# Michael Mason Inquest



## glenn forger (11 Dec 2014)

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/inquest-into-death-of-michael-mason.html

The driver was commuting home in Hertfordshire from her work at a hairdresser's salon in central London. She was driving a 'motability' car owned by a disabled friend. She gave evidence consistent with her accounts to the police that she did not see Mr Mason or his bicycle at any time before the collision. She was travelling at somewhere between 20 and 30 mph and did not brake before impact. She carried on and parked 30 metres up the road before returning to the realisation she had hit a cyclist. In answer to a question which she was warned that she need not answer she accepted that if the cyclist was there (which from the physical evidence he unquestionably was) she should have seen him.

A detective from the Serious Collisions Investigation Unit confirmed to the Coroner that there were no criminal proceedings taken against the driver and that decision had been taken by the Metropolitan Police without reference to the CPS.


----------



## spen666 (11 Dec 2014)

And?


What is exactly your point or are you just showing you know how to cut and paste?


----------



## Spinney (11 Dec 2014)

spen666 said:


> And?
> 
> 
> What is exactly your point or are you just showing you know how to cut and paste?


This forum is often (or even usually) used to report cyclist accidents or the results of investigations. It is not necessary for the initial post to contain a point for discussion.


----------



## spen666 (11 Dec 2014)

The accident happened some time ago?

What is this post intended to achieve? Apart from showing the OP can cut and paste someone else's work.
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/cyclist-down-forum-read-me.136851/


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (11 Dec 2014)

spen666 said:


> The accident happened some time ago?
> 
> What is this post intended to achieve? Apart from showing the OP can cut and paste someone else's work.


GF cited the source. Read it and take issue with the lawyer who wrote it, who also made no commentary. Presumably because not having everything spelled out makes people have to think.


----------



## spen666 (11 Dec 2014)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> GF cited the source. Read it and take issue with the lawyer who wrote it, who also made no commentary. Presumably because not having everything spelled out makes people have to think.


I'm not taking issue with anyone, I have no idea what his point in this post is, hence my asking?


The thread is for reporting accidents or serious discussion.

Cutting and pasting random articles with no indication of what the point is is neither reporting or serious discussion.


Unlike some people I have the sense to ask what the point in question is.


Sadly it seems that you get shouted down for asking


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (11 Dec 2014)

Follow the link then. See if you can work out from that what the issue is.


----------



## andyfraser (11 Dec 2014)

Let's see if I've got this straight: the woman drives into a cyclist not even seeing him and makes no attempt to brake due to not seeing him, the coroner rules accidental death and the police do nothing. Shouldn't the driver have been prosecuted here? Am I missing something?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (11 Dec 2014)

andyfraser said:


> Let's see if I've got this straight: the woman drives into a cyclist not even seeing him and makes no attempt to brake due to not seeing him, the coroner rules accidental death and the police do nothing. Shouldn't the driver have been prosecuted here? Am I missing something?


I don't believe _you _are.


----------



## raleighnut (11 Dec 2014)

That takes SMIDSY to a new level, not even fining the driver for driving without due care and attention.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (11 Dec 2014)

Incredible.

In refusing to prosecute, the Metropolitan Police are saying that it is acceptable driving to strike and kill another road user. Even though the victim was riding correctly, was properly lit, in a well-lit street and was in the direct line of sight of the driver. A driver who, from the evidence given, did not even brake prior to impact.

Would that really pass the competent and careful driver test in court?

GC


----------



## Dan B (12 Dec 2014)

I wonder if in a case like this anyone has ever tried (or if it would be possible to try) calling a driving instructor/examiner as witness to say that the behaviour admitted to (in this case, running into a cyclist directly in front of you) would be grounds for failing the driving test, and that "due care and attention" should _as a baseline_ imply "meeting or exceeding the legal minimum standards expected of anyone with a driving licence"


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (12 Dec 2014)

So the judge was more worried about hi-viz and a helmet than a driver that can't see straight ahead?
Another triumph for motoring facebook users.


----------



## glenn forger (12 Dec 2014)

The LCC have written to the police to ask for an explanation. The police evidence was that Mr Mason was riding at thirty mph. Regent Street has an incline northbound, Mr Mason was almost seventy years old.

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/it-could-have-been-a-pedestrian/


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Dec 2014)

The Cyclists' Defence Fund is seeking donations to help in this case:

_Following discussion with Mr Mason’s family and with CTC ambassador Martin Porter QC (who represented the family at the inquest), CDF has confirmed that it will provide funding for Porter to engage on the family’s behalf with the Metropolitan Police and the CPS’s Director of Public Prosecutions with the aim to reverse the decision not to prosecute. If that fails, Porter will advise on alternative options, including the possibility of a private prosecution._​
I've chucked in a tenner, would be great if a few others could too.

GC


----------



## Drago (19 Dec 2014)

I'm confused. How can cctv evidence be both less than entirely clear, and also clear at the same time, all in the same paragraph?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Dec 2014)

glenn forger said:


> The LCC have written to the police to ask for an explanation. The police evidence was that Mr Mason was riding at thirty mph. Regent Street has an incline northbound, Mr Mason was almost seventy years old.



30mph? That's absurd! Do you know how the police arrived at this figure?


GC


----------



## glenn forger (19 Dec 2014)

No idea:

PC Brian Gamble who investigated the scene said Ms Purcell had been breathalysed, drug tested and eye tested at the scene before being taken for an interview under caution at the police station. 

He said: 'Mr Mason was probably travelling at a similar speed to the other traffic on the road which was probably at the 30 mile-per-hour speed limit, there were no climatic factors that contributed to the collision, it was a clear dry evening.'

He said that neither the bike nor the car had any defects that would have caused the accident. - See more at: 

http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/newsgallery/?news_id=39245#sthash.J9NiexiV.dpuf


----------



## benb (19 Dec 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> 30mph? That's absurd! Do you know how the police arrived at this figure?
> 
> 
> GC



And even if he was, I fail to see how that explains or excuses how the driver ran him down from behind.
If anything it makes it worse, as the driver must have been significantly exceeding that!


----------



## benb (19 Dec 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> The Cyclists' Defence Fund is seeking donations to help in this case:
> 
> _Following discussion with Mr Mason’s family and with CTC ambassador Martin Porter QC (who represented the family at the inquest), CDF has confirmed that it will provide funding for Porter to engage on the family’s behalf with the Metropolitan Police and the CPS’s Director of Public Prosecutions with the aim to reverse the decision not to prosecute. If that fails, Porter will advise on alternative options, including the possibility of a private prosecution._​
> I've chucked in a tenner, would be great if a few others could too.
> ...



Thanks, I've made a donation.


----------



## Spinney (19 Dec 2014)

benb said:


> Thanks, I've made a donation.


Likewise.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Dec 2014)

glenn forger said:


> No idea:
> 
> PC Brian Gamble who investigated the scene said Ms Purcell had been breathalysed, drug tested and eye tested at the scene before being taken for an interview under caution at the police station.
> 
> He said: 'Mr Mason was probably travelling at a similar speed to the other traffic on the road which was probably at the 30 mile-per-hour speed limit, there were no climatic factors that contributed to the collision, it was a clear dry evening.'



Thanks.

It doesn't instil confidence in the rest of his assessment of the collision.

GC


----------



## glenn forger (19 Dec 2014)

Not at all. Mr Mason was riding north, slightly uphill, and was almost seventy years old. 30mph seems..unlikely.


----------



## subaqua (19 Dec 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Not at all. Mr Mason was riding north, slightly uphill, and was almost seventy years old. 30mph seems..unlikely.



And I would wager the driver was wearing the wrong sight correction lenses at the time of the collision.


----------



## Crankarm (22 Dec 2014)

Did this driver have a white stick?


----------



## Lemond (22 Dec 2014)

andyfraser said:


> Let's see if I've got this straight: the woman drives into a cyclist not even seeing him and makes no attempt to brake due to not seeing him, the coroner rules accidental death and the police do nothing. Shouldn't the driver have been prosecuted here? Am I missing something?



What's missing is evidence. That's why the police didn't take this further. Quite right, too.


----------



## Lemond (22 Dec 2014)

User said:


> Other than the evidence of the collision iself and the admission by the driver that she had not seen him. What else did you want?



I don't want anything, mate. All I'm saying is that it's not the police's fault that the evidence needed to bring about a prosecution doesn't exist. They are not at fault here. They didn't "do nothing" as the earlier poster suggests. They simply couldn't move forward with a prosecution because the evidence to do so doesn't exist.


----------



## Arrowfoot (22 Dec 2014)

Rammed from behind on a clear day and no prosecution. Wow, thats got to be a first.


----------



## jefmcg (22 Dec 2014)

Lemond said:


> I don't want anything, mate. All I'm saying is that it's not the police's fault that the evidence needed to bring about a prosecution doesn't exist. They are not at fault here. They didn't "do nothing" as the earlier poster suggests. They simply couldn't move forward with a prosecution because the evidence to do so doesn't exist.


Not trying to pile on, but I am genuinely curious: can you suggest some evidence that if they had it would make a difference here?


----------



## Arrowfoot (22 Dec 2014)

Lemond said:


> I don't want anything, mate. All I'm saying is that it's not the police's fault that the evidence needed to bring about a prosecution doesn't exist. They are not at fault here. They didn't "do nothing" as the earlier poster suggests. They simply couldn't move forward with a prosecution because the evidence to do so doesn't exist.



When rammed from behind on a clear day, the onus is on the driver behind to provide an explanation. That did not come out in the Police explanation at all. This is one instance where the Police and Met do not have adduce evidence. The onus falls squarely on the driver.


----------



## Lemond (22 Dec 2014)

User said:


> What is wrong with the evidence that does exist?



Like I said, the evidence needed to bring about a charge or prosecution clearly doesn't exist.

There's nothing "wrong" with it.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (22 Dec 2014)

Lemond said:


> What's missing is evidence. That's why the police didn't take this further. Quite right, too.


You have a driver admitting to hitting the cyclist whom she, by her own evidence,"should have seen". There is the position of the damage to her car, directly in front of the driving position. Of all the witnesses to the collision, she is the only person who failed to see the cyclist; she can offer no explanation for her failure. Neither she, nor anyone as far as I can tell, places any fault on the cyclist, or reports him making any sudden manoeuvre.

If the test to be applied is that her driving was that of a careful and competent driver then her actions must be examined in court or we are all farked.

Or is "oops" now considered to be good enough as a defence?

GC


----------



## Lemond (22 Dec 2014)

jefmcg said:


> Not trying to pile on, but I am genuinely curious: can you suggest some evidence that if they had it would make a difference here?



Mate, I honestly have no idea. All I'm saying is that the experts in this instance reached a decision not to prosecute based on the evidence available. surely that's the right thing to do?


----------



## Lemond (22 Dec 2014)

Arrowfoot said:


> Rammed from behind on a clear day and no prosecution. Wow, thats got to be a first.



I've no particular axe to grind here, but this happened in the early evening so not on a clear day. Also, apparently one eye witness stated that the impact was made by the wing mirror, so maybe rammed from behind isn't entirely accurate either.


----------



## glenn forger (22 Dec 2014)

Lemond said:


> I've no particular axe to grind here, but this happened in the early evening so not on a clear day. Also, apparently one eye witness stated that the impact was made by the wing mirror, so maybe rammed from behind isn't entirely accurate either.



Please read the article: "The collision investigator also gave evidence that the physical evidence on the car and the bicycle made it clear that this was a 'linear' collision with the bicycle and the car pointing in the same direction at the moment of impact. This ruled out any swerving immediately before the collision.Further the rear tyre left a mark and dent mid way between the centre line of the car and its offside. That is to say right in front of the position where the driver was seated."
Witness statements are often unreliable. Forensic evidence is much more trustworthy.


----------



## Pale Rider (22 Dec 2014)

The witness saw what happened.

The collision damage investigator did not see what happened and is purely making assumptions.

Such assumptions can be clever and insightful.

They can also be - like so many assumptions - badly misleading.


----------



## glenn forger (22 Dec 2014)

The witness didn't see the impact:

http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/newsgallery/?news_id=39245

Mod Edited - leave the personal stuff out.


----------



## jefmcg (22 Dec 2014)

glenn forger said:


> The witness didn't see the impact:
> 
> http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/newsgallery/?news_id=39245
> 
> Mod Edited - leave the personal stuff out.


(thanks mod)

But still, wow. From the article linked to



> He said: 'There was a load bang and I saw the cyclist being hit by the wing mirror of the small black car and gentleman hitting the bonnet of the car and then being off it an on to the road.



(now forensics may indicated that he didn't see the what he thought he saw, but you can't claim witnesses didn't see it)


----------



## glenn forger (22 Dec 2014)

Thanks, that witness did not see the impact, as I said. Let's limit ourselves to what we know and not make stuff up.


----------



## Phaeton (22 Dec 2014)

Reading that last link makes it confusing, the witnesses appear to put the rider in several places at once, on the offside, 1M from the kerb, turning right & then the forensics say he was directly in front of the car between the centre line & offside. Despite all of that I do find it difficult to believe that no charges we made against the driver, driving without due care & attention at least, which by her own admission she was.


----------



## jefmcg (22 Dec 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Thanks, that witness did not see the impact, as I said. Let's limit ourselves to what we know and not make stuff up.


Either he saw the impact, but misinterpreted what he saw, or he's a liar. I'm not as lief as you are to call someone a liar. Or making stuff up, when they are quoting a witness. 

I think it might be useful to discuss the inquest with a little less aggression.


----------



## glenn forger (22 Dec 2014)

That's a long piece with conflicting witness statements, so selectively quoting the one, lone remark that contradicts all the other evidence is highly discriminatory. A car is on your near side. The wing mirror hits you. How on earth do you get propelled towards the impact, onto the bonnet?

Three witness statements, plus the forensic evidence, and pale rider picks the one, lone quote that implies blame on the cyclist. You'll have to explain why you don't think that's selective, especially accompanied by the claim "the witness saw what happened"? In context the same poster has a long history of posting factually inaccurate stuff to allocate blame. I'm happy to stand by what I said.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (22 Dec 2014)

jefmcg said:


> Either he saw the impact, but misinterpreted what he saw, or he's a liar. I'm not as lief as you are to call someone a liar. Or making stuff up, when they are quoting a witness.
> 
> I think it might be useful to discuss the inquest with a little less aggression.



It's possible the witness heard the bang _then_ looked to see the rider hit by the wing mirror, then the bonnet and then into the road. The witness might not have seen the first impact which the forensic evidence suggests was the front of the car. Although it would be rather odd to be hit by a wing mirror (actually a door mirror these days) and to then be thrown forward and over the bonnet. But I'm just guessing here, like most folk.

GC


----------



## PK99 (22 Dec 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> It's possible the witness heard the bang _then_ looked to see the rider hit by the wing mirror, then the bonnet and then into the road. The witness might not have seen the first impact which the forensic evidence suggests was the front of the car. Although it would be rather odd to be hit by a wing mirror (actually a door mirror these days) and to then be thrown forward and over the bonnet. *But I'm just guessing here, like most folk*.
> 
> GC



my guess... frontal collision, cyclist thrown to off side, car continues past cyclist who is then falling "witness" heard bang, looked and saw bike part way down the side of the car hitting wing mirror.

in my smidsy, i hit and damaged front wing, both passenger side doors and rear wing as the car turned across me and i bounced down the side. A witness, not seeing the first impact, could have "seen" me riding into the side


----------



## Pale Rider (22 Dec 2014)

glenn forger said:


> That's a long piece with conflicting witness statements, so selectively quoting the one, lone remark that contradicts all the other evidence is highly discriminatory. A car is on your near side. The wing mirror hits you. How on earth do you get propelled towards the impact, onto the bonnet?
> 
> Three witness statements, plus the forensic evidence, and pale rider picks the one, lone quote that implies blame on the cyclist. You'll have to explain why you don't think that's selective, especially accompanied by the claim "the witness saw what happened"? In context the same poster has a long history of posting factually inaccurate stuff to allocate blame. I'm happy to stand by what I said.



Forger,

I picked no quote - stop making things up.

I have no long history of anything - stop making things up.

You have a long history of obsessively portraying every cyclist/driver collision as the fault of the driver.

Anyway, how many inquests have you been to?

I've been to probably more than 250 over more than 20 years.

My observation in this thread about expert evidence is based on that experience.

You may be, but are probably not, aware the coroner has the power to refer a case back to the police for further investigation/consideration of charges, if, in the coroner's judgment, the decision not to charge is incorrect.

As far as I can gather, this has not happened.

I agree the decision not to prosecute looks odd.

But the police/CPS/coroner hold no brief for the driver - they couldn't care less whether she gets done or not.

They all seem to agree no criminal charges is the correct decision in this case.

It would be better for all concerned if the reasons for that decision were made clear, but the public bodies and officials concerned rarely see it as part of their remit to explain their actions to the wider public.


----------



## benb (22 Dec 2014)

Pale Rider said:


> The witness saw what happened.
> 
> The collision damage investigator did not see what happened and is purely making assumptions.
> 
> ...



I'd give more credibility and weight to physical evidence than a witness statement any day.


----------



## Pale Rider (22 Dec 2014)

benb said:


> I'd give more credibility and weight to physical evidence than a witness statement any day.



Trouble is you are having to rely on assumptions made from that evidence.

In a crash, you might hear that the nearside front tyre of the car deflated.

It did, that's unarguable.

What you then hear is the damage investigator's opinion of what that means - that's when it gets difficult.

As I said, a lot of these guys are very clever.

But equally, I've been to hearings at which two apparently equally qualified experts give conflicting evidence.

It's then for a jury if there is one, or the coroner when sitting alone, to weigh up which interpretation of the events is the most likely.


----------



## glenn forger (23 Dec 2014)




----------



## oldstrath (24 Dec 2014)

Pale Rider said:


> Trouble is you are having to rely on assumptions made from that evidence.
> 
> In a crash, you might hear that the nearside front tyre of the car deflated.
> 
> ...



I admit to finding the willingness to believe witnesses over physical evidence baffling. According to Porter's account 
"Further the rear tyre left a mark and dent mid way between the centre line of the car and its offside. That is to say right in front of the position where the driver was seated."

How a set of allegedly independent policemen, and an allegedly independent coroner, can ignore that is beyond me. One can only conclude that killing cyclists is no longer a crime, and perhaps we should be prepared to fight back, since the law has lost interest in defending us.


----------



## oldstrath (24 Dec 2014)

Phaeton said:


> Reading that last link makes it confusing, the witnesses appear to put the rider in several places at once, on the offside, 1M from the kerb, turning right & then the forensics say he was directly in front of the car between the centre line & offside. Despite all of that I do find it difficult to believe that no charges we made against the driver, driving without due care & attention at least, which by her own admission she was.



This utter confusion is exactly why witness reports are frequently useless. A bunch of people with other things on their mind half see something scary and make up stories to fill in the blanks. No, that doesn't make them liars, it just makes them people. Set this against the physical evidence of a tyre mark and dent in the car. Unless you believe that this woman, or whoever the taxpayers actually bought the car for, is in the habit of ramming bikes you would need to explain how a first impact with the wing mirror could explain this dent. 

I doubt anyone could seriously offer such an explanation, and conclude that the police and coroner have simply seized on a way, however implausible, to do what they wanted to do, and exonerate the killer.


----------



## Lemond (24 Dec 2014)

What's implausible to me is the idea that the met police and the coroner are partners in some conspiracy to protect a hairdresser from prosecution. Isn't it more plausible that the strength of evidence needed to bring about a successful prosecution just doesn't exist? Might that not explain why the police continue to call for witnesses to come forward?


----------



## CopperCyclist (24 Dec 2014)

User said:


> Why is a car with a load of impacts, a collection of witnesses who all say they saw a collision between car and cyclist, and a driver who admits seeing nothing but acknowledges the collision, not strong enough evidence for a prosecution?



I'm between the two arguments. 

I don't think for a second there's any sorry of conspiracy, or even desire to not prosecute a motorist. 

I don't understand why on all the evidence available there is no prosecution. 

I'd like an explanation from the CPS why it is either not felt in the public interest or what the evidence lacks. I hope the charity campaign gets it.


----------



## CopperCyclist (24 Dec 2014)

User said:


> I am not suggesting for one second any sort of conspiracy, just a bad decision.



Sorry, I didn't say you were, though others have. My bad for quoting your post, I actually meant to just 'reply' bit clicked 'reply' on the last post (yours) instead and inadvertently quoted you - sorry!


----------



## CopperCyclist (24 Dec 2014)

Too many beers at the family Christmas eve meal. Not usual for me to have Christmas off!


----------



## oldstrath (25 Dec 2014)

Lemond said:


> What's implausible to me is the idea that the met police and the coroner are partners in some conspiracy to protect a hairdresser from prosecution. Isn't it more plausible that the strength of evidence needed to bring about a successful prosecution just doesn't exist? Might that not explain why the police continue to call for witnesses to come forward?



Don't need a conspiracy, just a general disinclination to prosecute motorists unless the evidence is so overwhelming as to be undeniable. Quite possibly because experience has shown that jurors, most of whom drive, will go with the 'it could have been me' argument.


----------



## CopperCyclist (25 Dec 2014)

oldstrath said:


> Don't need a conspiracy, just a general disinclination to prosecute motorists *unless the evidence is so overwhelming as to be undeniable*. Quite possibly because experience has shown that jurors, most of whom drive, will go with the 'it could have been me' argument.



The bit I've bolded is pretty much accurate as to what CPS will run for all cases, not just motoring ones.

From what I can see though, on the forensics and the admissions of the driver, they have it for this case.


----------



## benb (26 Dec 2014)

CopperCyclist said:


> I'm between the two arguments.
> 
> I don't think for a second there's any sorry of conspiracy, or even desire to not prosecute a motorist.
> 
> ...



AIUI it was nothing to do with the CPS; it was the Met who decided not to send the case up for consideration of prosecution. Completely inexplicable.


----------



## glenn forger (13 Feb 2015)

http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/baroness-jones-raises-concern-over-mason-case

Baroness Jones pointed out that the Met’s decision not to prosecute the driver based on insufficient evidence – as none of the witnesses interviewed actually saw the collision – potentially reveals a worrying over-reliance on witness statements in Met Police road crash investigations. This echoes a call that CTC’s Road Justice campaign made in its report ‘Road Justice: the role of the police’ for the collection of auxiliary evidence such asCCTV and helmet camera footage when there are no witnesses to a collision.

Baroness Jones stressed her fear that the failure of the police to pursue this case may send out a message that cyclists who ‘take the road’, as Mr Mason had done to make himself more visible on approach to a pinch point, are not protected by law if they are hit by a motorist.

With the assistance of the Cyclists’ Defence Fund, Mr Mason’s family instructed CTCambassador Martin Porter QC to engage with the police and CPS on their behalf, with the aim of reversing the decision not to prosecute. Baroness Jones reiterated this call in her letter.


----------



## spen666 (16 Feb 2015)

glenn forger said:


> http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/baroness-jones-raises-concern-over-mason-case
> 
> Baroness Jones pointed out that the Met’s decision not to prosecute the driver based on insufficient evidence – as none of the witnesses interviewed actually saw the collision – potentially reveals *a worrying over-reliance on witness statements* in Met Police road crash investigations. ....




I'm not sure she has engaged her brain fully before making this particular point.

Without witness(es) there is no evidence against a suspect.

In this country you are innocent until proven guilty and therefore evidence is necessary. I for one would not want a situation where people are guilty unless they can prove themselves innocent. Indeed it would be a breach of a fundmental human right


The above should not be taken as saying I think the police actions in this case were correct.


----------



## spen666 (16 Feb 2015)

User13710 said:


> Forensic evidence (paint analysis etc) has been used in car on car collisions hasn't it? Spen's assertion is a bit ridiculous.


Erm, I think you will find that there would need to be a witness to introduce this evidence as their findings, and where appropriate be cross examined on their statement

TMN's assertion is clearly a bit ridiculous as evidence does not simply appear from thin air.

Sorry, TMN you obviously do not understand what a witness is


----------



## spen666 (16 Feb 2015)

User said:


> Didn't the driver admit that the collision occurred? Is that not evidence?


The fact that a collision has occurred does not prove any offence has occurred. It is not an offence simply to be involved in a collision


----------



## Sara_H (16 Feb 2015)

The driver in my hit and run was prosecuted with no witnesses, other than myself and very little forensic evidence. 
What he did have was a conviction for an almost identical previous offence.


----------



## spen666 (16 Feb 2015)

Sara_H said:


> The driver in my hit and run was prosecuted with no witnesses, other than myself and very little forensic evidence.
> What he did have was a conviction for an almost identical previous offence.


Sara, you have already identified 2 witnesses, yourself and whoever did the forensic work.

