* of this behaviour on the summit road(s)
where according to some over 400 people believed the road to be closed?

Another suggestion put forward by the prosecution was that it was dangerous to put on an event which contained 'semi-professional cyclists' and 'weekend wheelers' in a single massed group. However, I couldn't figure out how starting off the less experienced cyclists in a group on their own could have improved the safety of those recreational cyclists.

The suggestion by the prosecution was that a less experienced cyclist, like Mrs Caldwell, would be less able to get out of trouble if a small group of cyclists riding together came across a car unexpectedly going the other way. The idea here was that cyclists riding three or four abreast would all be able to quickly move inwards as a group at the first sign of oncoming traffic *if* they were all experienced. I can see that this argument would have validity if the cyclists 'inside the sandwich' failed to move inwards. After all, if you are the most experienced cyclist in the country and you are suddenly faced with oncoming traffic, you are dependent on the inexperienced cyclist beside you moving over quickly to give you space to do the same, and avoid ending up dead.

However, the evidence at the trial suggested that Mrs Caldwell was not riding in a bunch at the time of the accident. She was in fact overtaking two or three cyclists in front of her on a straight 100m section of road and simply ran out of road to complete the maneuvre.
In other words I could not see how Mrs Caldwell's inexperience of riding in a bunch might have contributed to the accident from the evidence presented.

[CNZero]

Why doesn't prize money count?

[CNZero]

I also meant 'busier' in the sense of all the peripheral 'normal' activities that are affected by the staging of a cycling event.
Whereas once you might organize a bike race along a back road and see one or two farmers cars, these days that same back road might lead to a lake that has been discovered as a weekend fishing hole by townies.
The cycle race organizers then get the SUV brigade complaining that cyclists shouldn't be allowed along roads along which they like to tow boats for a weekend away. Even if the bike race is only on one
Saturday per year!

Possibly they need the critical mass to justify the safety expenditure required.

Too late! The helmet law is here already. We weren't too far behind the Ozzies.

Yes you do wonder don't you. Like some of those appliance instructions you get these days.

For example: "Don't iron your clothes while you are still wearing them."

Perhaps cycle race competitors of the future will need an IQ test before showing up at the starting line?