Without witnesses there is no evidence



You like TMN are seemingly confusing what a witness is. A witness does not have to be someone who saw the incident, the forensic investigator, the police officer who carried out a breath test procedure sometime later at the police station, the police officer who charges the suspect etc are all witnesses


----------



## Arrowfoot (16 Feb 2015)

People have been convicted the world over without an eye witness present. A whole of crime including murder have been committed with no witness present at the scene. 

This is where forensic and circumstantial evidence comes in.


----------



## spen666 (16 Feb 2015)

User13710 said:


> Spen being an arse as usual


Alternatively you not having a clue and spouting rubbish. 

The person presenting the forensic evidence is ....yes, you've guessed it a ..witness.

So, as I said before the statement from Baroness Jones is completely without merit as without witnesses there is no admissible evidence and therefore can be no successful prosecution

I'm sorry you are not able to understand what a witness is, and am even sorrier you feel the need to show your ignorance repeatedly.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (16 Feb 2015)

spen666 said:


> I'm not sure she has engaged her brain fully before making this particular point.
> 
> Without witness(es) there is no evidence against a suspect.



The Baroness was referring to eye witnesses.


GC


----------



## glenn forger (16 Feb 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> The Baroness was referring to eye witnesses.
> 
> 
> GC



Of course she was, to the actual collision, she cites thirteen witnesses to events leading up to when in her letter. 

_Despite the testimony of 13 witnesses interviewed by police, and an admission 
by the driver that she should have seen Mason’s bike, the Met Police has 
announced that it would not be prosecuting the driver._

http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default...o_metropolitan_police_commissioner_030215.pdf

Making such a rudimentary error demonstrates a worrying lack of legal knowledge, this is basic stuff that an A Level law student should have mastered by now.


----------



## Pale Rider (16 Feb 2015)

User said:


> I am not saying it does but the driver agreed that if the cyclist was there, which he was, she should have seen him. That is surely sufficient evidence to warrant putting to a court.



I have seen this happen when a lorry driver said he didn't see the cyclist.

The prosecution relied on the collision damage investigation, involving sight lines and projected timings.

The jury was told the driver - any driver - could have seen the cyclist from X metres away and would have had X seconds at 56mph to avoid the cyclist.

We also heard about the cyclist's clothing - high viz, lights and so on.

Several drivers who passed seconds beforehand gave evidence to say, obviously, they saw the cyclist and avoided him.

The phrase the police officer who presented the investigation evidence used a couple of times was: "The cyclist was there to be seen." 

The lorry driver was acquitted, but the point is the police - and particularly the CPS - believed their case passed the test: prosecution was in the public interest, and there was a realistic possibility of a conviction.


----------



## glenn forger (16 Feb 2015)

You can remember a lot of details about that case, where did it happen?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Feb 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Of course she was, to the actual collision, she cites thirteen witnesses to events leading up to when in her letter.
> 
> _Despite the testimony of 13 witnesses interviewed by police, and an admission
> by the driver that she should have seen Mason’s bike, the Met Police has
> ...



I'm not sure to whom your "rudimentary error" comment is directed. Is it at @spen666 ?

Where does the bit in italics in your post originate from? I don't see it in the CTC article or in the Baroness's letter.

GC


----------



## glenn forger (17 Feb 2015)

_Despite the testimony of 13 witnesses interviewed by police, and an admission 
by the driver that she should have seen Mason’s bike, the Met Police has 
announced that it would not be prosecuting the driver._
_
http://uksafercycling.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/open-season-on-cyclists-claims-green.html_


----------



## Pale Rider (18 Feb 2015)

glenn forger said:


> You can remember a lot of details about that case, where did it happen?



I'm sightly reluctant to answer this question because forger only ever seems to ask me things in a bid to catch me out.

However, I think the genuine interest from other members outweighs pointless forum point scoring.

The cyclist died on the A19 south bound, near Billingham, Cleveland.

He had joined the road about a mile or two before at the A689 Wynyard junction.

It is a national speed limit dual carriageway, but cyclists are legally allowed to use it.

Several of the witnesses who passed moments before commented they used the road often and were surprised to see a cyclist on it.

What the prosecution did not have was a witness who saw the lorry hit the cyclist.

The judicial process was long because there were two trials.

The first jury was unable to reach a verdict, so there was a second trial.

The second jury was also unable to reach a verdict.

As is usually the case, the CPS decided not to have a third go, although legally they could have done.

Thus the defendant is found not guilty on the orders of the judge.

The defendant can for ever correctly say he is not guilty of any offence, but it's not quite the same ringing endorsement of his driving as a swift not guilty verdict from the first jury would have been.

I think the case also illustrates how difficult jurors find cases involving death on the roads.

Two panels deliberated long and hard in this one, and neither were able to come up with a verdict on which at least ten of them agreed.

The following two links are accurate press reports.

Link one is a prosecution opening, the second is the final proceedings in the case when the driver was acquitted.

The brief comments from Judge Simon Bourne Arton at the end of the second report sum it all up well.

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/10340930.Lorry_driver_on_trial_for_killing_cyclist/

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/ne...sh_cleared_after_jury_fails_to_reach_verdict/


----------



## glenn forger (18 Feb 2015)

They had similar problems with juries in apartheid South Africa, that's the problem with asking drivers whether failing to notice a cyclist was "careless".


----------



## glasgowcyclist (18 Feb 2015)

glenn forger said:


> _Despite the testimony of 13 witnesses interviewed by police, and an admission
> by the driver that she should have seen Mason’s bike, the Met Police has
> announced that it would not be prosecuting the driver.
> 
> http://uksafercycling.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/open-season-on-cyclists-claims-green.html_



Thanks for clarifying. Your post gave the impression that you were quoting from the Baroness's letter and I couldn't see her citing 13 witnesses anywhere.

GC


----------



## glenn forger (18 Feb 2015)

Hang on, that link's bust, those were her words, I'm sure.


----------



## extremereading (5 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> What's missing is evidence. That's why the police didn't take this further. Quite right, too.


The police do have evidence. CCTV footage from just down the road which shows Mr Mason riding correctly before he was hit. A dent in the front of the car directly in front of the driver's seat. And a dead person. But no CCTV cover or witness statements for the actual moment of impact.

How can it be right when some loses their life to avoid due process?


----------



## extremereading (5 Mar 2015)

User said:


> What is wrong with the evidence that does exist?


it _does _exist


----------



## glenn forger (13 Mar 2015)

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...who-killed-dad-on-regent-street-10105903.html



> The Metropolitan police today revealed it had bowed to a family campaign and asked prosecutors to consider bringing criminal charges against a driver who killed a cyclist in Regent Street.
> 
> BBC journalist Anna Tatton-Brown, the daughter of cyclist Michael Mason, will tonight join campaigners at a vigil and “die-in” protest to mark the first anniversary of his death.
> 
> ...


----------



## spen666 (13 Mar 2015)

glenn forger said:


> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...who-killed-dad-on-regent-street-10105903.html


 
When you read the article, it comes across as the police boweing to pressure to revisit case, not that they have any new evidence and not that they believe original decision was wrong

I am sadly pessimistic about the review outcome, but I hope I am wrong and that there is sufficient evidence to justify a charge


----------



## glenn forger (13 Mar 2015)

I think some people have got confused about the #justiceformichael tag:

https://twitter.com/hashtag/justice4michael?src=hash


----------



## spen666 (15 Mar 2015)

glenn forger said:


> I think some people have got confused about the #justiceformichael tag:
> 
> https://twitter.com/hashtag/justice4michael?src=hash


not confused, but using the hashtag for their own campaigns. They may well claim the cyclists are confused

There is no property in a hashtag, so no reason michael jackson fans or others cant use it

This is one problem with using hashtags


----------



## Arrowfoot (15 Mar 2015)

glenn forger said:


> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...who-killed-dad-on-regent-street-10105903.html



The Met is really pretty poor where the article is concerned. They did not prosecute as there was no CCTV evidence. How were they prosecuting prior to CCTV. Their Professional Standards also found that the original was right yet they are now referring to CPS.

Looks like as along as you claim that you did not see anything , its an escape clause. How do you account for your car hitting someone if you did not see anything. Should we not take away the licence from drivers like this.


----------



## glenn forger (19 Mar 2015)

*Five days after it announced that the death of cyclist Michael Mason had been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the Metropolitan Police Service has withdrawn that statement, issued on Friday, saying it was “incorrect.”*

The admission was made in an email sent out to members of the media today, with police saying: “We have previously stated that the below matter was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. This is incorrect. No referral has been made.”

It appears that police did not communicate the error to Mr Mason’s family in advance of making their error public.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Mar 2015)

The Met Police have now announced that the previous statement saying they had now referred the case to the DPP has been withdrawn as it was made in error. No referral has been made to the DPP.

_“We have previously stated that the below matter was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. This is incorrect. No referral has been made.”_​

GC


----------



## glenn forger (19 Mar 2015)

*Martin Porter QC* @MartinPorter6 · 2h2 hours ago
@CTC_Cyclists Reasons @metpoliceuk will not refer to CPS include victim not wearing helmet and not wearing high viz.


----------



## Dan B (19 Mar 2015)

There's a Just Giving campaign to raise funds for a private prosecution: https://www.justgiving.com/justiceformichael


----------



## glenn forger (19 Mar 2015)

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...gives-false-hope-of-prosecution-10119413.html

In a letter to Ms Tatton-Brown and her lawyer Martin Porter QC, Chief Inspector Tracy Stephenson, of the Met’s Roads and Transport Policing Command, apologised for the blunder over the statements. She added: “I totally understand your concern regarding this error and the impact it must have had on the family.”


----------



## discominer (19 Mar 2015)

Time to fork out for the CDF again 
* Lawyer says Met treatment of family "incomprehensibly callous"*
The cyclist’s family was represented at the inquest into his death by Martin Porter QC, who has also acted for it in pushing the Met to refer the case to the DPP. He told us:

The mishandling by the Metropolitan Police of this whole matter by dithering and repeatedly changing their minds and by communicating to Ms Tatton-Brown first via the press is quite scandalous. The treatment of a grieving family by a service which purports to serve the public has been quite incomprehensibly callous.

In addition to this the Metropolitan Police have now sought to justify their earlier decision not to refer the case to the CPS by reference to (amongst other immaterial matters), and I quote:

“• Mr MASON (Deceased) was wearing dark clothing, the collision having taken place during hours of darkness.

• Mr MASON was not wearing a cycle helmet, the cause of death being head injury.”

It seems the police do not expect a lit cyclist travelling in compliance with all legal requirements at night to remain alive if he is not wearing a helmet and high viz.

The importance of seeking justice for Michael Mason by by-passing the Metropolitan Police Service is now very clear.


----------



## Pale Rider (19 Mar 2015)

This takes some following, but I believe the Met Police press office - if not others as well - is confusing the DPP with the CPS.

If a coroner is unhappy with a police investigation, the coroner can order the police to look at it again - this inevitably leads to the police getting their heads together with a senior reviewing lawyer at the CPS.

A referral to the DPP can happen after sentencing in a criminal case when the prosecution feels the sentence passed is unduly lenient.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (19 Mar 2015)

Dan B said:


> There's a Just Giving campaign to raise funds for a private prosecution: https://www.justgiving.com/justiceformichael


Thanks, donated to it.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Mar 2015)

discominer said:


> the Metropolitan Police have now sought to justify their earlier decision not to refer the case to the CPS by reference to (amongst other immaterial matters), and I quote:
> 
> “• Mr MASON (Deceased) was wearing dark clothing, the collision having taken place during hours of darkness.
> 
> • Mr MASON was not wearing a cycle helmet, the cause of death being head injury.”









GC


----------



## glenn forger (19 Mar 2015)

At every stage now we have been let down by the Met police; from an insultingly soft interview of the driver, to the original decision not to prosecute despite the convincing evidence of their own expert, to this shilly-shallying over whether or not to refer the case to the CPS.

The Met allowed us to hold a vigil on the anniversary of my father's death thinking that we had had some small victory and that justice might yet be done. That now appears to be totally wrong.

None of this has been communicated to us first but played out in the media. I have heard nothing from my so-called family liaison officer since November.

This is no way to treat anyone, let alone a family dealing with the recent traumatic death of a loved one. Now, to add insult to injury, they seem to blame my dad, with his lack of high-viz and helmet, for his own death, rather than the woman who drove into him (who the police describe rather subjectively as a 'Careful and cautious driver').

It is a travesty of justice. What are the Met playing at here?

http://road.cc/content/news/146173-...t-slammed-michael-mason’s-family-plan-private


----------



## glenn forger (19 Mar 2015)

> Raymond Elsmore, 82, was struck while helping a pedestrian cross Tempest Avenue, Waterlooville, in 2012.
> 
> Lauren Paul, denies causing death by careless driving.
> 
> A crash investigator told a trial at Southampton Crown Court Mr Elsmore's high-visibility jacket would have blended in with the bright sunshine.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-27603938

Don't wear hi vis- it's your fault if a driver fails to notice you and kills you.

Wear hi vis- it's your fault if a driver fails to notice you and kills you.


----------



## glenn forger (19 Mar 2015)

> In a statement, Nicola Branch from Stop Killing Cyclists, which organised Friday’s vigil, said:
> 
> Stop Killing Cyclists are horrified to learn of the awful treatment of the family of Mick Mason by the Met Police and we would recommend referral to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
> 
> ...


----------



## glenn forger (19 Mar 2015)

Detective Inspector Nick Mason in his final review of the case and reasons for not referring this case to the CPS, stated “He [Michael Mason] was not wearing any high visibility clothing, nor was he wearing a safety helmet though his bicycle was displaying a red light at the rear and a white light on the front.”

http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/20150319-met-adds-insult-injury-mason-case

Beyond belief. So, that lad killed in Islington was partly to blame? No stab vest, after all.


----------



## glenn forger (19 Mar 2015)

How many cyclists?






None, according to the Met.


----------



## Origamist (19 Mar 2015)

Check out the attachment: "The Investigating Officer’s Report, explaining Met's reasons for not referring Mason case to CPS" at:

http://road.cc/content/news/146173-...t-slammed-michael-mason’s-family-plan-private


----------



## glenn forger (19 Mar 2015)

In the report on the investigation into Mr Mason's death the police make strong references to the fact that Mr Mason was not wearing a hi-vis jacket nor a helmet. Neither of these are required for cycling in London. The police appear to have made value judgements about the effectiveness of hi-vis and helmets without allowing the evidence to be examined and tested in court.

There is little definitive research on the effectiveness of hi-vis jackets in well lit urban environments. In the CCTV video of Mr Mason riding on Regent street before the crash he is immediately recognisable as a cyclist. There are bright lights on the front and back of his bike, his dark shape stands out starkly against the bright backround of one of the best lit streets in London.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Mar 2015)

Origamist said:


> Check out the attachment: "The Investigating Officer’s Report, explaining Met's reasons for not referring Mason case to CPS" at:
> 
> http://road.cc/content/news/146173-...t-slammed-michael-mason’s-family-plan-private



I'm disgusted by that report.

From the outset it is clear that the DI is a victim-blaming daffodunt.



> ..Ms Purcell did nothing more than act as a careful and competent driver and that this incident was nothing more than a tragic accident.




GC


----------



## Dave Davenport (19 Mar 2015)

Just made a donation to the defence fund, I really hope this gets to court and the victim blaming by the Met is shown for what it is.


----------



## Drago (19 Mar 2015)

The Met is a blooming foreign country. It's for them to apply the Full Code Test before approaching the CPS, not to essentially make the decision themselves.


----------



## glenn forger (19 Mar 2015)

https://www.justgiving.com/justiceformichael


----------



## spen666 (19 Mar 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> This takes some following, but I believe the Met Police press office - if not others as well - is confusing the DPP with the CPS.
> 
> If a coroner is unhappy with a police investigation, the coroner can order the police to look at it again - this inevitably leads to the police getting their heads together with a senior reviewing lawyer at the CPS.
> 
> A referral to the DPP can happen after sentencing in a criminal case when the prosecution feels the sentence passed is unduly lenient.


I think you are confusing yourself


The referral in sentencing cases is to the AG - the Attorney General. The DPP is not involved in unduly lenient sentencing referrals. 

The DPP is effectively responsible for the CPS


----------



## spen666 (19 Mar 2015)

Drago said:


> The Met is a blooming foreign country. It's for them to apply the Full Code Test before approaching the CPS, not to essentially make the decision themselves.


It is not for the Met to apply the Full Code Test at all.

The Code in the Full Code Test you refer to is the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The clue as to who applies the full Code Test is in the name


----------



## Drago (19 Mar 2015)

Close, but not entirely correct...

https://www.app.college.police.uk/a...ase-management/charging-and-case-preparation/

The supervisory officer authorising the case to be presented to CPS has to themselves apply it as part of the process for deciding if it is suitable. The supervisory officer applies it as a screening measure for referral, the CPS apply it for real for.charging. As an officer who spent 6 years working as a Nationally accredited AI, and a supervisory officer who has to make either threshold test (charging) or full code test (referral to CPS so they can apply the test for an actual charging decision) every day, the information in the public domain I think the Mets decision is flawed.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (20 Mar 2015)

glenn forger said:


> At every stage now we have been let down by the Met police; from an insultingly soft interview of the driver, to the original decision not to prosecute despite the convincing evidence of their own expert, to this shilly-shallying over whether or not to refer the case to the CPS.
> 
> The Met allowed us to hold a vigil on the anniversary of my father's death thinking that we had had some small victory and that justice might yet be done. That now appears to be totally wrong.
> 
> ...



Would you mind making it clearer when you're quoting someone else? Some of your posts can look as though they are your thoughts when they are the words of someone else, and it can get a bit confusing.

GC


----------



## spen666 (20 Mar 2015)

Drago said:


> Close, but not entirely correct...
> 
> https://www.app.college.police.uk/a...ase-management/charging-and-case-preparation/
> 
> The supervisory officer authorising the case to be presented to CPS has to themselves apply it as part of the process for deciding if it is suitable. The supervisory officer applies it as a screening measure for referral, the CPS apply it for real for.charging. As an officer who spent 6 years working as a Nationally accredited AI, and a supervisory officer who has to make either threshold test (charging) or full code test (referral to CPS so they can apply the test for an actual charging decision) every day, the information in the public domain I think the Mets decision is flawed.


 

Of course what you quote is 100% irrelevant to the law it is an internal police procedure you are quoting.

The law is that the Crown Prosecutor applies the Full Code for Crown Prosecutors test.


Don't worry about your lack of knowledge of the law. That's what lawyers are there for. No one has ever been convicted of a criminal offence because of what is in internal police guidance. It is just guidance not the actual law


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Mar 2015)

Origamist said:


> Check out the attachment: "The Investigating Officer’s Report, explaining Met's reasons for not referring Mason case to CPS" at:
> 
> http://road.cc/content/news/146173-incomprehensibly-callous-met-slammed-michael-mason’s-family-plan-private


That reasoning BOILS MY PISS

Donation to CDF made.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (20 Mar 2015)

I cycled home last night mentally pointing out potential victims, ooh, no helmet, no hi viz, be lucky. Ignoring the legal bit, it was Regents St not some dingy back alley you might just as well complain about them not taking enough precautions under Wembley's floods. And pick one, he was doing 30 or he was possibly slow enough to at least be within the testing regime of a helmet (irrespective of whether it'd still do any good).


----------



## Lemond (20 Mar 2015)

Am I alone in thinking that the police are being given too much of a bashing here? Is Charlie Lloyd of the London Cycling Campaign right in arguing that all drivers involved in collisions with cyclists should be charged - irrespective of blame - and attend court to prove their innocence? Absolving cyclists of any and all blame by default? Scary stuff.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (20 Mar 2015)

I'm not sure the consensus here is all drivers must be guilty of everything. I think it's more if you can hit and kill a cyclist everyone else has seen maybe you did something wrong.


----------



## growingvegetables (20 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> Am I alone in thinking that the police are being given too much of a bashing here? Is Charlie Lloyd of the London Cycling Campaign right in arguing that all drivers involved in collisions with cyclists should be charged - irrespective of blame - and attend court to prove their innocence? Absolving cyclists of any and all blame by default? Scary stuff.


Eeeeh - where do I start?

"Charging" is irrespective of blame. It absolves no-one, nor allocates blame to anyone. All it does is indicate there is a charge to investigate and answer --- and not be decided beforehand, on dubious reasoning (I'm being generous), or because the driver has a lovely smile!


----------



## Lemond (22 Mar 2015)

I don't suppose you've had any dealings with the particular officers involved though, have you? Or are all Met officers tarred with the same brush? 

And, according to the documents contained within this thread, Charlie Lloyd really does want all drivers involved in collisions taken to court.


----------



## Arrowfoot (22 Mar 2015)

I worry when a driver did not see somone that they hit in front of them in the centre of busy London even at night. This is not a highway where you would taking considerable speed. So far we have not had a reasonable explanation. 

Keen for the private prosecution to resolve this.


----------



## Lemond (22 Mar 2015)

Reading through all of the documentation attached, it's suggested that, despite having working lights on his bike, Mr Mason didn't stand out clearly against the surroundings from the driver's POV. That's where it is suggested that a high viz jacket might have helped. Mr Mason was apparently wearing dark coloured clothing.


----------



## Lemond (22 Mar 2015)

User said:


> Yes we all understand that.



I was replying to Arrowfoot, who was asking for an explanation as to why the driver didn't see Mr Mason.


----------



## glenn forger (22 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> Reading through all of the documentation attached, it's suggested that, despite having working lights on his bike, Mr Mason didn't stand out clearly against the surroundings from the driver's POV. That's where it is suggested that a high viz jacket might have helped. Mr Mason was apparently wearing dark coloured clothing.



Suggested by a random passer-by. At the same time, the old bill dismiss another random passer-by who stated Gale Purcell was doing more than 30mph. The police did this by looking at cctv evidence from Top Shop. That level of proof would not be accepted for the issuing of a speeding ticket so it's odd that it's accepted in establishing culpability in a fatality.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> Reading through all of the documentation attached, it's suggested that, despite having working lights on his bike, Mr Mason didn't stand out clearly against the surroundings from the driver's POV. That's where it is suggested that a high viz jacket might have helped. Mr Mason was apparently wearing dark coloured clothing.


Stop with the victim blaming. Stop it. 

A man died because yet another a driver didn't pay enough attention to what they were doing. The street was lit. The car has headlights. If the driver had been looking, and seeing, they would have seen the poor guy. Regardless of how he was dressed. And not killed him.

And the Met in this case are either bent or chuffin' incompetent, and in either case deserve everything thrown at them by cyclists.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Mar 2015)

User said:


> The question to answer is why the driver didn't see the cyclist when the cyclist had lights.


I've walked down Regents Street. I've even jogged down it a couple of times. I've never collided with a pedestrian and they don't have lights.


----------



## Arrowfoot (22 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> Reading through all of the documentation attached, it's suggested that, despite having working lights on his bike, Mr Mason didn't stand out clearly against the surroundings from the driver's POV. That's where it is suggested that a high viz jacket might have helped. Mr Mason was apparently wearing dark coloured clothing.



I saw the comments about dark clothing. no Hi Viz jacket etc. but he had lights and she had lights. What about pedestrians who cross such roads. How do you drive on rural roads with no lighting except the headlights that you have.

She actually said she did not see anything.


----------



## Lemond (22 Mar 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Stop with the victim blaming. Stop it.
> 
> A man died because yet another a driver didn't pay enough attention to what they were doing. The street was lit. The car has headlights. If the driver had been looking, and seeing, they would have seen the poor guy. Regardless of how he was dressed. And not killed him.
> 
> And the Met in this case are either bent or chuffin' incompetent, and in either case deserve everything thrown at them by cyclists.



I'm not blaming anyone and certainly not the victim.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> I'm not blaming anyone and certainly not the victim.


You should be blaming someone, because someone is to blame for a cyclist's death.


----------



## Lemond (22 Mar 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> You should be blaming someone, because someone is to blame for a cyclist's death.



i don't need to blame anyone. I'm more than happy to accept the possibility that sometimes accidents do happen.


----------



## glenn forger (22 Mar 2015)

An accident is unavoidable. Can you think of a way a driver could avoid running into and killing a cyclist doing nothing wrong?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> i don't need to blame anyone. I'm more than happy to accept the possibility that *sometimes accidents do happen.*


Perhaps they do. But this is a thread about a very specific incident.

Thus, two things seem to run against your argument

Michael Mason's death wasn't an accident and someone caused his death "is to blame"

Even the Met, in common with other UK police forces, have given up on the mealy-mouthed, and factually incorrect, bolloxology of "Road Traffic Accidents" and now talk about "Road Traffic Collisions"
So you accept whatever possibility you like and when a driver kills, mains, injures, or just scares the shoot out of you, or someone you care about, or someone you know, we can all tut-tut and say "accidents will happen."


----------



## Wobblers (22 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> i don't need to blame anyone. I'm more than happy to accept the possibility that *sometimes accidents do happen*.



And by saying that you guarantee that there will never be any decrease in the number of accidents in the future. 

Do you ever catch a train? Have you ever flown? These both are extremely safe forms of transport exactly because there isn't any attitude that "accidents happen". All accidents have *causes*. Air and rail travel are extremely safe exactly because those causes are exhaustively investigated - and appropriate measures taken to prevent it happening again. I for one am not happy to say that "accidents just happen", because we'll never find out just _why _they happen or be able to learn from them.


----------



## Lemond (22 Mar 2015)

User said:


> Do you have a family?



Yes I do. What does that have to do with this discussion? I imagine not a god damn thing.


----------



## Dan B (22 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> . I'm more than happy to accept the possibility that sometimes accidents do happen.





User said:


> Do you have a family?





Lemond said:


> Yes I do.



Were they accidents as well?


----------



## Lemond (22 Mar 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Perhaps they do. But this is a thread about a very specific incident.
> 
> Thus, two things seem to run against your argument
> 
> ...



So who is the "someone" that caused Mr Mason's death? The police can't say one way or the other?


----------



## glenn forger (22 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> So who is the "someone" that caused Mr Mason's death? The police can't say one way or the other?



Gale Purcell. If I cycled into the rear of your car whose fault do you reckon it would be?


----------



## theclaud (22 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> So who is the "someone" that caused Mr Mason's death? The police can't say one way or the other?


Her name is Gale Purcell. The person who drove her car into him, causing his death. HTH.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> So who is the "someone" that caused Mr Mason's death? The police can't say one way or the other?


Stop digging for pity's sake. 

The driver of the car in question admitted, in evidence, at his inquest, in Court, that she did not see him, and struck him with the car she was driving. And he died. Proximate cause.

As to the police, they can't, or rather won't, say one way or the other why they chose not to take criminal proceedings.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Mar 2015)

theclaud said:


> Her name is Gale Purcell. The person who drove her car into him, causing his death. HTH.


I've always wondered if this Gale Purcell is the same as Gail Purcell, hairdresser to Kate Middleton, as was, who got burnt in the salon. I only speculate about this because the lack of a prosecution has a ghastly feel of "friends in high places" about it.

I hope a private prosecution takes place. I hope, the CPS, mightily hacked off by the Met by the lack of referral, take it over and run it to conclusion. But I won't hold my breath.


----------



## Lemond (22 Mar 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I've always wondered if this Gale Purcell is the same as Gail Purcell, hairdresser to Kate Middleton, as was, who got burnt in the salon. I only speculate about this because the lack of a prosecution has a ghastly feel of "friends in high places" about it.
> 
> I hope a private prosecution takes place. I hope, the CPS, mightily hacked off by the Met by the lack of referral, take it over and run it to conclusion. But I won't hold my breath.



Blimey. So now this is all some kind of cover up organised by the royal family? Instead of seeking out conspiracy theories, why can't you accept that there's been no prosecution because no evidence of a crime exists. No witnesses, no cctv, no indication of speeding, no evidence of reckless or dangerous driving. And, of course, no evidence that Mr Mason did anything wrong either. Nobody can prove what happened, therefore no prosecution. Surely that's only right, isn't it? Better a guilty man walks free than an innocent man goes to prison?


----------



## glenn forger (22 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> No witnesses, no cctv, no indication of speeding, no evidence of reckless or dangerous driving.



What are you talking about?

Thirteen witnesses, two camera's worth of cctv, witness reports of speeding, clear evidence, admitted by the driver, of failing to see the cyclist.


----------



## Arrowfoot (22 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> i don't need to blame anyone. I'm more than happy to accept the possibility that sometimes accidents do happen.



It is an accident. I don't think anyone suggested otherwise. We certainly can't save Michael Mason or may not be able to find who caused his death. The concern here is to protect others from suffering the same fate .This case is unusual as others like it went to court.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> *why can't you accept that there's been no prosecution because no evidence of a crime exists. No witnesses, no cctv, no indication of speeding, no evidence of reckless or dangerous driving*.


Yeah, how chuffin' unreasonable am I, and countless other cyclists, and members of this forum, in expecting that, as a bare minimum, drivers might be expected to at least follow one simple basic rule. "Don't chuffin' hit anyone with your car!"

No evidence you say? The lead they used to put in petrol must have damaged your brain. No evidence, my 'arris.

No evidence you say? No indication of at least an itty bitty bit of careless driving when 

There is a brain-injured cyclist lying, dying, in a well lit London street. 

A driver who has admitted they did not see the cyclist.
A driver who has admitted that their car struck the cyclist.
There is forensic evidence of the collision.
for chuff's sake how much evidence do you need?

Chufftard or troll I can't decide. I'm done conversing with you either way.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Mar 2015)

Arrowfoot said:


> *It is an accident.* I don't think anyone suggested otherwise. We certainly can't save Michael Mason or may not be able to find who caused his death. The concern here is to protect others from suffering the same fate .This case is unusual as others like it went to court.


No. No and again no.


----------



## glenn forger (22 Mar 2015)

Arrowfoot said:


> It is an accident. .



No, it is not, because it was AVOIDABLE.


----------



## theclaud (22 Mar 2015)

Arrowfoot said:


> It is an accident. I don't think anyone suggested otherwise. We certainly can't save Michael Mason *or may not be able to find who caused his death*. The concern here is to protect others from suffering the same fate .This case is unusual as others like it went to court.



It's not The farking Mousetrap. We know exactly who caused his death.


----------



## Arrowfoot (23 Mar 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> No. No and again no.



Accidents are usually the result of a natural cause or human error and or negligence. The challenge is finding the cause.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Mar 2015)

Accidents are a result of chance

The road traffic collision which killed Michael Mason occurred as a result of the gross failure of a human being to operate a dangerous piece of heavy equipment to the required standard in a public space.

There is no challenge in finding the cause of his death. The law does not require us to understand the cause of the driver's failure, only to demonstrate that it took place.

The "shoot happens, it was an accident" mentality, is unacceptable when it is deployed in relation to road deaths. In this instance, given the circumstances, its use is insulting.

Have some cyclists' sensibilities been so dulled by society's motor-centric mindset that we now blithely accept that drivers will, on occasion, collide with, and kill, cyclists "by accident"? Because that simply isn't good enough.


----------



## glenn forger (23 Mar 2015)

Arrowfoot said:


> Accidents are usually the result of a natural cause or human error and or negligence. The challenge is finding the cause.



So, if someone negligently threw a fire extinguisher off a building and killed someone you'd call it an "accident"?


----------



## benb (23 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> no evidence of a crime exists



Apart from the small matter of a driver running down a cyclist from behind.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Mar 2015)

benb said:


> Apart from the small matter of a driver running down a cyclist from behind.


That? 

Haven't you heard? 

It was an "accident".


----------



## spen666 (23 Mar 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Yeah, how chuffin' unreasonable am I, and countless other cyclists, and members of this forum, in expecting that, as a bare minimum, drivers might be expected to at least follow one simple basic rule. "Don't chuffin' hit anyone with your car!"
> 
> No evidence you say? The lead they used to put in petrol must have damaged your brain. No evidence, my 'arris.
> 
> ...


 

None of that is sufficient evidence to prove careless or dangerous driving.

Remember Crown have to *prove* beyond all reasonable doubt that it was.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (23 Mar 2015)

spen666 said:


> None of that is sufficient evidence to prove careless or dangerous driving.
> 
> Remember Crown have to *prove* beyond all reasonable doubt that it was.


So what do you think happened considering all the information that has been bandied about? What extra information were they missing?


----------



## CopperCyclist (23 Mar 2015)

spen666 said:


> None of that is sufficient evidence to prove careless or dangerous driving.
> 
> Remember Crown have to *prove* beyond all reasonable doubt that it was.



Most would think that as:

Cyclist had lights 
Road was lit 
Car had its lights on 
Cyclist was directly ahead, not agitating from the side 

That those facts meant that the driver having a collision could be enough to prove careless driving. 

At the very least surely it's worth a trial - remember this case didn't even get to court.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Mar 2015)

spen666 said:


> *None of that is sufficient evidence to prove careless or dangerous driving.*
> 
> Remember Crown have to *prove* beyond all reasonable doubt that it was.


Three serving traffic officers and one CPS lawyer I'm in contact with say you are wrong. Any reasonable unbiased jury would consider it proved.

Where do you think there is reasonable doubt? Did a cloaked alien spacecraft enter the atmosphere and knock him off his bike?


----------



## Lemond (23 Mar 2015)

glenn forger said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> Thirteen witnesses, two camera's worth of cctv, witness reports of speeding, clear evidence, admitted by the driver, of failing to see the cyclist.



But nothing that captured the actual moment of impact, which is the point I was trying to make.


----------



## Lemond (23 Mar 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> So what do you think happened considering all the information that has been bandied about? What extra information were they missing?



Maybe the cyclist swerved for some reason? Nobody saw what happened, so how could the police say with certainty that he didn't? The evidence available only gives part of the picture. Surely more is needed if criminal charges are to be made?


----------



## Dan B (23 Mar 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Did a cloaked alien spacecraft enter the atmosphere and knock him off his bike?


Perhaps a tree fell in the woods and nobody was there to see it


----------



## Lemond (23 Mar 2015)

User said:


> So what? We know beyond any doubt that the impact occurred. We know who was driving the car. We know that the driver admitted not seeing the cyclist. What more does it need before you would put that to a court?



But you don't know why the impact happened, do you.


----------



## Dan B (23 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> Maybe the cyclist swerved for some reason?





> The collision investigator also gave evidence that the physical evidence on the car and the bicycle made it clear that this was a 'linear' collision with the bicycle and the car pointing in the same direction at the moment of impact. This ruled out any swerving immediately before the collision.Further the rear tyre left a mark and dent mid way between the centre line of the car and its offside. That is to say right in front of the position where the driver was seated.


----------



## Dan B (23 Mar 2015)

User said:


> Is there a one handed clapping smiley?


I think it's the one that looks like the Pope


----------



## Lemond (23 Mar 2015)

User said:


> Yes I believe I do. The driver of the car drove into the cyclist.



As I said, you don't know why. And nobody else does either. Because nobody saw what happened. And all of the evidence gathered by the police doesn't paint a clear enough picture either.


----------



## Lemond (23 Mar 2015)

User said:


> We don't need to know why. That it occurred is a known. The person responsible is a known. That they failed to see him is established by their account. That is enough to put to a court. The only doubt is whether it is enough to put to a court on a good enough charge.



So why have the police not taken this further? Could it be that they actually know more than you? Or that they know that the evidence available isn't enough to support a charge? like it or not that's what they are there for. They deal with the evidence available and in this instance they clearly do not feel that a charge could be supported. That's only right and proper. None of this is their fault...unless you are one of the loony "it was the royal family that done it" conspiracy brigade.


----------



## spen666 (23 Mar 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Three serving traffic officers and one CPS lawyer I'm in contact with say you are wrong. Any reasonable unbiased jury would consider it proved.
> 
> Where do you think there is reasonable doubt? Did a cloaked alien spacecraft enter the atmosphere and knock him off his bike?


 I have not seen the evidence. I was commenting on the list I quoted.

There is no apparent *evidence* in that list as to how he came to come off his bike.

There is a huge difference between what happened and being able to PROVE what happened. Its not about which version is more likely to be true, its about proof beyond all reasonable doubt. Its a very high standard


----------



## spen666 (23 Mar 2015)

User said:


> We don't need to know why. That it occurred is a known. The person responsible is a known. That they failed to see him is established by their account. That is enough to put to a court. The only doubt is whether it is enough to put to a court on a good enough charge.


None of that, even if accepted proves careless driving. You need more than that. You can prove a collission occurred. That does not prove careless.

It may well be careless, it may well be dangerous, but the Crown need to prove it.

Speculation and supposition and conjecture is not proof in a criminal court


----------



## Lemond (23 Mar 2015)

User said:


> That is the mystery of the matter.



There is no mystery. Read either post by spen666 that appear above or below your post. This really shouldn't be so difficult for you to understand.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> *Maybe the cyclist swerved for some reason? *Nobody saw what happened, so how could the police say with certainty that he didn't? The evidence available only gives part of the picture. Surely more is needed if criminal charges are to be made?


They didn't. Next.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> But you don't know why the impact happened, do you.


Yes. A car, driven by a chufftard, travelling at a speed higher than the bicycle in front of it, carrying considerable kinetic energy, caught up with the bike and collided straight-on with the rear wheel of the bicycle transferring some of its kinetic energy to the slower moving bicycle. Cyclist fell from bike as a direct result of this unexpected energy transfer, injured his brain and died.

Simple. Physics is like that. MERCILESS.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Mar 2015)

spen666 said:


> I have not seen the evidence. I was commenting on the list I quoted.
> 
> There is no apparent *evidence* in that list as to how he came to come off his bike.
> 
> There is a huge difference between what happened and being able to PROVE what happened. Its not about which version is more likely to be true, its about proof beyond all reasonable doubt. Its a very high standard


forensics have shown the car hit the bike. the driver admitted the car hit the bike.

Folk have been convicted on much more serious charges on much flimsier evidence.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> There is no mystery. Read either post by spen666 that appear above or below your post. This really shouldn't be so difficult for you to understand.


It is a mystery because it is usually the CPS's call to make, not plod's, and plod didn't even refer it to CPS. They said they would. then they said they wouldn't.

And now you're going on my ignore list. goodbye.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Mar 2015)

User said:


> The bit I am not understanding is why people are quite so desperate that it should be impossible to put to a court. Having said that, I don't think I want to know.


The only thing that is greater than my discomfort about why folk in here, who I assume ride the odd mile or two on a bike* from time-to-time, asserting there is no case to answer, is my discomfort with the Met's actions and statements in this case.

*of course, they probably all drive too much and are maybe more than a little driver-centric rather than cyclist-centric in their thinking, albeit, perhaps, unconsciously. Thus they are all a bit "Poor woman!" and "there-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-I."


----------



## Dan B (23 Mar 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> why folk in here, who I assume ride the odd mile or two on a bike* from time-to-time, ...


You can't make assumptions like that about people unless there was an independent witness. Just because they're on a cycling forum talking about cycling, you don't know _ why _ they're doing that. Perhaps it was just an accident


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Mar 2015)

I'm going to make this my final post in this thread, I think. From here

_"DI MASON states, given the available information, his opinion is there is no evidence available to show Ms Purcell did nothing more than act as a careful and competent driver and that this incident was nothing more than a tragic accident."_

In DI Mason's opinion there was no evidence, No evidence but marks on a car bumper and a dying cyclist in the road, and a driver's admission.

In DI Mason's opinion careful and competent drivers knock cyclists off their bikes and kill them. 

I don't think the words careful and competent mean what he thinks they mean. 

What a load of fiddle. I despair. And my Fly6 is going on every ride from now on. Bar none.


----------



## Lemond (23 Mar 2015)

User said:


> The bit I am not understanding is why people are quite so desperate that it should be impossible to put to a court. Having said that, I don't think I want to know.



Let me enlighten you anyway. My view in all of this is that the police are being unfairly criticised. I do not believe them to be incompetant. I do not believe them to be corrupt. I do not believe there is any conspiracy here.

I believe they investigated this incident without an agenda. I believe that if the police consider the evidence available is not sufficient to bring about a charge, then they reached that decision honestly and were not driven by some need to protect the driver. People might not like that decision, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right decision.

And finally, I believe what happened to Mr Mason was a tragedy.


----------



## Dan B (23 Mar 2015)

I believe you're indulging in circular reasoning.


----------



## Dan B (23 Mar 2015)

Oh, and that your use of the word "enlighten"above is grossly inappropriate


----------



## benb (23 Mar 2015)

It's quite interesting how some people can dismiss all of the forensic evidence, simply because there was no eye witness to the actual impact.
Are they seriously of the opinion that only crimes that were observed being committed can be proven to a high enough standard?


----------



## spen666 (23 Mar 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> forensics have shown the car hit the bike. the driver admitted the car hit the bike.
> 
> Folk have been convicted on much more serious charges on much flimsier evidence.


Name a single case where the only evidence was there had been a collision and a conviction followed and I will show you a case where there was a wrongful conviction on the evidence.

The offence is careless driving, not being involved in a collision


----------



## glenn forger (23 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> Let me enlighten you anyway. My view in all of this is that the police are being unfairly criticised. .



The Mason family discovered that the Met had made a mistake and not referred the case through the media. Their family liaison officer didn't even bother to get in touch. The Met have behaved disgracefully.


----------



## Lemond (23 Mar 2015)

benb said:


> It's quite interesting how some people can dismiss all of the forensic evidence, simply because there was no eye witness to the actual impact.
> Are they seriously of the opinion that only crimes that were observed being committed can be proven to a high enough standard?



I don't think anyone is saying that. What the police are saying is that the evidence in and of itself isn't enough to charge the driver. An eyewitness might have meant a different decision, or maybe reinforced the decision taken.


----------



## spen666 (23 Mar 2015)

benb said:


> It's quite interesting how some people can dismiss all of the forensic evidence, simply because there was no eye witness to the actual impact.
> Are they seriously of the opinion that only crimes that were observed being committed can be proven to a high enough standard?


what does forensic evidence prove? it proves there was a collision. that alone does not prove any offence


----------



## glasgowcyclist (23 Mar 2015)

spen666 said:


> Name a single case where the only evidence was there had been a collision and a conviction followed and I will show you a case where there was a wrongful conviction on the evidence.
> 
> The offence is careless driving, not being involved in a collision




This hit and run driver was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving (after sterling work by the Irish police) in a unanimous decision. No witnesses to the collision and the killer's vehicle wasn't even found.

Will that do?


GC


----------



## spen666 (23 Mar 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> This hit and run driver was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving (after sterling work by the Irish police) in a unanimous decision. No witnesses to the collision and the killer's vehicle wasn't even found.
> 
> Will that do?
> 
> ...


Well for a start its a different country and different laws.

Secondly there was more evidence than simply the fact a collision had occured - the fact the body had been thrown into the hedge some distance from the collision for example. That shows the accident had happened at high speed. Hence you now have the additional evidence of high speed

Wait, what;'s this


> Evidence would be given that “the deceased was on his correct side of the road and the driver of the Land Cruiser was on his incorrect side,” Mr Rice said.


Oh look seems like there was some more evidence there

strangely we already have far more evidence than just a collision occurred.


----------



## spen666 (23 Mar 2015)

oh and 140 prosecution witnesses would suggest there is more evidence than the fact a collision took place.

Evidence is not just eye witnesses


----------



## benb (23 Mar 2015)

spen666 said:


> what does forensic evidence prove? it proves there was a collision. that alone does not prove any offence



It can do.


----------



## benb (23 Mar 2015)

What seems to be the case, IMO, is that the investigating officer was incompetent and biased.


----------



## spen666 (23 Mar 2015)

benb said:


> What seems to be the case, IMO, is that the investigating officer was incompetent and biased.



There is no evidence in public to sustain either allegation


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Mar 2015)

spen666 said:


> what does forensic evidence prove? it proves there was a collision. that alone does not prove any offence


I refer m'learned friend to post #199

If you have a rear end collision with a well lit cyclist on a well lit street, even if obeying the speed limits, you are driving carelessly. You are, in that moment, the living embodiment of a careless driver. You have proved yourself to be a twunt of the highest order, a danger to others, and should not be allowed to operate heavy machines in a public space.

That the law, and the enforcement agencies that support it, and motor-centric society at large, and some supposed cyclists, apparently see it otherwise is a scandal.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Mar 2015)

benb said:


> What seems to be the case, IMO, is that the investigating officer was incompetent and biased.


Could.Not.Be.Arsed.

Only.A.Cyclist.After.All.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Mar 2015)

spen666 said:


> There is no evidence in public to sustain either allegation


His statement that he believes she drove in a careful and competent manner is in the public domain and so is his reasoning as to the factors in his decision, no hiviz, no helmet, neither of which are required by law, provide all the evidence that is needed to put the substance of the allegation(s) beyond doubt.

Careful competent drivers don't rear end well lit cyclists on well lit streets


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Mar 2015)

User said:


> It appears more cynical than that to me. A cyclist who wore black rather than Hi Viz and no helmet, oh well own fault then.


They.Bring.It.On.Themselves.
They.Almost.Deserve.To.Die.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Mar 2015)

Chuff.Me.I.Deserve.To.Die.

All that black gear and no helmet.

I'm.Gagging.For.It.


----------



## spen666 (23 Mar 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> His statement that he believes she drove in a careful and competent manner is in the public domain and so is his reasoning as to the factors in his decision, no hiviz, no helmet, neither of which are required by law, provide all the evidence that is needed to put the substance of the allegation(s) beyond doubt.
> 
> Careful competent drivers don't rear end well lit cyclists on well lit streets



So where is his statement then?


----------



## spen666 (23 Mar 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I refer m'learned friend to post #199
> 
> If you have a rear end collision with a well lit cyclist on a well lit street, even if obeying the speed limits, you are driving carelessly. You are, in that moment, the living embodiment of a careless driver. You have proved yourself to be a twunt of the highest order, a danger to others, and should not be allowed to operate heavy machines in a public space.
> 
> That the law, and the enforcement agencies that support it, and motor-centric society at large, and some supposed cyclists, apparently see it otherwise is a scandal.


You have now added lots of other evidence into the equation.


Oh and you are wrong as well.

The fact a cyclist is well lit on a well lit street and is hit from behind does not on its own prove the driving was careless at all.

It may be careless, but the fact of a collision on its own is not sufficient at all. For example if the car brakes failed owing to a sudden unpredictable mechanical fault, then the driver is not careless.

Your narrow minded approach is the problem here. The law is the same whether you are a cyclist or not.


Fortunately we need evidence, not prejudice before people are convicted in criminal courts


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Mar 2015)

benb said:


> What seems to be the case, IMO, is that the investigating officer was incompetent and biased.


Anyway, you can't say that because another police office checked with him and decided it isn't true.


----------



## theclaud (23 Mar 2015)

Legal fundamentalists - gotta love 'em!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Mar 2015)

spen666 said:


> You have now added lots of other evidence into the equation.
> 
> 
> Oh and you are wrong as well.
> ...


Stop. You are making a fool of yourself.

I have added nothing. Not a sausage.

The brakes might have failed? It is possible the driver was claimed by the rapture in the moments leading up to the collision. Do some reading about this CASE, stick to the facts of THIS case, stop making pointless generalisations

or shut the chuff up.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Mar 2015)

spen666 said:


> So where is his statement then?


google fu not working for you?

(EDIT see post #199)


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Mar 2015)

User said:


> It appears more cynical than that to me. A cyclist who wore black rather than Hi Viz and no helmet, oh well own fault then.


And let's hope to God that DI Mason never investigates a rape, then.


----------



## Wobblers (23 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> Let me enlighten you anyway. My view in all of this is that the police are being unfairly criticised. I do not believe them to be incompetant. I do not believe them to be corrupt. I do not believe there is any conspiracy here.
> 
> I believe they investigated this incident without an agenda. I believe that if the police consider the evidence available is not sufficient to bring about a charge, then they reached that decision honestly and were not driven by some need to protect the driver. People might not like that decision, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right decision.
> 
> And finally, I believe what happened to Mr Mason was a tragedy.



The investigating officer cited the fact that Mr Mason was not wearing a helmet as one reason for not prosecuting. This is despite the fact that the medical evidence does not support the claim that helmets offer protection against severe brain injury. Nor indeed do any charges depend on whether or not a helmet was being worn - merely that a collision occurred and it was caused by neglient driving.

That Mr Mason was not wearing hi-viz is also cited as a reason - yet he was legally lit with lights. Undue weight seems to have been lent to one witness suggesting that his lights _may _have been lost in the clutter of lights... in an extremely well lit street. Yet there was no police investigation to ascertain what the actual lighting conditions were at the time of collision, or whether or not Mr Mason was clearly visible. This is entirely suppostion on the part of the police. Suppostion that in any case is weakened by the simple observation that the motorist did not crash into any non hi-viz cars.

Furthermore, CCTV footage shows that the motorist was not driving at an excessive speed. This is claimed to be evidence of her driving in a competent manner. It is not. It is evidence that she was not speeding. No more. It in no way proves competency. Subsequent events rather undermine that particular claim.

This does not suggest that the investigation by the Met was done in any reasonably diligent and competent manner.


----------



## spen666 (24 Mar 2015)

User said:


> No one is saying that anything proves anything. What people are asking is that a court hear the case.


The CPS are not able to take a case to trial unless it passes the Code for Crown Prosecutors Test - this require that there is a reasonable prospect of success. The fact a collision has occurred is not *on its own* sufficient to provide a reasonable prospect of success.


----------



## spen666 (24 Mar 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> google fu not working for you?
> 
> (EDIT see post #199)


I am not sure that post #199 quoted below is the statement of the officer.


GrumpyGregry said:


> The only thing that is greater than my discomfort about why folk in here, who I assume ride the odd mile or two on a bike* from time-to-time, asserting there is no case to answer, is my discomfort with the Met's actions and statements in this case.
> 
> *of course, they probably all drive too much and are maybe more than a little driver-centric rather than cyclist-centric in their thinking, albeit, perhaps, unconsciously. Thus they are all a bit "Poor woman!" and "there-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-I."




I asked where is the statement of the officer people are pontificating about.


----------



## spen666 (24 Mar 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Stop. You are making a fool of yourself.
> 
> I have added nothing. Not a sausage.
> 
> ...


I am making of a fool of myself?

Really? Which part of the law have I made a fool of myself about

I have limited myself to stating what the law is and what the elements of the offence are.

Sadly for some, that means pointing out the errors in what has been posted. 

It says a lot about people's ability to look at things legally if they think that stating the law in a debate about the law is making a fool of yourself


----------



## Arrowfoot (24 Mar 2015)

glenn forger said:


> So, if someone negligently threw a fire extinguisher off a building and killed someone you'd call it an "accident"?



No error or negligence involved. It is deliberate act and the possible outcome would be clear to a sane person. We are looking at manslaughter.


----------



## theclaud (24 Mar 2015)

spen666 said:


> It says a lot about people's ability to look at things legally if they think that stating the law in a debate about the law is making a fool of yourself


Actually it's about why 'the law' allows drivers to kill cyclists with impunity. You are making a fool of yourself in the service of this dismal state of affairs.


----------



## Arrowfoot (24 Mar 2015)

glenn forger said:


> No, it is not, because it was AVOIDABLE.



Everything is avoidable. But in life and to progress everyone takes risk. There is no deliberate intention to harm someone. But there are laws to hold someone accountable for an accident that has an impact on someone else or something that results in a loss of some magnitude.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Mar 2015)

spen666 said:


> I am making of a fool of myself?
> 
> Really? Which part of the law have I made a fool of myself about
> 
> ...


Yes. You've made a fool of yourself.

I assume as a lawyer you can read, yet you clearly have not read this thread, nor much of the other information elsewhere on the web about this case.

You've waded in, pontificating, in general terms, about the law on this and that without being familiar with the specifics of this case.
Then when the specific details are pointed out to you claim new evidence/factors are being introduced.

Foolish is as foolish does.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Mar 2015)

spen666 said:


> I am not sure that post #199 quoted below is the statement of the officer.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked where is the statement of the officer people are pontificating about.


Follow the link in #199


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Mar 2015)

McWobble said:


> That Mr Mason was not wearing hi-viz is also cited as a reason - yet he was legally lit with lights. Undue weight seems to have been lent to one witness suggesting that *his lights may have been lost in the clutter of lights... in an extremely well lit street.* Yet there was no police investigation to ascertain what the actual lighting conditions were at the time of collision, or whether or not Mr Mason was clearly visible. This is entirely suppostion on the part of the police. Suppostion that in any case is weakened by the simple observation that the motorist did not crash into any non hi-viz cars.


To which a prosecuting lawyer can ask "So what?" Any careful and competent driver knows that cyclists can be lost in the clutter of lights. Any competent and careful driver knows that even an unlit ninja is still visible in the light from street lights and their own headlamps. Any careful and competent driver looks and sees what they are looking at.

instead the met approach is hearing a driver say "I didn't see him" and responding "that's alright then. just an accident."


----------



## benb (24 Mar 2015)

spen666 said:


> There is no evidence in public to sustain either allegation



Oh really?
http://road.cc/146173

The investigating officer has said


> Mr MASON (Deceased) was wearing dark clothing, the collision having taken place during hours of darkness.
> 
> Mr MASON was not wearing a cycle helmet, the cause of death being head injury



Obviously neither of those things are a defence to the driver having run the cyclist down from behind, as he was well lit. Clear evidence of bias.

DI Mason goes on to say



> DI MASON states, given the available information, his opinion is there is no evidence available to
> show Ms Purcell did nothing more than act as a careful and competent driver and that this incident
> was nothing more than a tragic accident.



Which is just staggering.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Mar 2015)

Metropolitan Police Investigating Officers Report into conduct of DI Mason (as in link in post #199) in response to a complaint from Martin Porter QC aka The Cycling Lawyer.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (24 Mar 2015)

spen666 said:


> Well for a start its a different country and different laws.



The standard of evidence is the same (beyond reasonable doubt) and the dangerous driving offence almost identical. The two systems are so similar that the Irish courts' most significant extra-judicial source of persuasive judgements is from the courts of England and Wales. But if you want to discount my example that's fine.



> Secondly there was more evidence than simply the fact a collision had occured [sic] ...



Do you take the view that in the Mason case there is only evidence of a collision?

GC


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Mar 2015)

User said:


> Whitewash.


One word for it, certainly. But it is what we've come to expect. Sigh.


----------



## Lemond (24 Mar 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Do you take the view that in the Mason case there is only evidence of a collision?



If I may, I think what Spen666 was suggesting was that evidence of a collision is not the same as evidence of a crime. This was in response to other posters who were arguing that collision equals crime, end of discussion.


----------



## spen666 (24 Mar 2015)

User said:


> For goodness sake, no one whatsoever is arguing that collision equals crime. The argument is that collusion plus admission of not having seen the cyclist is a good enough reason for a court to hear the case.


 It is not

The fact of a collision and motorist not seeing cyclist *on its own* is not sufficient in law.

Take for example a hypothetical situation.

Motorist is stationary at a t junction after stopping behind giveway line, looking to his left , cyclist comes from his right, rides into stationary car (cyclist has swereved off main carriageway.

There you have a collision and motorist did not see cyclist.

There is no blame on motorist at all, let alone evidence of careless driving



Whether there is guilt or not in the Mason case I cannot say as I like I suspect most people on here have not heard ALL the evidence.


----------



## spen666 (24 Mar 2015)

theclaud said:


> Actually it's about why 'the law' allows drivers to kill cyclists with impunity. You are making a fool of yourself in the service of this dismal state of affairs.


 Erm. all I am doing is stating a fact, namely what the law is.

I neither make the law, nor am responsible for those who do make it.


----------



## spen666 (24 Mar 2015)

User said:


> Or, more specifically in this case, the CPS cannot take the case to trial because someone decided that there was no need to refer it to them.


 That is a different point, and a very valid one.

The Police appear to have wrongly not referred the matter to the CPS.

It is my understanding that in fatal road traffic accidents the decision should be made by the CPS. It is not clear to me why this did not happen


----------



## spen666 (24 Mar 2015)

benb said:


> Oh really?
> http://road.cc/146173
> 
> The investigating officer has said
> ...


 I repeat my comment, there is no EVIDENCE in public to support either allegation.

There is plenty of conjecture, speculation and comment. These are not evidence


----------



## spen666 (24 Mar 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> The standard of evidence is the same (beyond reasonable doubt) and the dangerous driving offence almost identical. The two systems are so similar that the Irish courts' most significant extra-judicial source of persuasive judgements is from the courts of England and Wales. But if you want to discount my example that's fine.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I don't take any view as I have not seen the full file of papers in this case.

However in the other case there were 140 prosecution witnesses, so to compare it to a case where there is only evidence a collision took place and no more is strange


----------



## benb (24 Mar 2015)

spen666 said:


> I repeat my comment, there is no EVIDENCE in public to support either allegation.
> 
> There is plenty of conjecture, speculation and comment. These are not evidence



The officer's own words are not evidence?
That's kind of odd.


----------



## spen666 (24 Mar 2015)

User said:


> 17 pages later the point finally gets there.


 That might be your point

My point has been that evidence of a collision is not sufficient on its own to found a conviction.


----------



## spen666 (24 Mar 2015)

benb said:


> The officer's own words are not evidence?
> That's kind of odd.


 
Where is the officer's statement not selective extracts of something that may or may not be from the officer's statement?


----------



## w00hoo_kent (24 Mar 2015)

spen666 said:


> Where is the officer's statement not selective extracts of something that may or may not be from the officer's statement?


I have to say, and apologies if this comes across more personal than I'd like it to, your answers here have gone a long way to explaining why so many people end up in a state of complete frustration with the law and come to the conclusion that their safety as a cyclist is much more to do with random whim than anything else.

At some point this year I'll be riding the streets of London without Hi Viz, probably without a helmet, maybe after dark. I kind of figure it's pure luck someone doesn't run me down and get off with a shrug.


----------



## Dan B (24 Mar 2015)

If it wasn't for the effect it'd have on aerodynamics I'd be giving serious consideration to riding everywhere with a garden rake on the back of the bike.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Mar 2015)

spen666 said:


> The Police appear to have wrongly not referred the matter to the CPS.
> 
> It is my understanding that in fatal road traffic accidents the decision should be made by the CPS. It is not clear to me why this did not happen


Your understanding is WRONG.
The Met Police are entirely happy that the decision not to refer the case to the CPS is the correct one as evidenced by the report of the Investigating Officer into Martin Porter's complaint.


----------



## benb (24 Mar 2015)

spen666 said:


> Where is the officer's statement not selective extracts of something that may or may not be from the officer's statement?



Oh sorry, I thought when you said evidence, you were being honest in that request, not just asking for things which agreed with you and dismissing everything else.

The officer's statement was in the article I linked. I guess you couldn't be bothered to read it.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (24 Mar 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Do you take the view that in the Mason case there is only evidence of a collision?





spen666 said:


> I don't take any view as I have not seen the full file of papers in this case.



Then what was the point of you asking :


spen666 said:


> Name a single case where the only evidence was there had been a collision and a conviction followed ...





spen666 said:


> However in the other case there were 140 prosecution witnesses, so to compare it to *a case where there is only evidence a collision took place and no more* is strange



Make your mind up; is there only evidence of a collision in this case or not?

GC


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Mar 2015)

spen666 said:


> It is not
> 
> The fact of a collision and motorist not seeing cyclist *on its own* is not sufficient in law.
> 
> ...


First you were saying there was no evidence. Now we haven't heard ALL the evidence. (Except that we have becuase the Met have made it public.

Make up your mind please.

And stop coming up with increasingly ludicrous hypothetical examples and stick to what is KNOWN about this case....

A driver rear-ended a well lit cyclist on a well lit street because she didn't see him and a Detective Inspector in the Met thinks that is careful and competent driving.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Mar 2015)

benb said:


> Oh sorry, I thought when you said evidence, you were being honest in that request, not just asking for things which agreed with you and dismissing everything else.
> 
> The officer's statement was in the article I linked. I guess you couldn't be bothered to read it.


The officer's statements are contained in the official Met report into the complaint against him.


----------



## benb (24 Mar 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> The officer's statements are contained in the official Met report into the complaint against him.



Yes, a link to which is in the article about it I posted earlier.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Mar 2015)

benb said:


> Yes, a link to which is in the article about it I posted earlier.


Spenster doesn't do links  I posted the report as a file on here this morning.


----------



## benb (24 Mar 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Spenster doesn't do links  I posted the report as a file on here this morning.



So you did.
It probably doesn't count as evidence though, for some reason.


----------



## Dan B (24 Mar 2015)

benb said:


> So you did.
> It probably doesn't count as evidence though, for some reason.


It's only evidence if spen666 saw it with his own eyes.


----------



## CopperCyclist (24 Mar 2015)

Dan B said:


> If it wasn't for the effect it'd have on aerodynamics I'd be giving serious consideration to riding everywhere with a garden rake on the back of the bike.



You're a genius. 

I'm off to 'borrow' one of our stinger devices gathering dust at the station since traffic officers were sent away, and attach a rope. They already have wheels underneath which roll very well. I think I could patent it as an excellent safety device for cyclists. 

Unfortunately if I do so, in six years we may see a motorist not prosecuted because the cyclist wasn't dragging a "Stringer".


----------



## Lemond (24 Mar 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> First you were saying there was no evidence. Now we haven't heard ALL the evidence. (Except that we have becuase the Met have made it public.
> 
> Make up your mind please.
> 
> ...



It shouldn't be forgotten that multiple officers will have been involved in the initial investigation, and then another set of officers will have conducted the case review, and then it looks like a chief inspector then reviewed the review. And, of course, it also shouldn't be forgotten that all of this went before the Westminster’s coroners court, where a verdict of Accident was returned. If there was something so obviously wrong based on the evidence available wouldn't the coroner have picked this up? Furthermore, if the coroner felt that the case should have been put forward to the CPS, wouldn't he or she have instructed the police to do so?


----------



## spen666 (25 Mar 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Your understanding is WRONG.
> The Met Police are entirely happy that the decision not to refer the case to the CPS is the correct one as evidenced by the report of the Investigating Officer into Martin Porter's complaint.


My understanding is correct.

The fact the Met Police in this case ( I don't know about other cases) did not comply with their requirements does not mean I am wrong, it means the Met Police did not comply with their duties.

Your logic is totally flawed, the police f*cked up, a junior police officer defends theirir approach, therefore you decide the police are right! So by the same logic whenever someone denies doing something wrong, they must be correct


----------



## spen666 (25 Mar 2015)

benb said:


> Oh sorry, I thought when you said evidence, you were being honest in that request, not just asking for things which agreed with you and dismissing everything else.
> 
> The officer's statement was in the article I linked. I guess you couldn't be bothered to read it.


a) the link did not appear in the post when I read it ( work filters I presume as I have read it now)
b) The link you post is to a report into a complaint about the handling of the case, it is not the evidence in relation to the original investigation. The accident investigation officer's statement is not on that link as far as I can see.


----------



## Arrowfoot (25 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> It shouldn't be forgotten that multiple officers will have been involved in the initial investigation, and then another set of officers will have conducted the case review, and then it looks like a chief inspector then reviewed the review. And, of course, it also shouldn't be forgotten that all of this went before the Westminster’s coroners court, where a verdict of Accident was returned. If there was something so obviously wrong based on the evidence available wouldn't the coroner have picked this up? Furthermore, if the coroner felt that the case should have been put forward to the CPS, wouldn't he or she have instructed the police to do so?



The concern here is that it has enough for a referral to CPS. CPS might chose to prosecute. Its a fatality, the vehicle that knocked the victim has been estblished. Its a busy road in the middle of London, the victim had lights on. 

Lets assume that 30 Police Officers plus an Inspector and Chief Supt was asked to focus on this case. Based on the second paragraph, I would suggest that it will be a CPS referral. The Police are not allowed to mitigate on behalf on the driver if there is a prima facie case at hand.


----------



## benb (25 Mar 2015)

spen666 said:


> a) the link did not appear in the post when I read it ( work filters I presume as I have read it now)
> b) The link you post is to a report into a complaint about the handling of the case, it is not the evidence in relation to the original investigation. The accident investigation officer's statement is not on that link as far as I can see.



The article has a link to the report on why the officer didn't submit the file to the CPS.
In that report were the statements by the officer about dark clothing and helmets, which you said were not evidence of the officer's bias.


----------



## Lemond (25 Mar 2015)

benb said:


> The article has a link to the report on why the officer didn't submit the file to the CPS.
> In that report were the statements by the officer about dark clothing and helmets, which you said were not evidence of the officer's bias.



The document contains a list of facts in evidence, which do not appear to have been disputed by anyone. The police must gather these facts and considered them collectively - not cherrypick - and determine whether they pass the standards demanded by the full code test. This test directs the police to consider all of the the available evidence and the degree to which that evidence points to a realistic prospect that the driver will be convicted. If that realistic prospect of conviction doesn't exist, then the case must not proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive it may be. That is not in any way the fault of the police. It does not demonstrate bias or ineptitude on their part. Look at the evidence available and it's not hard to see how the case for the defence would proceed, and therefore how that realistic prospect of conviction just isn't there.


----------



## Dan B (25 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> The document contains a list of facts in evidence, which do not appear to have been disputed by anyone. The police must gather these facts and considered them collectively - not cherrypick


Since they don't seem to have included the fact that the driver admitted that she should have been able to see the cyclist if he was there, or that the cyclist and car were travelling in the same direction at impact (no last-minute swerve), they seem to have fallen at the first hurdle there. And unless helmets have magical car-repelling properties of which I was not aware, the fact that he was not wearing one can be no more relevant to the standard of her driving than the colour of his underwear.


----------



## benb (25 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> The document contains a list of facts in evidence, which do not appear to have been disputed by anyone. The police must gather these facts and considered them collectively - not cherrypick - and determine whether they pass the standards demanded by the full code test. This test directs the police to consider all of the the available evidence and the degree to which that evidence points to a realistic prospect that the driver will be convicted. If that realistic prospect of conviction doesn't exist, then the case must not proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive it may be. That is not in any way the fault of the police. It does not demonstrate bias or ineptitude on their part. Look at the evidence available and it's not hard to see how the case for the defence would proceed, and therefore how that realistic prospect of conviction just isn't there.



So just to clarify, you have no problem at all with this case not being passed to the CPS to hear the evidence at court?


----------



## Lemond (25 Mar 2015)

Dan B said:


> Since they don't seem to have included the fact that the driver admitted that she should have been able to see the cyclist if he was there, or that the cyclist and car were travelling in the same direction at impact (no last-minute swerve), they seem to have fallen at the first hurdle there. And unless helmets have magical car-repelling properties of which I was not aware, the fact that he was not wearing one can be no more relevant to the standard of her driving than the colour of his underwear.



How could the police include the driver's admission that she did not see Mr Mason? That admission was made in court, nine months after the incident. 

There are multiple references to the direction in which Mr Mason and the car were travelling and their respective positions on the road. But what there isn't any evidence of is when, how and why Mr Mason moved over to his right. All that is known, according to witnesses, CCTV and, sadly, the impact marks on the car, is that at some point he did. It's all there in black and white.

Finally, there doesn't appear to be any value judgement made by the police as to the effectiveness or otherwise of cycling helmets. Even the coroner said that had Mr Mason been wearing a high-via jacket and /or helmet, it probably wouldn't have made any difference.


----------



## Lemond (25 Mar 2015)

benb said:


> So just to clarify, you have no problem at all with this case not being passed to the CPS to hear the evidence at court?



Having taken the time to do a little bit of reading and research, I now understand why the police couldn't charge the driver. The full code test doesn't allow them to charge the driver, based on the evidence available. If more evidence were available that would have increased the realistic prospect of conviction, I am sure that the police would have charged the driver. Unless you buy into the idea that every officer involved in this investigation is either incompetent or corrupt (and that goes for the coroner, too), I can see no reason as to why they wouldn't proceed?


----------



## Dan B (25 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> How could the police include the driver's admission that she did not see Mr Mason? That admission was made in court, nine months after the incident.



Read Martin Porter's account:


> She gave evidence *consistent with her accounts to the police* that she did not see Mr Mason or his bicycle at any time before the collision


Her accounts to the police were presumably at the time of the accident


> There are multiple references to the direction in which Mr Mason and the car were travelling and their respective positions on the road. But what there isn't any evidence of is when, how and why Mr Mason moved over to his right.



There is evidence of when, in that it was sufficently far in advance of the car driver hitting him that he was able to straighten up. I don't see why we need evidence of "how": the mechanisms available to him would have included leaning his bicycle, turning the handlebars, or hitching a short ride on a giant roc. And why is "why" anybody's business but his own?



> Finally, there doesn't appear to be any value judgement made by the police as to the effectiveness or otherwise of cycling helmets.


They listed the fact he was not wearing a helmet as a reason not to put the case to the CPS. That's a value judgement


----------



## Wobblers (28 Mar 2015)

User said:


> Actually it's a list of contentions and *views *- not necessarily indisputable facts.



I think the more accurate phrase would be "unqualified opinions".


----------



## Lemond (31 Mar 2015)

benb said:


> The article has a link to the report on why the officer didn't submit the file to the CPS.
> In that report were the statements by the officer about dark clothing and helmets, which you said were not evidence of the officer's bias.



Apparently, when the police attend a road traffic incident it is standard practice for the officers to complete a set of forms that are structured around the content of the Highway Code. That's why whether a cyclist is wearing a helmet or hi-viz is recorded. Not because of bias, but because the Highway Code suggests both for cyclists. In exactly the same way, the police will record whether a pedestrian is wearing hi-viz if they were to be hit by a vehicle...because the Highway Code suggests such for pedestrians.


----------



## Pale Rider (31 Mar 2015)

It's plain stupid to suggest a copper is biased when he arrives at a road traffic collision, or any other job.

All he cares about is getting through the day unscathed, and getting through his career also in one piece so he can collect his pension.


----------



## Dan B (31 Mar 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> It's plain stupid to suggest a copper is biased when he arrives at a road traffic collision, or any other job.
> 
> All he cares about is getting through the day unscathed, and getting through his career also in one piece so he can collect his pension.


I'd like to hope that one could add "upholding the law" and "justice" to that list. Otherwise, frankly, a jobcentre employee could do the job just as well


----------



## Pale Rider (31 Mar 2015)

User said:


> We appear to be going round in circles here. The absence of helmet and hi-viz were not dispassionately recorded, they were offered as part of the thought process to explain why the matter was not referred to the CPS.



Both - they were dispassionately recorded, just a polis filling in his forms by the look of it, and they were offered as part of the thought process.

If you are considering trying to make someone criminally responsible for the death of a cyclist, then his clothing and lights - if dark - are some of the things you could reasonably take into consideration.

There are lots of others.

The amount of weight you attach to each is the difficult - and unknown - part.

Most police forces operate by national guidelines, in my part of the world there is definitely no automatic bar on prosecuting cases in which the cyclist is not wearing hi-viz.


----------



## glenn forger (31 Mar 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> It's plain stupid to suggest a copper is biased when he arrives at a road traffic collision, or any other job.



the four thousand complaints about police handling of KSI RTCs involving cyclists include destroying evidence, waving away witnesses, ignoring witnesses and delaying paperwork.

Police prejudice against cyclists is rampant.

Aiden Forster was smashed into from behind by a 4x4 driver. The attending police officer implicitly blamed Aiden for the incident stating:“you cyclists take your lives into your own hands”. Despite a number of vehicles present at the scene, the police did not take any witness statements.The police accepted the driver’s explanation that he had been ‘dazzled by sunlight’ and therefore hadn’t seen Aiden on the hill, but the police did not analyse the sun’s position in the sky at the time of the collision to verify this claim or comment that the driver should have adjusted their speed if they could not see the road ahead of them.


In the case of the Oxford Street cyclist who was rammed and then strangled by a cabbie they arrived and arrested the cyclist. It was only when horrified witnesses came forward they dropped the case. In Eilidh Cairns case they didn't even bother to check the driver's eyesight before the family insisted. Dan Black had his back broken by an elderly driver who the cops decided not to charge.

ACPO themselves list the failures of the police in dealing with RTCs involving cyclists:



> Common problems with investigations include: •
> 
> Failure to attend the crash scene;
> 
> ...



http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2014/CTC Road Justice The Role of the Police_June 2013.pdf

Police failures and prejudice are well known and often result in careless or even killer drivers escaping any sanction whatsoever.


----------



## Pale Rider (31 Mar 2015)

User said:


> Yes, we all understand all of that already. The only mystery is that the decision was taken not even to refer it to the CPS.



The answer is in the complaint report - linked to in post 288 upthread.

Put shortly, the guidelines state the police should only refer the case to the CPS if the full evidence test is passed - realistic chance of a prosecution - which, importantly, is not the same as guilt or innocence.

The copper thought the test wasn't met, so didn't refer.

There's a lot more in the document.

It's a decision the copper now probably regrets, but the coroner also recorded a finding of accidental death.

It is within the coroner's power to adjourn the inquest and order the police to reconsider.

That the coroner didn't do that, or record a different finding such as unlawful killing, indicates he also thought there's nothing more to see here.

Both decisions could be incorrect, the family certainly think so.

On one hand, they are bound to think that, but on the other they will have had access to lots more documentation and sat through all the hearings.

I don't think there's enough reliable information in the public domain for us to make a firm judgment one way or the other.

But there's no reason for the coppers not to put the case forward to the CPS for prosecution if they thought that was the correct thing to do, and there's no reason for the coroner to put it down as an accident if he thought it wasn't one.

As in all such matters, in the unlikely event all these decisions are wrong, I take cock-up over conspiracy.


----------



## glenn forger (31 Mar 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> I take cock-up over conspiracy.



You think ACPO are incorrect in referring to institutional failures in investigating cyclist KSI RTCs? All those other cases, four thousand of them, are a coincidence?


----------



## Pale Rider (31 Mar 2015)

User said:


> Have we not established a few pages back that the charging decisions in all fatal collision cases are to be made by a the CPS?



If we did, it seems we were wrong.

Quoting from the complaint report:

DI MASON concludes his account into his review of the case by saying when making this decision he referred to the DPP’s Guidance on Charging 5th Edition: May 2013 and in particular;




“The Police are responsible for assessing cases before referral to ensure the Full Code or Threshold Test can be met on the available evidence as appropriate to the circumstances of the case”




“Police should ensure cases are only referred to a Prosecutor where there is sufficient evidence available (or capable of being obtained) to meet the full code test unless the decision requires; the assessment of complex evidence; legal issues; early investigative advice is sought”.




“The Police are responsible for taking ‘no further action’ in any case that cannot meet the appropriate evidential standard, without referral to a prosecutor”.


----------



## glenn forger (31 Mar 2015)

User said:


> And what of this bit?
> 
> Referral of Fatal Collision/Manslaughter Cases
> To ensure consistency of approach, charging decisions in all fatal collision cases should be approved by a Chief Crown Prosecutor (CCP), Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor (DCCP) or nominated senior decision maker (who will have been nominated for this role by their CCP/DCCP



That's exactly what the police claimed to have done. Then, without even bothering to contact the family, they admitted that they had done no such thing.


----------



## Pale Rider (31 Mar 2015)

User said:


> And what of this bit?
> 
> Referral of Fatal Collision/Manslaughter Cases
> To ensure consistency of approach, charging decisions in all fatal collision cases should be approved by a Chief Crown Prosecutor (CCP), Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor (DCCP) or nominated senior decision maker (who will have been nominated for this role by their CCP/DCCP



At first blush your quoted text seems at odds with DPP charging guidelines, but it isn't.

That's the next stage of the process, the second hurdle.

If a fatal collision case reaches the CPS, the decision to charge must be approved by one of their senior men.

In the Mason case, the case fell at the first hurdle, as soon as the copper realised it didn't meet the full evidence test, he knew it was bolloxed - applying the DPP guidelines he is obliged to do.

Even had the case been referred to the CPS, there is no guarantee it would have proceeded.

When a copper puts forward a case, the decision to charge or not is made by the CPS.

@Drago and @CopperCyclist will confirm one of their great frustrations is putting forward what they believe to be a good case only for the CPS to say: "No go (to court)."


----------



## glenn forger (31 Mar 2015)

DI Mason made-up evidence to fit his decision. There is no evidence that a plastic hat would have prevented the death, that's why none was submitted. A plastic hat certainly would not have prevented the collision since the driver admitted not seeing the cyclist at all, with or without hat.


----------



## Pale Rider (31 Mar 2015)

User said:


> That is one way of interpreting it.



It's also the correct one, hence the conclusion of the complaint report:


I have found the service you received met the minimum standard required, which means your complaint is not upheld in respect of the service you received.


In these circumstances there has not been a breach of the standards of professional behaviour. This means there is no case to answer for DI Nick MASON


The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 requires me to consider if the findings of any case relating to a public complaint warrants referring an officer to our Unsatisfactory Performance Process (UPP). Having reached the conclusion that I have, I do not consider that UPP is appropriate in respect of any of the officers concerned.


----------



## glenn forger (31 Mar 2015)

Is someone with four thousand complaints against them more or less likely to uphold complaints? The police frequently find themselves Not Guilty of all sorts of things, if you take these decisions at face value you're sadly naive.


----------



## glenn forger (31 Mar 2015)

http://eilidhcairns.com/eilidhs-crash/the-investigation-and-sentence/

More police prejudice and incompetence, first they denied anything was wrong with their sloppy, inadequate investigation, then they admitted it. So, the cops declaring themselves innocent of any wrongdoing would only be accepted by somebody ignorant as to their long history of cocked up investigations.


----------



## Pale Rider (31 Mar 2015)

I am also unable to assert there is insufficient evidence to prosecute.

But looking at the best summary of the evidence we have - again from the complaint report - it's difficult to argue with DI Mason.

This evidence is likely to be pretty much what goes before a jury, should the private prosecution ever get that far.

Does it prove beyond a reasonable doubt the driver was guilty of a momentary lapse of inattention?

The defence will make much of the fact there is no direct witness evidence of that, and one of the witnesses appears to be mistaken.

The waters will be further muddied by the no hi-viz, no helmet, the confusing picture painted by the 'sea of lights', and the cyclist's apparent move to the offside for reasons that cannot be determined.

Muddying the waters - creating a reasonable doubt - is all the defence has to do, they do not have to prove anything.

It seems to me a jury would be unlikely to convict on the evidence, but predicting jury decisions is notoriously difficult and I have been wrong just as many times as I have been right.

Here's the evidence summary.

DI MASON conclusions were having read all the material in the investigation and discussed the case with the SIO, DS Edwards and the other Investigating Officers he concluded that there is insufficient evidence to take any criminal action against the driver of the Nissan Juke, Ms Purcell.


DI MASON records the facts as:



Mr Michael Mason was in collision with the Nissan Juke.


Mr Mason died from the injuries sustained during this collision, a head injury.


Ms Purcell was the driver of the Nissan


There are no witnesses that describe the driver taking any action that would cause the collision.


There are no witnesses that describe Mr Mason taking any action that would cause the collision. Initially he was at the nearside of the road and at some point he moved to the offside. No witnesses are available as to why he changed his position in the road or when he did this. He may have had to avoid an obstruction in the road or a pedestrian stepping in front of him. No one person can say for sure.


Mr Mason was not wearing a protective helmet (cause of death given as a head injury) or any high visibility clothing, he was wearing dark clothing.


Mr Mason was displaying lights on the bicycle but these lights could easily be lost to a drivers sight in a busy central London Road in the dark where there are numerous other lights displayed.


The Nissan Juke car and Mr Mason’s bicycle were examined and found to have no faults that contributed to this collision.


Ms Purcell passed all road side tests including an eyesight test in the dark, the legal requirement being to pass this test in daylight.


There is witness evidence from Mr Suber Abdijarim which is at odds with other witnesses and the images shown on CCTV. He states that the Nissan Juke was doing over 30mph but I believe this statement to be inaccurate. I have viewed the CCTV and the Nissan Juke is travelling at the same speed as other traffic which is not excessive for the location. This fact is supported by the evidence of PC Gamble, the Collision Investigator who states that this was not a high speed collision. Mr Adijarim also states that the Nissan did not deviate or brake. Again this statement is inaccurate. It is clear from the CCTV taken from ‘Top Shop’ that the Nissan braked at the point of collision and then put on Hazard warning lights for the vehicle.


PC Gamble, the Collision Investigator states that Mr Mason was run over by the Nissan Juke but he is unable to confirm this for sure. I do not consider this relevant. It is clear Mr Mason died from injuries sustained in the collision.


There is no evidence available to say that Ms Purcell did a deliberate act or did anything that was negligent in relation her driving to cause this collision.



DI MASON states, given the available information, his opinion is there is no evidence available to show Ms Purcell did nothing more than act as a careful and competent driver and that this incident was nothing more than a tragic accident.


----------



## glenn forger (31 Mar 2015)

_
An independent witness at the scene (Neil TREVITHICK) stated that with the sea of brake lights, flashing lights and movement it would be difficult for a driver to pick out anything._

Supposition from a random member of the public. Regent Street is very well lit. MrMason's lights were legal.

_Mr MASON was not wearing a cycle helmet, the cause of death being head injury._

A 69 year old man was hit by a ton of metal from behind. A helmet is of no practical benefit at that speed.

_CCTV recovered from 2 independent venues highlighted that Ms PURCELL’S vehicle was travelling at an appropriate speed. This is corroborated by the minor damage caused to the vehicle after impact._

The vehicle collided with the bike from behind. The front of the car hit the rear wheel, a rubber tyre filled with air. There wouldn't be significant damage to the car.

_Whilst there was always debate as to whether Mr MASON was there to be seen, there was no argument, in my opinion, as to Ms PURCELL’S vehicle being visible._

Relevance? Mr Mason was hit from behind, the visibility of the car would not be a factor.

_Mr Michael Mason was in collision with the Nissan Juke._

It might be mere semantics, but it was indisputably the other way round.

_There are no witnesses that describe the driver taking any action that would cause the collision._

Mr Suber Abdijarim's evidence was that the Nissan was traveling above the speed limit.

_Mr Mason was displaying lights on the bicycle but these lights could easily be lost to a drivers sight in a busy central London Road in the dark where there are numerous other lights displayed._

Pure supposition. If anything, surely the dark clothes would stand out against a background of so many lights?

_Mr Adijarim also states that the Nissan did not deviate or brake. Again this statement is inaccurate. It is clear from the CCTV taken from ‘Top Shop’ that the Nissan braked at the point of collision and then put on Hazard warning lights for the vehicle._

Disingenuous. At the point of impact, or immediately afterwards, all the witnesses saw the car stop. Mr Adijarim is surely referring to the moments prior to the car hitting Mr Mason.

_PC Gamble, the Collision Investigator states that Mr Mason was run over by the Nissan Juke but he is unable to confirm this for sure. I do not consider this relevant._

Critical, I would say, because it would mean that Ms Purcell didn't immediately stop even after hitting Mr Mason.

_There is no evidence available to say that Ms Purcell did a deliberate act or did anything that was negligent in relation her driving to cause this collision._

Yes there is. Every other witness clearly saw Mr Mason. Ms Purcell was unable to explain why she did not.

_there is no evidence available to show Ms Purcell did nothing more than act as a careful and competent driver and that this incident was nothing more than a tragic accident._

There is the unchallenged fact that she failed to notice a cyclist who was behaving entirely legally and had fulfilled all legal obligations.

_DS EDWARDS suggested that it would be cruel to have a member of the public charged with either a criminal or traffic offence knowing they were innocent_

It is not the job of the police to decide innocence.

DI Mason offers a litany of excuses and contradicts himself. It stinks.


----------



## Lemond (31 Mar 2015)

User said:


> Ms Purcell drove her car into another road user and stated that she had not seen that person. If this is not enough, something is very very wrong.



From the CPS webpage you provided a link to earlier...

*Factors that are not relevant in deciding whether an act is dangerous or careless*
The following factors are not relevant when deciding whether an act of driving is dangerous or careless:

the injury or death of one or more persons involved in a road traffic collision. Importantly, injury or death does not, by itself, turn a collision into careless driving or turn careless driving into dangerous driving. Multiple deaths are however an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes (Sentencing Guidelines Council: Causing Death by Driving Guideline, page 5, paragraph 19);
the skill or lack of skill of the driver - R v Bannister [2009] EWCA Crim 1571
the commission of other driving offences at the same time (such as driving whilst disqualified or driving without a certificate of insurance or a driving licence);
the fact that the defendant has previous convictions for road traffic offences; and
the mere disability of a driver caused by mental illness or by physical injury or illness, except where there is evidence that the disability adversely affected the manner of the driving.


----------



## glenn forger (31 Mar 2015)

Where does that mention failing to notice another road user on one of the best-lit roads in London?


----------



## PK99 (31 Mar 2015)

[


User said:


> Ms Purcell drove her car into another road user and stated that she had not seen that person. If this is not enough, something is very very wrong.



In saying that you are making a judgement "_Ms Purcell drove her car into another road user", _surely the point at issue is that there is no evidence that show unequivocally whether "_Ms Purcell drove her car..." _or whether Mr Mason suddenly moved from near side to offside "_Initially he was at the nearside of the road and at some point he moved to the offside. No witnesses are available as to why he changed his position in the road or when he did this. He may have had to avoid an obstruction in the road or a pedestrian stepping in front of him. No one person can say for sure."_


----------



## glenn forger (31 Mar 2015)

There is plenty of evidence from both the car and the bike to show unequivocally that Gale Purcell drove her car into the bike. The impact was from the rear, the scuff marks proved it.


----------



## glenn forger (31 Mar 2015)

Ms Purcell didn't claim she saw the cyclist swerve, she said she didn't see him AT ALL. 

Look:







Those pedestrians in dark clothing much further away than Mr Mason was. Do they look invisible to you?


----------



## theclaud (1 Apr 2015)

PK99 said:


> In saying that you are making a judgement "_Ms Purcell drove her car into another road user", _surely the point at issue is that there is no evidence that show unequivocally whether "_Ms Purcell drove her car..." _or whether Mr Mason suddenly moved from near side to offside "_Initially he was at the nearside of the road and at some point he moved to the offside. No witnesses are available as to why he changed his position in the road or when he did this. He may have had to avoid an obstruction in the road or a pedestrian stepping in front of him. No one person can say for sure."_



Outstanding. We don't really need a whole legal and social establishment ranged against us when we are prepared to concede our own right not to be killed. Everybody go back to sleep - nothing will happen to you that is not, somehow, your own fault.

A person's presence is irreducible. Mr Mason was there, and she killed him. She killed him.


----------



## Wobblers (1 Apr 2015)

PK99 said:


> [
> 
> 
> In saying that you are making a judgement "_Ms Purcell drove her car into another road user", _surely the point at issue is that there is no evidence that show unequivocally whether "_Ms Purcell drove her car..." _or whether Mr Mason suddenly moved from near side to offside "_Initially he was at the nearside of the road and at some point he moved to the offside. No witnesses are available as to why he changed his position in the road or when he did this. He may have had to avoid an obstruction in the road or a pedestrian stepping in front of him. No one person can say for sure."_



The forensic evidence shows that Mr Mason was hit whilst he was moving in the same direction as the car. This categorically rules out your suggestion that he "suddenly moved from near side to off side" because of physics. And in any case, the motorist was entirely unaware of his presence during the entire time she was driving down that street - that very same time that all other drivers managed to see him and avoid him. Logic would suggest that this falls somewhat less than the standard expected of a competent driver.


----------



## Lemond (1 Apr 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Ms Purcell didn't claim she saw the cyclist swerve, she said she didn't see him AT ALL.
> 
> Look:
> 
> ...



It's a photograph Glenn. Nothing's moving. That kinda helps make them easy to spot, don't you think?


----------



## Lemond (1 Apr 2015)

User said:


> All the witnesses, bar one, stated that they saw the cyclist, so he cannot have been all that hard to spot.



The fact that other people saw Mr Mason is, sadly, irrelevant. What matters is that the driver didn't see him.


----------



## Pale Rider (1 Apr 2015)

When did all the witnesses see the cyclist?

None saw the collision.

I suspect the witnesses saw the cyclist at the same time as the driver - after the collision.


----------



## Lemond (1 Apr 2015)

User said:


> Excellent, you do understand the issue then.



Yes, I do. And I also understand that it's impossible for anyone, but most importantly the police, to disprove her assertion that she just didn't see him.


----------



## Dan B (1 Apr 2015)

Lemond said:


> From the CPS webpage you provided a link to earlier...
> 
> *Factors that are not relevant in deciding whether an act is dangerous or careless*
> The following factors are not relevant when deciding whether an act of driving is dangerous or careless:
> ...



If the injuries sustained by Mr Mason are not relevant to whether the driver was dangerous or careless, it surely makes the square root of sod-all difference whether he was wearing a helmet or not, because it would not have changed her driving, merely (possibly) the consequences of same. So why was it mentioned?


----------



## Dan B (1 Apr 2015)

PK99 said:


> In saying that you are making a judgement "_Ms Purcell drove her car into another road user", _surely the point at issue is that there is no evidence that show unequivocally whether "_Ms Purcell drove her car..." _or whether Mr Mason suddenly moved from near side to offside "


Disregarding for a moment the evidence that both vehicles were travelling in the same direction and Mr Mason's bike directly in front of the drivers seat, in what possible circumstance do you think a cyclist _could_ veer suddenly sideways in front of a car without the driver of the car noticing that unusual movement? If that's what Mr Mason had done, the driver would be saying "he came out of nowhere, I had no time to brake", not "I totally didn't notice him". Unless she was driving with her eyes closed.


----------



## glenn forger (1 Apr 2015)

Lemond said:


> It's a photograph Glenn. Nothing's moving. That kinda helps make them easy to spot, don't you think?



Are you saying moving lit people on the road are harder to see for a driver than stationary unlit people who are not on the road? Look at the background in that photo, does the road look difficult to see? Badly lit? Where ten is highest on a scale of one to ten how well lit would you say that road is?


----------



## glenn forger (1 Apr 2015)

Dan B said:


> If the injuries sustained by Mr Mason are not relevant to whether the driver was dangerous or careless, it surely makes the square root of sod-all difference whether he was wearing a helmet or not, because it would not have changed her driving, merely (possibly) the consequences of same. So why was it mentioned?



That's DI Mason bending over backwards to absolve the driver again. The question of whether a helmet would have made a scrap of difference wasn't even considered, the injuries weren't discussed, nothing. He just thought "head injury" so cited a helmet. Just throw that in there. Per mile traveled pedestrians are sadly at more risk than cyclists are from motor traffic, many suffer head injuries. Imagine the reaction if a policeman absolved a driver who had killed a pedestrian because the pedestrian didn't have a plastic hat on. It's blatantly bent. I dunno if the driver has friends in high places or it's just staggering incompetence from old bill. Probably the latter.


----------



## Lemond (1 Apr 2015)

Dan B said:


> If the injuries sustained by Mr Mason are not relevant to whether the driver was dangerous or careless, it surely makes the square root of sod-all difference whether he was wearing a helmet or not, because it would not have changed her driving, merely (possibly) the consequences of same. So why was it mentioned?



Because we are talking about two different things. Firstly there is a discussion going on about why the police make mention of the fact that Mr Mason wasn't wearing hi-viz or a helmet, which is simply due to how police incident reporting procedures are structured around the content of the Highway Code. Then there's a second discussion going on about what's considered relevant by the CPS when bringing a prosecution. Some posters have stated that the fact the Mr Mason was hit by a car and died as a result is enough to warrant a charge, especially so as the driver stated that she should have seen Mr Mason but didn't. The post you highlighted above simply shows that under the eyes of the Law, the fact that a cyclist died as a result of a collision, doesn't automatically mean that the driver is guilty of any crime.


----------



## Dan B (1 Apr 2015)

Lemond said:


> Because we are talking about two different things. Firstly there is a discussion going on about why the police make mention of the fact that Mr Mason wasn't wearing hi-viz or a helmet, which is simply due to how police incident reporting procedures are structured around the content of the Highway Code. Then there's a second discussion going on about what's considered relevant by the CPS when bringing a prosecution.


No, I am not talking about police incident reporting procedures. I am talking about DS Edwards rationale for believing that the case should not go to the CPS: i.e. what he (and Mason) believed the CPS would consider relevant when bringing a prosecution


> In July 2014 DS Edwards states he requested that DI Nick MASON review the investigation. During this meeting he outlined his genuine belief that insufficient evidence existed that would support a charging advice file to the CPS. *He states the areas which supported his rationale and that he conveyed to DI MASON were:*
> 
> •	Mr MASON was not wearing a cycle helmet, the cause of death being head injury.


----------



## Pale Rider (1 Apr 2015)

Dan B said:


> If the injuries sustained by Mr Mason are not relevant to whether the driver was dangerous or careless, it surely makes the square root of sod-all difference whether he was wearing a helmet or not, because it would not have changed her driving, merely (possibly) the consequences of same. So why was it mentioned?



The helmet was recorded at the scene and the copper later observed Mr Mason died of a head injury.

The case then failed because it didn't pass the full evidence test.

Had the case proceeded, the guidance you quoted is to help a crown prosecutor to decide if he should charge death by dangerous or death by careless.

It is telling him to ignore the death for that narrow purpose, but to focus on the manner of driving.

In other cases, the CPS lawyer would have had lots of other evidence about the driving to look at, high speeds, police chase, skid marks, etc etc.

It might help you see why it never reached the CPS, there is no evidence of manner of driving in this case, other than she was tootling down Regent Street within the speed limit.


----------



## glenn forger (1 Apr 2015)

So the police have decided to prioritise advice over rule 188?


----------



## Dan B (1 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> The helmet was recorded at the scene and the copper later observed Mr Mason died of a head injury.
> 
> The case then failed because it didn't pass the full evidence test.
> 
> Had the case proceeded, _the guidance you quoted_ is to help a crown prosecutor to decide if he should charge death by dangerous or death by careless.



I did not quote guidance. I did not quote the recording at the scene. I quoted the reasons cited by DS Mason for believing that there was insufficient evidence to send the case to the CPS. "No helmet" was apparently one of them. Why?


----------



## Dan B (1 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> It might help you see why it never reached the CPS, there is no evidence of manner of driving in this case, other than she was tootling down Regent Street within the speed limit.


... and failed to see (her admission) a cyclist directly in front of her (the accident investigator's report) until after she'd driven into him.


----------



## Lemond (1 Apr 2015)

Dan B said:


> ... and failed to see (her admission) a cyclist directly in front of her (the accident investigator's report) until after she'd driven into him.



Directly in front of her? One eye witness, standing only a few meters away from the scene, said that she saw Mr Mason overtake the Nissan Juke. Another witness said that he saw the cyclist being hit by the wing mirror of the car and then hitting the bonnet of the car. In light of those two statements, how can you be sure that Mr Mason was ever cycling in front of the car?


----------



## Pale Rider (1 Apr 2015)

Dan B said:


> I did not quote guidance. I did not quote the recording at the scene. I quoted the reasons cited by DS Mason for believing that there was insufficient evidence to send the case to the CPS. "No helmet" was apparently one of them. Why?





Dan B said:


> ... and failed to see (her admission) a cyclist directly in front of her (the accident investigator's report) until after she'd driven into him.



You quoted DI Mason's recording of the facts.

The helmet was one, there were many others including such simple matters as date, time, location, weather, etc.

DI Mason also recorded witness statements, evidence of the collision investigation and all the rest.

Taking all this together, he decided it was a no further action case, so did not refer it to the next stage - the CPS.

Only he could tell you how much weight he put on each of the many facts and pieces of evidence.

But there is no automatic prosecution of a driver involved in a fatal accident with a cyclist.

You may think there should be, but the law at present is against you.

DI Mason knew he had to have some evidence of careless or dangerous driving, and there is none.

When these types of cases are prosecuted, the police often use the phrase: "The cyclist was there to be seen."

They will work out how many seconds the cyclist would have been in plain sight of the driver.

In this case, the investigation concluded the 'sea of lights' would have made the cyclist hard to see.

The driver, who passed a night time eyesight test (the legal requirement is day time) said she didn't see the cyclist.

DI Mason put the case down to a tragic accident.

The law still allows for that because, as I mentioned earlier, there is no automatic prosecution of the person who survives a fatal crash.


----------



## Dan B (1 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> You quoted DI Mason's recording of the facts.


I am sure that DI Mason recorded many more facts than are listed in section B of the report they produced after the complaint against him. However, the text that I have quoted appears in a bullet point list headed "the areas which supported his rationale and that he conveyed to DI MASON". Explain to me again why he would have listed it as supporting his rationale not to take the case to the CPS if he didn't regard it as relevant to his decision not to take the case to the CPS, because even your helpful double-spaced one-sentence paragraphs don't seem to make your argument less self-contradictory


----------



## Pale Rider (1 Apr 2015)

Dan B said:


> I am sure that DI Mason recorded many more facts than are listed in section B of the report they produced after the complaint against him. However, the text that I have quoted appears in a bullet point list headed "the areas which supported his rationale and that he conveyed to DI MASON". Explain to me again why he would have listed it as supporting his rationale not to take the case to the CPS if he didn't regard it as relevant to his decision not to take the case to the CPS, because even your helpful double-spaced one-sentence paragraphs don't seem to make your argument less self-contradictory



Strictly, this is what DS Edwards said he outlined to DI Mason:

 Mr MASON (Deceased) was wearing dark clothing, the collision having taken place during hours of darkness.
 An independent witness at the scene (Neil TREVITHICK) stated that with the sea of brake lights, flashing lights and movement it would be difficult for a driver to pick out anything. 
 CCTV traced corroborated how busy the area in general was, with both motorists and pedestrians.
 All witnesses traced could not describe in any detail the lead up to the collision.
 Mr MASON was not wearing a cycle helmet, the cause of death being head injury.
 CCTV recovered from 2 independent venues highlighted that Ms PURCELL’S vehicle was travelling at an appropriate speed. This is corroborated by the minor damage caused to the vehicle after impact.
 CCTV showed Mr MASON cycling between 1.5 to 2 metres from the kerb line. No CCTV exists depicting Mr MASON moving from his line of travel, i.e. moving out to his right. This is something he must have done in order for the collision to have taken place.
 CCTV, physical evidence and Ms PURCELL’S own account prove that she had always maintained her position in the road, adjacent to the central white line.
 We were unable to show the point at which Mr MASON moved over to his right. All we could conclude was that during a distance of 25 to 30 metres, Mr MASON at some point changed his position in the road.

Within that is the fact cyclist Mason was not wearing a helmet.

DI Mason listened to what his sergeant told him - a lot more than the above summary - took into account whatever other evidence he had, then decided it was a 'tragic accident'.

As I said, you will have to ask DI Mason what relevance - if any - he put on any individual fact or piece of evidence, only a tiny proportion of which we have here, summarised, third hand.


----------



## Wobblers (1 Apr 2015)

Lemond said:


> It's a photograph Glenn. Nothing's moving. That kinda helps make them easy to spot, don't you think?



No. No it doesn't. Moving objects are easier to spot because your visual system, in common with just about every other animal, is very good at detecting movement - after all something moving is likely to be something to eat, something to avoid or something to run away from. What @glenn forger's photo does highlight, and very clearly, is just how visible someone in dark clothing is under those circumstances. In other words, the "dark clothing excuse" is demonstrably false.


----------



## Wobblers (1 Apr 2015)

Lemond said:


> Directly in front of her? One eye witness, standing only a few meters away from the scene, said that she saw Mr Mason overtake the Nissan Juke. Another witness said that he saw the cyclist being hit by the wing mirror of the car and then hitting the bonnet of the car. In light of those two statements, how can you be sure that Mr Mason was ever cycling in front of the car?



The forensic report of the accident investigator categorically rules all this out. Mr Mason was right in front of her. That's how we know - because the first impact was on the offside part of the front bumper.


----------



## Pale Rider (1 Apr 2015)

McWobble said:


> In other words, the "dark clothing excuse" is demonstrably false.



Independent witness Neil Tevithick would give you an argument:

He said: "With the sea of brake lights, flashing lights and movement it would be difficult for a driver to pick out anything."


----------



## Wobblers (1 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> Independent witness Neil Tevithick would give you an argument:
> 
> He said: "With the sea of brake lights, flashing lights and movement it would be difficult for a driver to pick out anything."



Which is his *opinion*. His opinion does not constitute *fact*. And again - why am I having to repeat myself? - the photo shows that dark clothing does not render one invisible, nor does it in any way adequately explain why she _did not see him right in front of her _whilst every other motorist had.


----------



## Pale Rider (1 Apr 2015)

McWobble said:


> Which is his *opinion*. His opinion does not constitute *fact*. And again - why am I having to repeat myself? - the photo shows that dark clothing does not render one invisible, nor does it in any way adequately explain why she _did not see him right in front of her _whilst every other motorist had.



His evidence, as someone who was there, carries more weight than the opinion of someone who was not.

I take his reading of the situation over yours, if the reverse were true, you were there and he was not, I would take your reading.

The CCTV evidence shows she was driving close to the centre line and did not deviate.

No CCTV or witness account exists of the impact, but it was frontal, so the investigator has drawn the reasonable conclusion the cyclist must have deviated into the path of the car.

Had the cyclist not deviated, she would presumably have passed him safely, albeit without seeing he was there.

She passed day and night eyesight tests.

The only offence she can possibly be guilty of is death by careless driving.

To be guilty, she must be guilty of both parts, she caused the death - check - and her driving was careless.

Problem, there is no evidence of careless driving - the system is we convict on evidence, nothing else.

The only evidence of her driving is she was driving steadily and carefully - she did not swerve as someone might if their attention lapsed.

As the law stands, there is no realistic prospect of a conviction, which is why DI Mason didn't take the case any further.


----------



## Lemond (1 Apr 2015)

McWobble said:


> Which is his *opinion*. His opinion does not constitute *fact*. And again - why am I having to repeat myself? - the photo shows that dark clothing does not render one invisible, nor does it in any way adequately explain why she _did not see him right in front of her _whilst every other motorist had.



So a photograph of some pedestrians walking down a street shows that dark clothing does not render one invisible. And??? Does this prove whether or not Mr Mason was visible on the night in question? No, it doesn't. Does it illustrate the viewpoint of the the road ahead from the drivers point of view? No, it doesn't. Does it prove whether or not Mr Mason was clearly visible to the driver? No, it doesn't. Does it have any relevance to the incident in question. No, it doesn't.


----------



## Wobblers (1 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> His evidence, as someone who was there, carries more weight than the opinion of someone who was not.
> 
> I take his reading of the situation over yours, if the reverse were true, you were there and he was not, I would take your reading.
> 
> ...



It is entirely your opinion that there is no evidence of careless driving. Other opinions exist - most notably that of a competent driver would have seen the cyclist directly in front of her.

Have you ever sat in a court room listening to witness testimony. I have, and it is nearly useless. In fact, you can get witnesses to say different things merely by asking them different questions. Show two groups of people photos of a minor crash, then ask one group to describe the accident, and the other to describe the "car smash" and the second group will give you a far more exaggerated description of the damage than the first. In other words, they made it up to please the interviewer - and it's entirely subconscious! You are placing far too much weight on the impressions of one witness, who in trying to explain the events, suggests that Mr Mason "was lost in a sea of lights". Were that the case, it would be reasonable to expect that this sort of accident would be extremely commonplace on all busy roads. Yet this is not true - and this simple observation shows that your witness is not credible in this matter.


----------



## Wobblers (1 Apr 2015)

Lemond said:


> So a photograph of some pedestrians walking down a street shows that dark clothing does not render one invisible. And??? Does this prove whether or not Mr Mason was visible on the night in question? No, it doesn't. Does it illustrate the viewpoint of the the road ahead from the drivers point of view? No, it doesn't. Does it prove whether or not Mr Mason was clearly visible to the driver? No, it doesn't. Does it have any relevance to the incident in question. No, it doesn't.



Arrant nonsense. It is objective evidence that shows your claim that someone wearing dark in exactly those circumstances is hard to spot. Not that this is particularly relevant given that Micheal Mason had working lights - or is that yet another of those inconvenient facts you've chosen to ignore?


----------



## Lemond (1 Apr 2015)

McWobble said:


> Arrant nonsense. It is objective evidence that shows your claim that someone wearing dark in exactly those circumstances is hard to spot. Not that this is particularly relevant given that Micheal Mason had working lights - or is that yet another of those inconvenient facts you've chosen to ignore?



The photograph shows that those particular pedestrians are visible against that particular background at that particular moment. Nothing more.


----------



## Pale Rider (1 Apr 2015)

User13710 said:


> All this verbose arguing seems way off the point to me. Surely the only issue is that when someone is killed like this the evidence should be heard and tested in court?



There is not enough evidence of a criminal offence for it to get that far.

She has to be guilty of careless driving - there is no evidence of that.


----------



## Dan B (1 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> As I said, you will have to ask DI Mason what relevance - if any - he put on any individual fact or piece of evidence, only a tiny proportion of which we have here, summarised, third hand.


I don't have to ask him anything, his opinion is right there in the report. Of all the evidence he collected, he felt it appropriate to include "cyclist was not wearing a helmet" in the "tiny proportion" he cites as the rationale for not taking the case forwards. If he put no relevance on it, he would not listed it in the "things I think are relevant" list. He'd have put it in the "things I think have no relevance" list.


----------



## Mugshot (1 Apr 2015)

This is such a sad thread.


----------



## Pale Rider (1 Apr 2015)

Dan B said:


> I don't have to ask him anything, his opinion is right there in the report. Of all the evidence he collected, he felt it appropriate to include "cyclist was not wearing a helmet" in the "tiny proportion" he cites as the rationale for not taking the case forwards. If he put no relevance on it, he would not listed it in the "things I think are relevant" list. He'd have put it in the "things I think have no relevance" list.



DI Mason knows he must prove two things, she caused the death and she did so by her careless driving.

I suspect, as an experienced copper, he will have known there might be a defence argument that had Mr Mason been wearing a helmet, he might have survived the impact.

That would knack the case because, if the jury accepts the defence argument, the 'she caused the death' bit is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thus he includes helmet as a factor in his decision making.

However, I reckon DI Mason thought he might be able to get over that somehow, but he then finds there is no evidence of the other thing he must prove - careless driving.

So taking all these problems with case into account, he decides to no further action it.

As you say, you don't have to ask him, but unless someone does and he gives a full answer, we will never know.


----------



## Pale Rider (1 Apr 2015)

User13710 said:


> The very fact that you can type those words, Pale Rider, speaks to the truth of Mugshot's observation.



The words demonstrate that criminal convictions in this country are decided on the evidence, or at least should be.

I am only pointing out, that as the law stands, those who want this driver convicted of something are facing an uphill battle.

It's not my money, but I fear the family and the Cyclists' Defence Fund are going to spend tens of thousands on a private prosecution with no real prospect of success.

A change in the law would sort it, get rid of that awkward word 'careless' in a new offence of 'causing death by driving'.

The family might be better off using the cash to campaign for that change.


----------



## Lemond (1 Apr 2015)

Mugshot said:


> This is such a sad thread.



I quite agree. A man dies in a tragic accident and it's used as an excuse to accuse individual police officers of corruption and fabricating evidence. One poster even suggested this was a cover-up because he thought the driver might be Kate Middleton's hairdresser.


----------



## glenn forger (1 Apr 2015)

Lemond said:


> I quite agree. A man dies in a tragic accident and it's used as an excuse to accuse individual police officers of corruption and fabricating evidence.



It's reasonable to ask who you are accusing of saying this. When you realise nobody's said it you really ought to apologise. I think your emotions are clouding your judgement, calm down and discuss like an adult with fewer sarcastic outbursts or invented straw men.


----------



## Pale Rider (1 Apr 2015)

User13710 said:


> But for that to happen, the matter has to come to court.



No it doesn't.

As things stand currently, the Mason case has been decided on the evidence - or lack of it - by the police.

Lots of people are crying 'foul' about that.

Fine, but those mounting a private prosecution will still come up against the full evidence test.

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has the authority to stop a private prosecution if the test is not met.

It is inevitable the driver's defence team will ask the DPP to look at the private case.

But the family may unearth new evidence to convince the DPP the case should go ahead.

That would be a good result for them, because the CPS will take it over, saving the family the cost.

Private prosecutions have been more successful in other areas, such as fraud.

Often the police will accept there has been a crime and that evidence is there to be gathered, but they haven't the resources to do it.

The victim then gathers the evidence, passes the full test, and the private prosecution goes to court.


----------



## Dan B (1 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> DI Mason knows he must prove two things, she caused the death and she did so by her careless driving.


Back up a moment. I thought that the matter of whether he died or not had no bearing on whether she was driving carelessly. That's what lemond said in #311. That he died as a result of the collision isn't in contention.


----------



## Mugshot (1 Apr 2015)

Lemond said:


> I quite agree. A man dies in a tragic accident and it's used as an excuse to accuse individual police officers of corruption and fabricating evidence. One poster even suggested this was a cover-up because he thought the driver might be Kate Middleton's hairdresser.


A man, who was it would appear fulfilling all the criteria legally required of him to go about his business, is killed having been struck by a car. The person driving says they had not seen them, this despite clearly being able to see as they passed a test to determine if they could or not. This level of driving is then described as careful by a senior police officer. Removing cyclist or motorist bias from the equation and ignoring corruption and fabrication conspiracies, to argue that this is in any way an acceptable level of competance and should not be charged accordingly strikes me as extraordinary and terribly sad, but I suspect you knew that's what I meant.


----------



## Lemond (1 Apr 2015)

Mugshot said:


> A man, who was it would appear fulfilling all the criteria legally required of him to go about his business, is killed having been struck by a car. The person driving says they had not seen them, this despite clearly being able to see as they passed a test to determine if they could or not. This is level of driving is then described as careful by a senior police officer. Removing cyclist or motorist bias from the equation and ignoring corruption and fabrication conspiracies, to argue that this is in any way an acceptable level of competance and should not be charged accordingly strikes me as extraordinary and terribly sad, but I suspect you knew that's what I meant.



But surely you must accept that the police need evidence to bring about a charge / prosecution, not just an idea that someone did something wrong. In this instance, none of the evidence gathered suggested that the driver was doing anything wrong in terms of speed and road position. An eyewitness who was himself walking within the cycle lane, said that the conditions that night might have made Mr Mason hard to spot. Another eyewitness said that they saw Mr Mason overtake the Nissan Juke, which means he might not have been directly in front of the car until the very last moment (which might explain her claim that she didn't see him). So, if we really are removing bias from the equation, how could the police possibly prosecute the driver?


----------



## Mugshot (1 Apr 2015)

Lemond said:


> But surely you must accept that the police need evidence to bring about a charge / prosecution, not just an idea that someone did something wrong. In this instance, none of the evidence gathered suggested that the driver was doing anything wrong in terms of speed and road position. An eyewitness who was himself walking within the cycle lane, said that the conditions that night might have made Mr Mason hard to spot. Another eyewitness said that they saw Mr Mason overtake the Nissan Juke, which means he might not have been directly in front of the car until the very last moment (which might explain her claim that she didn't see him). So, if we really are removing bias from the equation, how could the police possibly prosecute the driver?


I feel this has been repeated time and again, but I will indulge you.
I do not see how it is reasonable for a person that is lit in a manner which is required by law, who it appears was seen by two pedestrians so was clearly not invisible, could be struck by a motorist that quite clearly is able to see and as a consequence be killed. I do not think it is reasonable to suggest that the driver was not doing anything wrong in terms of speed or road position, it would appear that her speed was too high because she struck the cyclist (I am not suggesting she was speeding) and it would appear that her positioning was incorrect because she struck the cyclist. I don't really care that the police say they have investigated as I have personal experience of a traffic collision where I was told that a thorough investigation had taken place by both an attending officer and subsequently his superior officer and no further action would be taken which I continued to challenge and the individual responsible was eventually charged and found guilty of driving without due care. So with no bias, I think that a man has lost his life and his family deserve to have the case tried in court.


----------



## Lemond (1 Apr 2015)

Mugshot said:


> I feel this has been repeated time and again, but I will indulge you.
> I do not see how it is reasonable for a person that is lit in a manner which is required by law, who it appears was seen by two pedestrians so was clearly not invisible, could be struck by a motorist that quite clearly is able to see and as a consequence be killed. I do not think it is reasonable to suggest that the driver was not doing anything wrong in terms of speed or road position, it would appear that her speed was too high because she struck the cyclist (I am not suggesting she was speeding) and it would appear that her positioning was incorrect because she struck the cyclist. I don't really care that the police say they have investigated as I have personal experience of a traffic collision where I was told that a thorough investigation had taken place by both an attending officer and subsequently his superior officer and no further action would be taken which I continued to challenge and the individual responsible was eventually charged and found guilty of driving without due care. So with no bias, I think that a man has lost his life and his family deserve to have the case tried in court.



How can you say "I don't really care that the police say they have investigated..." and then claim that you're not biased? Clearly, by your own admission, you are not prepared to accept anything the police say. If that's not bias, I don't know what is.


----------



## Pale Rider (1 Apr 2015)

Dan B said:


> Back up a moment. I thought that the matter of whether he died or not had no bearing on whether she was driving carelessly..



It doesn't, the two things are separate.

But to be guilty of the offence, she has to have caused the death and driven carelessly.

We all agree she caused the death, so that's one thing out of the way.

It then has to be proved her driving was careless.

My reading of the evidence is that she was driving carefully, and there is certainly no evidence she was driving carelessly - within the meaning of the offence.


----------



## Pale Rider (1 Apr 2015)

Mugshot said:


> I do not think it is reasonable to suggest that the driver was not doing anything wrong in terms of speed or road position, it would appear that her speed was too high because she struck the cyclist (I am not suggesting she was speeding) and it would appear that her positioning was incorrect because she struck the cyclist.



CCTV shows her driving close to the centre line without deviating, so her road positioning was correct.

That's on the pictures - what can't speak can't lie.

The police assessed her speed as appropriate, they can speak and can lie, but no other witnesses said the car was going too fast, and if I know anything about traffic density in London, it's most unlikely she could have been going very fast.


----------



## glenn forger (1 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> no other witnesses said the car was going too fast, and if I know anything about traffic density in London, it's most unlikely she could have been going very fast.



Mr Suber Abdijarim's evidence was that the Nissan was traveling above the speed limit.

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/michael-mason-inquest.170526/page-21


----------



## Pale Rider (1 Apr 2015)

User said:


> You are OK with the idea that a person who does not see that which is in front of them is regarded as taking reasonable care?



The driver could see what was in front of her, her eyesight was tested.

A driver is obliged to take reasonable care while driving.

A driver is not obliged to drive everywhere at walking pace - the red flag man is no longer required.

So If an obstruction appears in the path of the car at the last second there will inevitably be a collision.

The law allows for that collision to be accidental.

As I said earlier, the only way to be certain of prosecuting every driver in Mr Mason's circumstances is to take the standard of driving out of consideration.

An offence of simply 'causing death by driving' would do it.

There's no doubt before the relatively recent creation of the death by dangerous offence, and the even more recent creation of the death by careless offence, some very bad drivers got away with causing fatal accidents.

I think automatically prosecuting the surviving driver in every case, simply because they survived and were driving, is a step too far.


----------



## Dan B (1 Apr 2015)

We know that the cycle and the car were traveling in the same direction at the moment of impact and that the cyclist was in front of the right hand side of the car. It seems at the least implausible that he could have got there suddenly and without warning


----------



## Dan B (1 Apr 2015)

I'm pretty sure that there is or ought to be more to careful and competent driving than being able to point the car in the right direction and right speed.


----------



## Origamist (1 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> CCTV shows her driving close to the centre line without deviating, so her road positioning was correct.
> 
> That's on the pictures - what can't speak can't lie.
> 
> *The police assessed her speed as appropriate, they can speak and can lie, but no other witnesses said the car was going too fast, and if I know anything about traffic density in London, it's most unlikely she could have been going very fast*.



There was a witness who said the driver's speed was excessive (but his opinions were discounted): 

"There is witness evidence from Mr Suber Abdijarim which is at odds with other witnesses and the images shown on CCTV. He states that the Nissan Juke was doing over 30mph but I believe this statement to be inaccurate. I have viewed the CCTV and the Nissan Juke is travelling at the same speed as other traffic which is not excessive for the location. This fact is supported by the evidence of PC Gamble, the Collision Investigator who states that this was not a high speed collision."


----------



## Origamist (1 Apr 2015)

User said:


> We know that, as tested, she was capable of seeing what was in front of her. What we do not know is why she failed to see the person she killed.
> 
> We also do not know anything that can allow anyone to say with any certainty that the person she killed appeared in front of her suddenly.



She passed the roadside test, but had to wear glasses in order to do so. We only have the word of the driver that she was wearing them at the time of the collision. If she was not wearing her spectacles, it would explain a lot...


----------



## Origamist (1 Apr 2015)

User said:


> That is why is specifically said "as tested"



You were astute to do so...

I wonder if the Met requested CCTV from her commute through central London before the collision to check this aspect of her story...


----------



## spen666 (1 Apr 2015)

User said:


> We know that, as tested, she was capable of seeing what was in front of her. What we do not know is why she failed to see the person she killed.
> 
> We also do not know anything that can allow anyone to say with any certainty that the person she killed appeared in front of her suddenly.


you appear to have got the burden of proof the wrong way around.

The crown would have to prove the cyclist did not suddenly appear in front of her. Its not for the defence to prove he did suddenly appear.

The crown have to prove that her driving was careless. It is not enough to prove their was an accident


----------



## Pale Rider (1 Apr 2015)

Origamist said:


> She passed the roadside test, but had to wear glasses in order to do so. We only have the word of the driver that she was wearing them at the time of the collision. If she was not wearing her spectacles, it would explain a lot...



It would.

Hard to see where any evidence will come from to challenge her contention that she was wearing her glasses.

If the case gets to court, and if she gives evidence, she could be cross-examined about it.


----------



## spen666 (1 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> It would.
> 
> Hard to see where any evidence will come from to challenge her contention that she was wearing her glasses.
> 
> If the case gets to court, and if she gives evidence, she could be cross-examined about it.


The case would have to get beyond 1/2time first and unless there is some evidence of careless driving it won't.

There is plenty of conjecture and supposition ( some of which is probably true) but a lack of evidence. Without that evidence, the Judge will end the trial at the conclusion of the prosecution case, without the defendant going near the witness box


----------



## Pale Rider (1 Apr 2015)

spen666 said:


> The case would have to get beyond 1/2time first and unless there is some evidence of careless driving it won't.
> 
> There is plenty of conjecture and supposition ( some of which is probably true) but a lack of evidence. Without that evidence, the Judge will end the trial at the conclusion of the prosecution case, without the defendant going near the witness box



Yes Spen, I've posted at least a dozen times there's no evidence of careless driving.

I think it will struggle to get to court at all.

My understanding of private criminal prosecutions is the full evidence test still needs to be passed, because the Director of Public Prosecutions will almost certainly stop the case if the test is not passed.


----------



## theclaud (1 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> My reading of the evidence is that she was driving carefully, and there is certainly no evidence she was driving carelessly.





Pale Rider said:


> "With the sea of brake lights, flashing lights and movement it would be difficult for a driver to pick out anything."





Mugshot said:


> This is such a sad thread.



Not merely sad, but insane. I do no use the word lightly. I get the astonishing impression that @Pale Rider is typing with a straight face. Look for a second at the uncritical acceptance of the breathtaking nonsense in the second quote above. If this is to be credited, then it goes without saying that all motor traffic should be barred forthwith from all urban roads after dark - are we seriously expected to accept that drivers cannot be expected to 'pick out anything'? What are they, and we in their path, relying on - God? If it is not 'careless' to kill a human being in front of your eyes because you failed to see he was there, the the word has no meaning. The rest is weasel words.


----------



## benb (1 Apr 2015)

The people saying there is no evidence of careless driving.

If running into someone from behind isn't evidence of careless driving, then I don't know what is.


----------



## Arrowfoot (2 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> My understanding of private criminal prosecutions is the full evidence test still needs to be passed, because the Director of Public Prosecutions will almost certainly stop the case if the test is not passed.



It does not work like that for private criminal prosecution. In the majority of cases, CPP intervenes when they realise they should have prosecuted the case in the first place and not doing so would be embarrassing. CPP can take over the case and discontinue if the interest of Justice is not served such as the defendant has been provided prior immunity from prosecution, the defendant has received a caution or has been penalised in some form, national security matters, interferes with an on-going investigation or trial or if they feel it is vexatious. Though the CPP can use the full evidential test argument, they will not use it unless it is vexatious.

I can guarantee you this case will proceed as a private prosecution or the CPP will take over and prosecute or the defendant prefers to settle. But not the CPP taking over to discontinue or stop. The right to bring about a private prosecution is an important piece of legislation open to anyone who feels that they did not receive the justice.


----------



## Pale Rider (2 Apr 2015)

theclaud said:


> Not merely sad, but insane. I do no use the word lightly. I get the astonishing impression that @Pale Rider is typing with a straight face. Look for a second at the uncritical acceptance of the breathtaking nonsense in the second quote above. If this is to be credited, then it goes without saying that all motor traffic should be barred forthwith from all urban roads after dark - are we seriously expected to accept that drivers cannot be expected to 'pick out anything'? What are they, and we in their path, relying on - God? If it is not 'careless' to kill a human being in front of your eyes because you failed to see he was there, the the word has no meaning. The rest is weasel words.



All very emotional and appealing to the intellectually shallow, but there is still no evidence of careless driving, so the case is still going nowhere.

That's under the law as presently framed.

You and lots of others don't like it, so you need to campaign to change the law.

There are instances where campaigning by victims' families has led to changes - the abolition of the double jeopardy protection for grave crimes - so it can be done.


----------



## Pale Rider (2 Apr 2015)

Arrowfoot said:


> Though the CPP can use the full evidential test argument, they will not use it unless it is vexatious.



The DPP can use the full test argument to take over and stop a prosecution, or the DPP can stop the prosecution if it's malicious or vexatious - whether the full code test is met or not.

Or, as you say, the DPP can take over the prosecution and order his minions in the CPS to get on with it.



Arrowfoot said:


> I can guarantee you this case will proceed as a private prosecution or the CPP will take over and prosecute or the defendant prefers to settle. But not the CPP taking over to discontinue or stop. The right to bring about a private prosecution is an important piece of legislation open to anyone who feels that they did not receive the justice.



I agree about the importance of the right to bring a private prosecution, but the private prosecutor still has to operate under the same law as the public one.

You say you can 'guarantee it will proceed as a private prosecution'.

I wouldn't be so bold as to guarantee anything when it comes to the law. other than lots of money will go into the pockets of lawyers.

But even if the DPP lets this case run, or takes it over and orders the CPS to do it, it remains desperately weak evidentially.


----------



## Arrowfoot (2 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> You say you can 'guarantee it will proceed as a private prosecution'.
> 
> I wouldn't be so bold as to guarantee anything when it comes to the law. other than lots of money will go into the pockets of lawyers.
> .



I think you have interchanged "unlikely to get a conviction" with the "lack of evidence" and thus the confusion. A prima facie case does exist. If the Police had referred to DPP who then decided that a conviction is unlikely and decided not to prosecute, people would have understood. And a private prosecution is unlikely. What the Police did was to take on the role of the DPP, the Court and the jury and even mitigated for the defence - no hi vi jacket, no helmet, straight line.

Not meeting the evidence test in this case for example would be - cannot be established if it is indeed the car that knocked the driver, couple of witnesses saw the cyclist zipping in and out of traffic with speed with no regard to the traffic etc. In the first case, there is no evidence to bring about a prosecution and in the second there is no evidence to suggest that the driver committed an offence.

Yes, I can guarantee that CPP would not stop the private prosecution.


----------



## Lemond (2 Apr 2015)

benb said:


> The people saying there is no evidence of careless driving.
> 
> If running into someone from behind isn't evidence of careless driving, then I don't know what is.



You can keep making this point until you are blue in the face, but it isn't going to change a thing. The act of hitting a cyclist from behind isn't in and of itself evidence of careless driving, or any of the other offences with which a driver can be charged.


----------



## Lemond (2 Apr 2015)

glenn forger said:


> It's reasonable to ask who you are accusing of saying this. When you realise nobody's said it you really ought to apologise. I think your emotions are clouding your judgement, calm down and discuss like an adult with fewer sarcastic outbursts or invented straw men.





glenn forger said:


> DI Mason made-up evidence to fit his decision.


----------



## Dan B (2 Apr 2015)

Lemond said:


> You can keep making this point until you are blue in the face, but it isn't going to change a thing. The act of hitting a cyclist from behind isn't in and of itself evidence of careless driving, or any of the other offences with which a driver can be charged.


According to government press releases, tailgating and hogging the middle lane would both be a "careless driving" offence. If it's careless to drive too close to the car in front, how can it _not_ be careless to drive so close to them that you actually hit them?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-penalties-for-careless-driving-come-into-force


----------



## Dan B (2 Apr 2015)

Lemond said:


> The act of hitting a cyclist from behind isn't in and of itself evidence of ... any of the other offences with which a driver can be charged.





ROAD VEHICLES (CONSTRUCTION AND USE) REGULATIONS 1986 said:


> No person shall drive or cause or permit any other person to drive, a motor vehicle on a road if he is in such a position that he cannot have proper control of the vehicle or have a full view of the road and traffic ahead.


Someone clearly didn't have a full view of Mr Mason.


----------



## Mugshot (2 Apr 2015)

Lemond said:


> How can you say "I don't really care that the police say they have investigated..." and then claim that you're not biased? Clearly, by your own admission, you are not prepared to accept anything the police say. If that's not bias, I don't know what is.


No.
I am not a fully paid up member of A.C.A.B, I have throughout my life tried to give the police the respect which I believe their position and authority merit (though they make it awfully hard sometimes), my BFF has been in the police service for 30 years, I go on a golf weekend with my mate and around 15 or so of his police buddies every year (and have lots of jolly drunken japes with the lot of them). In general I hold the police service in high regard. However that does not mean that I believe they cannot get it wrong and in my personal experience of a situation with not dissimilar circumstances to this one, although with nothing like the tragic consequences, they did. My view of the police and their investigations is balanced, your assumption seems to be that if the police say they've investigated then that's that, there is no more to be said, you are wrong in that assumption and the bias fits very neatly on your shoulders.


----------



## Lemond (2 Apr 2015)

Dan B said:


> According to government press releases, tailgating and hogging the middle lane would both be a "careless driving" offence. If it's careless to drive too close to the car in front, how can it _not_ be careless to drive so close to them that you actually hit them?
> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-penalties-for-careless-driving-come-into-force



Because the law dictates that tailgating is and of itself careless or dangerous. I would assume that's because it involves a deliberate act/choice by the driver. They don't need to tailgate, but they chose to do it. I would assume the same goes for lane hogging.


----------



## Dan B (2 Apr 2015)

User said:


> This is the most solid evidence that, as a society, we have lost sight of what is and what is not reasonable.


It would be if it were true. "There are countless examples of what driving behaviour
can be considered to be careless driving. The following is a non-exhaustive list: mistakes
such as cutting in front of another vehicle when emerging from a side road, or driving
through a red light; distractions such as tuning a car radio or using a mobile phone; eating
or drinking whilst driving; driving inappropriately close to another vehicle; failing to adhere to
the relevant parts of the Highway Code (see below); lighting a cigarette whilst driving;
remaining in the overtaking lane." 

http://motoroffence.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/the-law-behind-careless-driving.pdf

I find it very strange if driving too close to the vehicle in front is likely to result in a careless driving charge, but actually _hitting it_ apparently is not


----------



## Dan B (2 Apr 2015)

Lemond said:


> Because the law dictates that tailgating is and of itself careless or dangerous. I would assume that's because it involves a deliberate act/choice by the driver.


You would be wrong.


> The Prosecution will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the motorist has departed
> from the standard of driving of a competent and careful driver in all aspects of the case.
> This is an objective test and is primarily a question of fact. *It does not matter whether the
> careless driving was as a result of the Defendant's negligence, incompetence, inexperience
> or his deliberate intent.*


----------



## Dan B (2 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> there is still no evidence of careless driving



"I can't see where I'm going or what's on front of me due to this sea of flashing brake lights, what the fark, I'll carry on driving at 25 mph anyway". Using the normal and everyday meaning of the words "competent" and "careful", would you describe this as meeting the standard of "competent" or "careful" driving? 

If not, how and where does the legal definition of "careful" depart so drastically from its dictionary meaning?


----------



## Mugshot (2 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> CCTV shows her driving close to the centre line without deviating, so her road positioning was correct.
> 
> That's on the pictures - what can't speak can't lie.
> 
> The police assessed her speed as appropriate, they can speak and can lie, but no other witnesses said the car was going too fast, and if I know anything about traffic density in London, it's most unlikely she could have been going very fast.


No.
In this case a road user is struck from behind whilst operating their vehicle in a manner which according to the evidence would appear to suggest it was being operated lawfully. The road user striking them was either going too fast (I did not say they were speeding) or their positioning was incorrect or both. Had they been going more slowly they would not have struck the cyclist they would have stayed behind them, had they been positioned correctly they would not have struck the cyclist they would have stayed behind or overtaken them. The speed and positioning of the motorist is only correct if you remove the cyclist from the equation.


----------



## Mugshot (2 Apr 2015)

theclaud said:


> Not merely sad, but insane. I do no use the word lightly. I get the astonishing impression that @Pale Rider is typing with a straight face. Look for a second at the uncritical acceptance of the breathtaking nonsense in the second quote above. If this is to be credited, then it goes without saying that all motor traffic should be barred forthwith from all urban roads after dark - are we seriously expected to accept that drivers cannot be expected to 'pick out anything'? What are they, and we in their path, relying on - God? If it is not 'careless' to kill a human being in front of your eyes because you failed to see he was there, the the word has no meaning. The rest is weasel words.


I agree. I mentioned bias earlier which Lemond is now attacking and doing his best to suggest that I am being anti police. I was talking simply from a human level that for anybody to find this incident acceptable or careful with the detail in the evidence that we have and then for others to defend that assessment, I do actually struggle to find the words, I simply cannot understand it.


----------



## Lemond (2 Apr 2015)

User said:


> 146 posts, most of which defend the rights of drivers to kill.



Really? Find me one.


----------



## Arrowfoot (2 Apr 2015)

The sentiments expressed in this case in general is about Police failing to refer this to CPP. Their internal review on why it was not referred is also found wanting. The remark about drivers can't see at night because of the lights is quite hilarious. The logical next step would be to ban cyclist at night in London and other busy cities for their own safety.

On whether the driver in this case should be prosecuted or not or even culpable is best left to the appropriate parties - CPP and courts.

I am just surprised where a fatality has occurred and with all the things present, the Met decided undertake the role of DPP and the courts.


----------



## Lemond (2 Apr 2015)

User said:


> The cap fits.



I don't wear a cap. I prefer a helmet. That's probably something else you can attack me over.


----------



## glenn forger (2 Apr 2015)

Lemond said:


> You can keep making this point until you are blue in the face, but it isn't going to change a thing. The act of hitting a cyclist from behind isn't in and of itself evidence of careless driving, or any of the other offences with which a driver can be charged.



You claimed DI Mason was only following the Highway Code when he mentioned Highway Code advice, now you're saying he can ignore Highway Code Rules. That's making up evidence.


----------



## glenn forger (2 Apr 2015)

Is there evidence that either the collision or death could have been avoided with a helmet? No, DI Mason made that up. And if the HC is the bible, how come advice takes precedent over rules?


----------



## benb (2 Apr 2015)

Lemond said:


> You can keep making this point until you are blue in the face, but it isn't going to change a thing. The act of hitting a cyclist from behind isn't in and of itself evidence of careless driving, or any of the other offences with which a driver can be charged.



If you honestly think that failing to see another road user, and driving into them from behind doesn't meet the legal definition of careless, then I despair.


----------



## Dan B (2 Apr 2015)

> Ms Purcell said: 'It felt like something had fallen from the sky, I was totally unaware of the cyclist, I heard an impact.'
> 
> She added: 'I didn't really know what had happened, I pulled in next to the Boris bikes, put on my hazard lights and leapt out of the car to go back to the scene.
> 
> ...


http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/newsgallery/?news_id=39245

I don't think it would have made any difference whether he swerved violently at the last minute or moved position half a mile ahead, she's admitting there she didn't see him _at all_ - not that she only saw him too late to do anything about it. Would _you_ describe this as "careful"?


----------



## benb (2 Apr 2015)

There is no plausible explanation as to why she didn't see Mr Mason that could be a defence to careless driving. Is there?


----------



## Dan B (2 Apr 2015)

Lemond said:


> I don't wear a cap. I prefer a helmet. That's probably something else you can attack me over.


I can't see how that's even vaguely relevant unless it's the source of your reluctance to hold a driver who killed a helmetless cyclist to acount for it

I think I would rather it wasn't


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (2 Apr 2015)

benb said:


> There is no plausible explanation as to why she didn't see Mr Mason that could be a defence to careless driving. Is there?


No reasonable or justified explanation that I can see.


----------



## Wobblers (2 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> CCTV shows her driving close to the centre line without deviating, so her road positioning was correct.
> 
> That's on the pictures - what can't speak can't lie.
> 
> The police assessed her speed as appropriate, they can speak and can lie, but no other witnesses said the car was going too fast, and if I know anything about traffic density in London, it's most unlikely she could have been going very fast.



That in no way proves that she was driving in a safe and appropriate manner! It only shows that she was driving close to the centre line without deviating within the field of view of the CCTV. Nothing more. It certainly does not demonstrate that she was paying the due amount of attention on the road. Her very own testimony - that she did not ever see Mr Mason _even though he was right in front of her _- is evidence that her standard of driving falls far short of that expected from a competent driver.


----------



## Pale Rider (2 Apr 2015)

I will give you another real situation, not the same, but kind of similar.

A few years ago in 30mph street near me a child on the pavement, to use the mother's words, 'slipped my hand',

The little lad dashed between two parked cars and was killed by a moving car.

Witnesses said the driver was doing about the speed limit, but had no chance of avoiding the collision.

The driver was not charged.

Perhaps you all think he should have been, but I do not.

Thus it is possible to collide with something in front of you while still being a careful and competent driver.

No one is suggesting Mr Mason dashed into the path of the car, apart from anything else he was riding a bicycle.

But the car did not deviate - that's on the CCTV.

Mr Mason must have deviated or he would not have been hit.

How long was Mr Mason in front of the car before he was hit?

Again, no one knows.

But the collision investigators seem to have concluded it was not very long, maybe a second or two.

If that is so, a careful and competent driver had no realistic prospect of avoiding a collision, given reaction times and stopping distances.

Thus the careless driving part of the charge is a non-starter.

For the private prosecution to have any chance of success, the family will need to come up with new evidence, hopefully that Mr Mason was cycling in the path of the car for several seconds before he was hit.

Evidence of the driver not wearing glasses would also do, clearly a careful and competent glasses wearing driver would not drive without them.

Without new evidence, I think the DPP will take the case over and stop it.

Even if the case proceeds to a crown court trial, a defence barrister will make mincemeat of it.

As @spen666 posted earlier, a defence application at the close of the prosecution case that there is no case to answer looks very likely to succeed, assuming the judge doesn't chuck it earlier.

@Arrowfoot tells me he can 'guarantee' the prosecution case will proceed, perhaps he/she knows something I do not.

I'm not bold enough to guarantee anything with the law, but I can't see how, as the law and the case currently stands, there will be a conviction.


----------



## Dan B (2 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> Thus it is possible to collide with something in front of you while still being a careful and competent driver.
> 
> No one is suggesting Mr Mason dashed into the path of the car, apart from anything else he was riding a bicycle.
> 
> ...



However, the driver we are talking about in this case by her own admission failed to see Mr Mason until _after she had hit him, parked the car, and gone back to see what had happened_. Perhaps the collision would have been unavoidable if she had seen him, we'll probably never know, but the fact is that she hadn't seen him. And, to my mind at least, driving while not seeing things directly in front of you is not particularly careful.


----------



## Dan B (2 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> But the collision investigators seem to have concluded it was not very long, maybe a second or two.


Missed that bit, where do they say that?


----------



## Dan B (2 Apr 2015)

User13710 said:


> This is the part that I can't quite believe you are insisting on. What planet do you live on?


One might equally well say "Mr Mason must have moved within his lane or the Nissan driver would have driven past him while remaining oblivious to his presence".


----------



## Pale Rider (2 Apr 2015)

Dan B said:


> Missed that bit, where do they say that?



The best evidence I can find from the report:

"We were unable to show the point at which Mr MASON moved over to his right. All we could conclude was that during a distance of 25 to 30 metres, Mr MASON at some point changed his position in the road."

Unfortunately, we don't know where the car was when the deviation took place.

If the family can somehow prove Mr Mason was in the car's path for several seconds or more it will help their case.



User13710 said:


> This is the part that I can't quite believe you are insisting on. What planet do you live on?



I live on Planet Evidence.

Again from the report:

CCTV showed Mr MASON cycling between 1.5 to 2 metres from the kerb line. No CCTV exists depicting Mr MASON moving from his line of travel, i.e. moving out to his right. This is something he must have done in order for the collision to have taken place.
CCTV, physical evidence and Ms PURCELL’S own account prove that she had always maintained her position in the road, adjacent to the central white line.

As the copper says, she didn't deviate, so he must have done or the collision could not have happened.


----------



## Pale Rider (2 Apr 2015)

Dan B said:


> One might equally well say "Mr Mason must have moved within his lane or the Nissan driver would have driven past him while remaining oblivious to his presence".



I did say that upthread, because it is correct.


----------



## Dan B (2 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> I did say that upthread, because it is correct.


And driving along a road while being oblivious to the presence of the other road users you're overtaking is the mark of a careful driver, is it?


----------



## Mugshot (2 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> No one is suggesting Mr Mason dashed into the path of the car, apart from anything else he was riding a bicycle.


So what was the point in your scenario?


----------



## Dan B (2 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> "We were unable to show the point at which Mr MASON moved over to his right. All we could conclude was that during a distance of 25 to 30 metres, Mr MASON at some point changed his position in the road."


30 metres at 25 mph is 2.6 seconds, but that number is only relevant if Mr Mason was stationary. If Mr Mason was travelling at 15mph and the closing speed was 10mph, Ms Purcell would have had up to 6.7 seconds to observe him before running into the back of him. But in any case this is irrelevant to whether she was driving carefully as she didn't even try to avoid him


----------



## Pale Rider (2 Apr 2015)

Dan B said:


> And driving along a road while being oblivious to the presence of the other road users you're overtaking is the mark of a careful driver, is it?



To qualify as a careful and competent driver, you do not have to see everything, you just have to avoid hitting anything.

Clearly, seeing everything is the best way to avoid a collision, but if you avoid one more by luck than judgement you are not, in these type of circumstances, guilty of any offence.

If you are driving like a lunatic and manage not to crash into anything during a police chase you would still be guilty of dangerous driving.


----------



## Mugshot (2 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> To qualify as a careful and competent driver, you do not have to see everything, you just have to avoid hitting anything.


Well that's a start. It's a pity that the driver was unable to even achieve this.


----------



## Arrowfoot (2 Apr 2015)

Cyclists, cars, bikers, buses etc all at one time or another will move across to any lane but the vehicles behind will have to pace themselves. There is no such thing as holding the line and ploughing into someone in front as thought it they have right of way. More like the driver of the vehicle was not paying attention.

I found the "holding the line" argument hollow. Of course the comment about can't see anything because of the lights takes the cake. Whether the cyclist was not wearing a helmet, riding butt naked or sporting facial hair has also no bearing. Sure the helmet might have protected him but thats a different matter.


----------



## Pale Rider (2 Apr 2015)

User13710 said:


> And you seriously can't think of _any other reason_ why this driver drove into this cyclist and killed him? Such as, she wasn't concentrating - in other words, she was careless?



One could speculate on many things and what you say could have happened.

But the courts operate on evidence, the evidence of her driving includes the the CCTV - straight and steady - her own account, examination of her car and her mobile and that it was a slow speed collision.

None of the above gives any evidential support to careless driving.


----------



## Arrowfoot (2 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> To qualify as a careful and competent driver, you do not have to see everything, you just have to avoid hitting anything.
> 
> Clearly, seeing everything is the best way to avoid a collision, but if you avoid one more by luck than judgement you are not, in these type of circumstances, guilty of any offence.
> 
> If you are driving like a lunatic and manage not to crash into anything during a police chase you would still be guilty of dangerous driving.



In common law, drivers are required to have a proper lookout at all times.
http://m.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/1...ore_crash_which_killed_pensioner__court_told/


----------



## Mugshot (2 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> One could speculate on many things and what you say could have happened.
> 
> But the courts operate on evidence, the evidence of her driving includes the the CCTV - straight and steady - her own account, examination of her car and her mobile and that it was a slow speed collision.
> 
> None of the above gives any evidential support to careless driving.


You appear to have missed a rather important part out there.


----------



## Pale Rider (2 Apr 2015)

Mugshot said:


> You appear to have missed a rather important part out there.



If there is some evidence of careless driving I am sure everyone would like to see it.


----------



## Dan B (2 Apr 2015)

> 212
> 
> When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162 to 167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so.
> 213
> ...


I mean, maybe the highway code has got it all wrong and what they should have said was "when overtaking cyclists, maintain your speed and direction and try not to even look at them"?


----------



## Dan B (2 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> To qualify as a careful and competent driver, you do not have to see everything, you just have to avoid hitting anything.


So, if I am observed driving down a motorway with my eyes shut, using the rumble strips to steer, the police have no case against me? I find that hard to believe


----------



## Dan B (2 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> If there is some evidence of careless driving I am sure everyone would like to see it.


Er, she hit someone that she didn't even see.


----------



## Pale Rider (2 Apr 2015)

Dan B said:


> 30 metres at 25 mph is 2.6 seconds, but that number is only relevant if Mr Mason was stationary. If Mr Mason was travelling at 15mph and the closing speed was 10mph, Ms Purcell would have had up to 6.7 seconds to observe him before running into the back of him. But in any case this is irrelevant to whether she was driving carefully as she didn't even try to avoid him



Dan, 

This sounds good, but you are mis-reading the report.

All it says is the cyclist changed position on a stretch of Regent Street that is 25m to 30m long.

There is no evidence as to the exact position of the car at the time of the deviation.

Thus it is impossible to calculate how many seconds the bike was in front of her before she hit it.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (2 Apr 2015)

For all the emotion, and as a London rider who'd hate to be in the same position I put in to the fund, that we have here, I think what @Pale Rider is doing here is clinically looking at what has been published about the case and explaining (from a position of some knowledge) why the decision has been made. And while I don't like it, it is kind of compelling. I hate the idea that a driver on Regents St has killed a cyclist and it appears nothing is being done about it. Unfortunately, the legal system we have, as has been shown multiple times in this thread, has been used and come to a conclusion. The conclusion is horrible, but based on what the options are it looks like the case has nowhere to go. While the gut reaction is, this should be pushed and pushed it looks like a court wouldn't prosecute, without more evidence. What is obviously wrong to the majority of people posting on this thread isn't enough. We don't know if she came up behind him while he was riding straight and true and just drove through him, similarly we have no idea if he had a lapse of concentration and moved for the bit of road he needed without any kind of observation. Both could be true and that's all that matters without evidence to prove which it was.

Again, I think we've been given the answer. This case has faltered because of the requirement to prove, in law, things that the evidence can't prove. If the law was changed to 'Causing Death by Driving' with no requirement to prove, based on the legal definitions, careless or dangerous driving then this, and other cases would get to the next stage and have their day in court. Maybe that's where the focus needs to be?

Although the emphasis used, when the statements were made and how they were released, especially the retraction. Those were undoubtedly a travesty.


----------



## PK99 (2 Apr 2015)

[


Dan B said:


> 30 metres at 25 mph is 2.6 seconds, but that number is only relevant if Mr Mason was stationary. If Mr Mason was travelling at 15mph and the closing speed was 10mph, *Ms Purcell would have had up to 6.7 seconds to observe him before running into the back of him*. But in any case this is irrelevant to whether she was driving carefully as she didn't even try to avoid him



The movement posited took place somewhere in the 25 to 30 m, it could have taken place anywhere in the 25-30 m distance and a 2m lateral movement could take place in less than a second


----------



## Mugshot (2 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> If there is some evidence of careless driving I am sure everyone would like to see it.





Pale Rider said:


> One could speculate on many things and what you say could have happened.
> 
> But the courts operate on evidence, the evidence of her driving includes the the CCTV - straight and steady - her own account, examination of her car and her mobile and that it was a slow speed collision.
> 
> None of the above gives any evidential support to careless driving.


You appear to have missed the bit where she killed somebody whilst driving.


----------



## Dan B (2 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> Thus it is impossible to calculate how many seconds the bike was in front of her before she hit it.


In which case your assertion that the collision investigators said it was "probably a second or two", based on that same 25-30m measurement, is also incorrect.


----------



## Pale Rider (2 Apr 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> For all the emotion, and as a London rider who'd hate to be in the same position I put in to the fund, that we have here, I think what @Pale Rider is doing here is clinically looking at what has been published about the case and explaining (from a position of some knowledge) why the decision has been made. And while I don't like it, it is kind of compelling.



That is what I've been doing, I do find the conclusions compelling and I'm not sure I entirely like them.

My relatively mild attempts at justifying the decision not to prosecute will be like a pea shooter compared to a howitzer if a defending barrister ever gets hold of it.

The family need to be prepared for that.

The only alternative I can see is to automatically prosecute the surviving person in every fatal collision.

I don't like that either, not least because of child who ran into the road example I gave above.


----------



## Dan B (2 Apr 2015)

PK99 said:


> The movement posited took place somewhere in the 25 to 30 m, it could have taken place anywhere in the 25-30 m distance and a 2m lateral movement could take place in less than a second


Most people, when a cyclist swerves 2m laterally across the road in front of them in less than a second, notice it has happened. Our brains are hard-wired to detect movement


----------



## Dan B (2 Apr 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> We don't know if she came up behind him while he was riding straight and true and just drove through him, similarly we have no idea if he had a lapse of concentration and moved for the bit of road he needed without any kind of observation. Both could be true and that's all that matters without evidence to prove which it was.


But it isn't all that matters. Even if he had swerved at the last possible moment such that no driver on earth could possibly have avoided him, that driver would still have _seen_ him. The driver in this case did not see him. Read her words at the inquest. That is not careful driving.


----------



## Mugshot (2 Apr 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> For all the emotion, and as a London rider who'd hate to be in the same position I put in to the fund, that we have here, I think what @Pale Rider is doing here is clinically looking at what has been published about the case and explaining (from a position of some knowledge) why the decision has been made. And while I don't like it, it is kind of compelling. I hate the idea that a driver on Regents St has killed a cyclist and it appears nothing is being done about it. Unfortunately, the legal system we have, as has been shown multiple times in this thread, has been used and come to a conclusion. The conclusion is horrible, but based on what the options are it looks like the case has nowhere to go. While the gut reaction is, this should be pushed and pushed it looks like a court wouldn't prosecute, without more evidence. What is obviously wrong to the majority of people posting on this thread isn't enough. _We don't know if she came up behind him while he was riding straight and true and just drove through him, similarly we have no idea if he had a lapse of concentration and moved for the bit of road he needed without any kind of observation. Both could be true and that's all that matters without evidence to prove which it was._
> 
> Again, I think we've been given the answer. This case has faltered because of the requirement to prove, in law, things that the evidence can't prove. If the law was changed to 'Causing Death by Driving' with no requirement to prove, based on the legal definitions, careless or dangerous driving then this, and other cases would get to the next stage and have their day in court. Maybe that's where the focus needs to be?
> 
> Although the emphasis used, when the statements were made and how they were released, especially the retraction. Those were undoubtedly a travesty.


We do know however that two witnesses claim to have seen Mr Mason whilst a driver claims to not have, at all.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (2 Apr 2015)

Mugshot said:


> We do know however that two witnesses claim to have seen Mr Mason whilst a driver claims to not have, at all.


And I really hope that if it gets to court, that is enough. But there's a disconnect here between what seems to be obvious and common sense and what the law requires to prove that something has actually happened. I guess it's that old legal bugbear of better one guilty person going free than one innocent person in prison. And naturally that's all well and good when it's not the wrong guilty person going free.

Presuming @glenn forger posted a photo from the scene (and not a random police officer investigating a Nissan Juke on Regent St, in post #317 ) then it looks like the accident took place on the northern half of Regents St, a walk through there on Google Maps actually shows the road width changing quite a lot which would make it interesting that she wasn't also changing road position, although equally if he came across to the centre of the road, I can't see where he would have been going, unless he was getting ready to right turn in to Mortimer St very early (as it's beyond where the photo was taken and again my presumption is she stopped, walked back, phoned emergency services and the Juke is still where she left it. There's a lot of 'if' in that.) Of course, the Google maps is July 2014, I don't know if the road changed a few months prior to that.

Much as I hate it, debate is about looking at the options and I'd not want us to shoot the messenger with @Pale Rider here, because he's only trying to show what will happen if it gets to the next step and like it or not, we're hardly unbiased here.


----------



## Pale Rider (2 Apr 2015)

Many of you won't like it, but her account of not seeing the cyclist supports her position in some ways.

It certainly doesn't harm it.

Had she said: "I saw the cyclist and then crashed into him" she would have been in bother.

Her 'not seeing him' is also supported by the independent witness who said general visibility was poor because of the 'sea of lights'.

A defending barrister will almost certainly make a point roughly as: "My client didn't see the cyclist until the bang of the collision, thus it is likely he deviated into her path at the last moment.
"The collision was therefore unavoidable so she cannot be guilty of careless driving."

As I've said, I am only putting what I expect will be put in court.

In all cases, the jury will be told by the judge: "To return a guilty verdict you must be satisfied so that you are sure of the defendant's guilt.
"Nothing less will do, if you think the defendant probably did it, that is not good enough, in those circumstances you must return a not guilty verdict."

It shows how difficult it is to secure any criminal conviction.

I sometimes wonder how it is the prisons are full.


----------



## Dan B (2 Apr 2015)

It's the same sea of lights as is apparent every night of every workday on every road in London, and if she was a regular commuter on that route (or any route) it can hardly have come as a surprise to her

And should a careful and competent driver not be expected to see a cyclist ahead of them even if they _weren't_ on a collision course?


----------



## w00hoo_kent (2 Apr 2015)

Dan B said:


> It's the same sea of lights as is apparent every night of every workday on every road in London, and if she was a regular commuter on that route (or any route) it can hardly have come as a surprise to her
> 
> And should a careful and competent driver not be expected to see a cyclist ahead of them even if they _weren't_ on a collision course?


Yeah, but that's the sane argument.

Anecdote alert - I was taken off of my motorbike by a minicab. The driver told the police when they arrived (apparently, I was being put in the ambulance after somersaulting across her bonnet) "I got a call in the other direction, I didn't look, I just turned the steering wheel and put my foot down to get out of everyone's way quickly" She came out of two lanes of traffic, from the left lane to the right lane and then U turned. I was filtering past well out of the door zone. I believe I had enough time to swear before I hit her, she was around two car lengths in front of me max. I don't remember accidents, my brain deletes those bits as if I don't need, the git. Only bonus was it wrote her car off as well as my bike. The CPS dropped the case because a car in the outer lane flashed her to come out, thinking that she was just changing lanes in traffic, and this could have been taken by her to mean that it was clear to do her complete manoeuvre.

The law doesn't always do what we think it should.



User said:


> To which the reply should be, why did you not leave safe space between you and the cyclist when overtaking?


And the reply is "The cyclist was wearing dark clothing and his lights were difficult to see against all of the others. How can you leave a safe space for someone you can't see?"

And then you need to prove that she was doing something specific that was distracting her.

It's an arse.


----------



## Lemond (2 Apr 2015)

User said:


> As i am entirely anti-compulsionist, I don't give a toss what you stick on your head.



Fair enough.


----------



## benb (2 Apr 2015)

At no point did the driver say anything along the lines of "I was overtaking the cyclist when they suddenly swerved into my path", so all this nonsense about how long Mr Mason was in front of her is bollox.

She failed to see another road user, and ran them over. That's it. There is no plausible explanation for why she didn't see them, apart from the vague "sea of lights" comment from a witness, which the police have just taken at face value.

Note that other drivers saw Mr Mason just fine, and if visibility was compromised by background lights, a careful and competent driver should have slowed down to make sure they didn't drive into a space they didn't know was clear.

I'm bemused and exasperated as to how anyone can conclude there is insufficient evidence to at least pass this on to the CPS.

And I'll return to the reasons given by the investigating police officers as to why they didn't, which clearly show they were biased in favour of the driver.


----------



## Wobblers (2 Apr 2015)

PK99 said:


> [
> 
> 
> The movement posited took place somewhere in the 25 to 30 m, it could have taken place anywhere in the 25-30 m distance and a 2m lateral movement could take place in less than a second



As I have already said the forensic examination of the impact points on car and bicycle do not support this supposition. Had Mr Mason suddenly moved out in the way you are claiming, the collision would have been very different, with very different impact points.


----------



## Wobblers (2 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> Many of you won't like it, but her account of not seeing the cyclist supports her position in some ways.
> 
> It certainly doesn't harm it.
> 
> ...



That could be countered had the Met, say, staged a reconstruction where a cyclist dressed in similar clothes at the same time would be vidoed from the driving seat of her car to ascertain just how visible he was. They didn't bother. _That _is what the problem is: they didn't bother. Instead, we have a list of frankly half-arsed excuses - it was dark, no hi-viz, no helmet... There seems to be little effort made by the investigating officer. I'd have no complaint if it had got to the CPS and been rejected on grounds of insufficient evidence. But it wasn't allowed to even get that far.

The other important point is that failure to keep a proper lookout when operating a motorised vehicle is itself evidence of careless driving. Neither does the lack of a helmet have any bearing on the police being able to charge on grounds of careless driving. The witness supposition that Mr Mason was lost in a sea of lights is easily countered by the fact that two other witnesses _did _see him - as does the observation that the hundreds of other motorists also managed not to hit him.

The fact of collision coupled with her own - under oath - admission that she did not see Mr Mason (failure to keep an adequate lookout) is itself evidence of careless driving. Whether that is enough to go to court is the province of the CPS, not the police.


----------



## PK99 (2 Apr 2015)

McWobble said:


> As I have already said the forensic examination of the impact points on car and bicycle do not support this supposition. Had Mr Mason suddenly moved out in the way you are claiming, the collision would have been very different, with very different impact points.



A lateral movement of 2m and straightening up (consistent with the forensic report) could be completed in less than 1 second without the need for a sharp swerve - very different from the 6.7 seconds viewing time suggested by DanB


----------



## Wobblers (2 Apr 2015)

PK99 said:


> A lateral movement of 2m and straightening up (consistent with the forensic report) could be completed in less than 1 second without the need for a sharp swerve - very different from the 6.7 seconds viewing time suggested by DanB



Okay, try it. Try it now, even at the slow speed of 12 mph. Make sure you have someone film the results, do be sure to post it to youtube, so we can see the evidence and time it. I guarantee you will be surprised by the results.

This, incidentally, is yet another obvious defence supposition that could easily be squashed by the prosecution.

ETA: Is such a large sudden deviation really credible for an experienced cyclist in those conditions? I would think not - and expert witnesses are available to support this


----------



## Dan B (2 Apr 2015)

PK99 said:


> A lateral movement of 2m and straightening up (consistent with the forensic report) could be completed in less than 1 second without the need for a sharp swerve - very different from the 6.7 seconds viewing time suggested by DanB


Maybe if you're Danny MacAskill, yes

[ Also: what the previous poster said. Don't argue with someone called "Wobble" about large lateral movements ]


----------



## Dan B (2 Apr 2015)

McWobble said:


> This, incidentally, is yet another obvious defence supposition that could easily be squashed by the prosecution.


This is perhaps what's so enraging about the whole thing. The justice system in this country is adversarial: the prosecution attempt to secure a conviction, the defence try their hardest to get the defendant off, and the hope is that if both sides are fairly matched then justice will be done. It's not up to the police to do the defence's job for them.


----------



## Lemond (2 Apr 2015)

McWobble said:


> Whether that is enough to go to court is the province of the CPS, not the police.



From the Metropolitan Police website: *No further action* – if there is insufficient evidence to charge or caution a suspect, no further action will be taken by police.


----------



## oldstrath (3 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> Many of you won't like it, but her account of not seeing the cyclist supports her position in some ways.
> 
> It certainly doesn't harm it.
> 
> ...



What actually seems to come out of your attempts (depressingly sadly accurate I suspect ) to justify the decision not to proceed, is that actually driving in crowded urban streets ought to be seen as too hard for anyone. You seem to say that someone can be an adequately competent driver, but still miss seeing a cyclist who must have been in her field of view. I don't doubt that your view is true in law, in which case presumably we should all either give up cycling, or campaign for complete separation.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (3 Apr 2015)

A borrowed Nissan Juke, I believe. Euro ncap gave this car a 5 star rating but its safety ratings tell a different story. Adult occupant safety = 87%, child occupant = 81%, pedestrian safety = 41%. (Note that Euro ncap don't bother with rating cyclist safety but I think it's fair to assume that their profile would be fairly similar to a pedestrian's.)
The bonnet provided good protection in most areas likely to be struck by a child's head, but was almost completely poor in those areas where an adult’s head would hit. The front edge of the bonnet also offered poor protection in almost every area tested.​The Juke is appalling for pedestrian safety. And yet it's given a top star rating. 

In this case, the make of car would probably have limited significance, but it's simply another illustration of a more general point: how safety and responsibility for safety has been exported to the outside.


----------



## Wobblers (3 Apr 2015)

Lemond said:


> From the Metropolitan Police website: *No further action* – if there is insufficient evidence to charge or caution a suspect, no further action will be taken by police.



Except that "no further action" ignores the available evidence:

Lack of helmet cited as one reason for no further action - irrelevant to charges against the motorist
Mr Mason was wearing dark clothing - ignoring the fact that he was legally lit up, and no checks whatsoever made to ascertain just how visible he was to the motorist under those conditions

One witness supposition that "he was lost in a sea of lights" taken at face value - again, as above, no attempt made to check the validity of this suggestion (which in any case ignores the two witnesses who _did _see him)
CCTV evidence taken as evidence of no careless driving - it is limited merely to the camera's field of view so is not applicable to the time of impact, nor does it show that the motorist was paying due attention. It is not evidence of careful driving whatever.
The motorist's own testimony that she "didn't see him" has been ignored
You, in all your attempts at making excuses for the motorist and police, have failed to explain in any way why any of these points are false. Quite the opposite: you've gone to great lengths to produce even more spurious excuses to account for the Met's behaviour. Why is that, I wonder?


----------



## Wobblers (3 Apr 2015)

oldstrath said:


> What actually seems to come out of your attempts (depressingly sadly accurate I suspect ) to justify the decision not to proceed, is that actually driving in crowded urban streets ought to be seen as too hard for anyone. You seem to say that someone can be an adequately competent driver, but still miss seeing a cyclist who must have been in her field of view. I don't doubt that your view is true in law, *in which case presumably we should all either give up cycling, or campaign for complete separation.*



Or, preferably, campaign for better laws so that killer drivers are actually held to account for their actions.

ETA: not to mention insist on seeing an end to such appalling half-arsed investigations such as this one.


----------



## Pale Rider (3 Apr 2015)

McWobble said:


> Or, preferably, campaign for better laws so that killer drivers are actually held to account for their actions.
> 
> ETA: not to mention insist on seeing an end to such appalling half-arsed investigations such as this one.



The investigation was not as you describe it, you are simply bleating about it because you don't like the result.

The coroner, who will have seen lots of these, was give full disclosure of the investigation and made no comment about it, other than a finding of accidental death.

The coroner could have asked the police why certain things were not done, or even adjourned his hearing and asked them to reinvestigate, or he could have made a different finding.

That he did none of these things indicates he was content with the standard of the investigation.

Unless something can be found that was critically missing from the investigation then all attempts to undermine it are a waste of time.

There will always be something extra that could have been done, but inquiries must be deemed at some point to be sufficient.


----------



## Lemond (3 Apr 2015)

McWobble said:


> Except that "no further action" ignores the available evidence:
> 
> Lack of helmet cited as one reason for no further action - irrelevant to charges against the motorist
> Mr Mason was wearing dark clothing - ignoring the fact that he was legally lit up, and no checks whatsoever made to ascertain just how visible he was to the motorist under those conditions
> ...



Two points: 

Firstly, you (and others) seem to believe that "available evidence" is being ignored. It is not. What you seem totally unwilling to accept is that in this particular case the police view is that the available evidence, when considered in its entirety, is not sufficient to ensure a realistic prospect of conviction (a burden they are obliged to meet), hence the decision to take no further action. 

Secondly, if it can be proved that the driver was driving dangerously or carelessly as defined by the law, then I believe she should face the full weight of such in court. 

Against accusations of coverup, whitewash and corruption that have been bandied about within this thread, I've tried to shed some light on how the system works and the reasons why the decision to take no further action was taken. For some of you that's clearly a step to far.


----------



## Lemond (3 Apr 2015)

User said:


> That would be because you don't come across as someone with any credentials on the subject just as an apologist for drivers who kill.



How about having a girlfriend who was hit by a car and killed as she rode to work? Would that count as "credentials" on the subject? Please stop calling me an apologist for drivers who kill. You've done it twice now, and it's really not helpful.


----------



## CopperCyclist (3 Apr 2015)

@Pale Rider and others who have given the reasons why it didn't go to CPS are correct, accurate and put the case forward well. Under our current system, Michael Masons case had the 'correct' outcome. 

It's a policy and outcome I disagree with strongly. 

My issue is that I believe it SHOULD always be enough for a careless driving charge (note I don't necessarily say conviction) when any driver says "I didn't see them" when 'they' - be it a car, person or a bike - were clearly there to be seen. 

For me, the 'careless' is proved by the statement of "I didn't see them"(a competent driver would have) and the 'death caused' is already there. 

A conviction may not necessarily follow for many reasons, but it should be enough for a charge because "I didn't see them" is a very, very different excuse from "they just jumped out" or "I saw them but they swerved into my path at the last moment and I couldn't avoid them." 

Unfortunately CPS, some police, and some public don't agree - and the rules CPS impose on prosecutions get the deciding vote.


----------



## Wobblers (3 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> The investigation was not as you describe it, you are simply bleating about it because you don't like the result.
> 
> The coroner, who will have seen lots of these, was give full disclosure of the investigation and made no comment about it, other than a finding of accidental death.
> 
> ...



Do me the minimal courtesy of actually reading what I said:


McWobble said:


> I'd have no complaint if it had got to the CPS and been rejected on grounds of insufficient evidence. But it wasn't allowed to even get that far.



You have not offered any explanations or counters to the points I have made, or @Dan B, for that matter. Instead, you've gone for an "appeal to authority" argument. Coroners are not trained in the art of police or collision investigation, they are not the authority you are looking for. Your ad hominem over my "bleating" coupled with your continued refusal to address the points raised can but raise doubts as to your objectivity. I can only conclude you are motivated by bad faith.


----------



## Wobblers (3 Apr 2015)

Lemond said:


> Two points:
> 
> Firstly, you (and others) seem to believe that "available evidence" is being ignored. It is not. What you seem totally unwilling to accept is that in this particular case the police view is that the available evidence, when considered in its entirety, is not sufficient to ensure a realistic prospect of conviction (a burden they are obliged to meet), hence the decision to take no further action.



In which case I await with interest your explanation as to why Mr Mason's clothing and lack of helmet were key points raised to explain the failure to take the case to CPS. You could also explain just why the driver's statement that she didn't see him to not be sufficient, given the laws that have already been quoted on this thread.


----------



## Lemond (3 Apr 2015)

User said:


> Have you actually thought about what you're saying here? The court is the place to decide whether or not the case can be proved, not to rubber stamp a previous decision.



Wrong. Again. The court is the place where it is decided whether the defendant is guilty.


----------



## Pale Rider (3 Apr 2015)

McWobble said:


> Do me the minimal courtesy of actually reading what I said:
> 
> 
> You have not offered any explanations or counters to the points I have made, or @Dan B, for that matter. Instead, you've gone for an "appeal to authority" argument. Coroners are not trained in the art of police or collision investigation, they are not the authority you are looking for. Your ad hominem over my "bleating" coupled with your continued refusal to address the points raised can but raise doubts as to your objectivity. I can only conclude you are motivated by bad faith.



Coroners have seem many accident reports and have the power to have them looked at again.

This coroner did not, so it's an indication the accident report was done correctly within the guidelines.

You say you would have no complaint if it had gone to the CPS.

They are no more likely to say this case passes the full evidence test than the police are.

Your problem is you have decided on a verdict - 'guilty' - with no reference to any evidence or how the system works.

You are then faced with the uphill task of trying to make everything fit into your desired outcome.

It never will.

But you will get more and more frustrated trying to make it so.


----------



## Lemond (3 Apr 2015)

User said:


> Exactly, not on the police officers desk.



Once again you've demonstrated your lack of understanding, you just don't realise it. And you say I don't have any credentials on the subject.


----------



## Arrowfoot (3 Apr 2015)

CopperCyclist said:


> @Pale Rider and others who have given the reasons why it didn't go to CPS are correct, accurate and put the case forward well. Under our current system, Michael Masons case had the 'correct' outcome.
> 
> It's a policy and outcome I disagree with strongly.
> 
> ...




CPS was not given the opportunity to make t call. It was not referred to them. A person was killed and the driver did not see anything. The law as it stands provide enough to prosecute. But the Met chose not to and even mitigated for the potential defendant.


----------



## Pale Rider (3 Apr 2015)

Arrowfoot said:


> CPS was not given the opportunity to make t call. It was not referred to them. A person was killed and the driver did not see anything. The law as it stands provide enough to prosecute. But the Met chose not to and even mitigated for the potential defendant.



The CPS would have been examining the same case and applying the same full evidence test, so it's likely the CPS would have made the same decision as DI Mason.

After all, one of the main reasons the CPS was formed was it was felt police officers were often overly aggressive in their attitude to charging.

The police don't call them the Criminal Protection Service for nothing.


----------



## Lemond (3 Apr 2015)

User said:


> No, I wrote that you don't* come across* as having any credentials, a significant difference. If you can't read what is written it is probably time to finally stop digging.



How so? Are my posts factually incorrect?


----------



## Arrowfoot (3 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> The CPS would have been examining the same case and applying the same full evidence test, so it's likely the CPS would have made the same decision as DI Mason.
> 
> After all, one of the main reasons the CPS was formed was it was felt police officers were often overly aggressive in their attitude to charging.
> 
> The police don't call them the Criminal Protection Service for nothing.



I would and I think some others would have preferred that CPS make the call unless there is no prima facie case. There is a degree of independence (no short skirts, jiggling pockets and doe eyes) plus the legal training of a higher standard that helps. Of the CPS says no, no going to prosecute, I have issues accepting that.

Note: the point about CPS, they could do better in the violent cases.


----------



## Lemond (3 Apr 2015)

User said:


> It is not whether you are right or wrong, it is your attitude. Try reading your posts.
> This oneThe family shouted at the jury : “Were you not listening?” where you champion the cause of a driver to assume they have hit an animal, when they have in fact killed a human.
> 
> This one"The driver told his insurance he "wasn't moving at impact"where you champion the cause of a driver who only looks one way before pulling out.
> ...



If you don't like what I say (which seems to coincide with me not sharing your opinion), please use the ignore function. That's what it's there for. It will stop you getting all hot under the collar.


----------



## Dan B (3 Apr 2015)

CopperCyclist said:


> @Pale Rider and others who have given the reasons why it didn't go to CPS are correct, accurate and put the case forward well. Under our current system, Michael Masons case had the 'correct' outcome.


I am so glad you put the word 'correct' in scare quotes. I really don't care that much that the police have acted in accordance with their own policies when their policy is so blatantly wrong. The law says that driving which falls below the standard of "competent and careful" is an offence. Failing to see a cyclist in front of you, or even a cyclist in front and slightly to one side of you, is not the mark of a competent or careful driver. If the police policy doesn't allow the prosecution of a careles driver who kills, that policy is wrong. If the prosecution is considered likely to fail because the jury are motorists, or whatever, then work out some way (better lawyers, expert witnesses, reconstructions, many good suggestions have been made) to shorten the odds. But dropping the case at this point is just saying "I might not win, so I'm not even going to try". Is that in the interests of justice?


----------



## Lemond (3 Apr 2015)

The only thing I've "championed" is the rule of law. I didn't realise that was such a reprehensible view around these parts. The fact that some posters equate that to championing the rights of drivers who kill, speaks more to their character then mine.


----------



## PK99 (3 Apr 2015)

User13710 said:


> The 'rule of law' is always open to challenge and amendment. That's how it works.



...and lynch mobs who decide guilt without reference to the rule of law are also open to challenge


----------



## CopperCyclist (3 Apr 2015)

Dan B said:


> I am so glad you put the word 'correct' in scare quotes. I really don't care that much that the police have acted in accordance with their own policies when their policy is so blatantly wrong. The law says that driving which falls below the standard of "competent and careful" is an offence. Failing to see a cyclist in front of you, or even a cyclist in front and slightly to one side of you, is not the mark of a competent or careful driver. If the police policy doesn't allow the prosecution of a careles driver who kills, that policy is wrong. If the prosecution is considered likely to fail because the jury are motorists, or whatever, then work out some way (better lawyers, expert witnesses, reconstructions, many good suggestions have been made) to shorten the odds. But dropping the case at this point is just saying "I might not win, so I'm not even going to try". Is that in the interests of justice?



Did you stop reading after the point you quoted? You've just basically said exactly what I said in the rest of my post - no argument here!


----------



## CopperCyclist (3 Apr 2015)

Arrowfoot said:


> I would and I think some others would have preferred that CPS make the call unless there is no prima facie case. There is a degree of independence (no short skirts, jiggling pockets and doe eyes) plus the legal training of a higher standard that helps. Of the CPS says no, no going to prosecute, I have issues accepting that.
> 
> Note: the point about CPS, they could do better in the violent cases.



As Pale Rider said, the investigation supervisor had to apply the same test that CPS does. If we think it has a case, it then gets sent to CPS. If the officer believes there isn't a case, it doesn't. The DI applied that test and found there wasn't a case for the reasons given by Pale rider. Those reasons are accepted under our current system. I disagree with them for the reasons I gave in my above post, and indeed, my own personal feeling is that this matter should have got to court.


----------



## Lemond (3 Apr 2015)

User13710 said:


> The 'rule of law' is always open to challenge and amendment. That's how it works.



Of course. But what matters is what the law says right now, not what we think it should say or what it may or may not say tomorrow.

I think what happened to Mr Mason is nothing short of a tragedy, and having been there myself I have nothing but sympathy for his family and friends. I totally understand the sense of outrage some of you feel. 

However, in discussing the events, some posters have made statements and made assumptions that are just factually incorrect - certainly with regards to how the police gather evidence, conduct an investigation and build a case based on what can be proved.


----------



## Pale Rider (3 Apr 2015)

User13710 said:


> The 'rule of law' is always open to challenge and amendment. That's how it works.



Agreed.

But the way to do it is to campaign for change, not break or ignore the law in the hope the legislature will one day agree with you.

It's why I ventured upthread the family might be better off using the defence fund to campaign for change, rather than spend it on a prosecution which looks doomed to fail in one way or other.


----------



## PK99 (3 Apr 2015)

User said:


> Stop being so silly, no one has decided guilt.





User said:


> The evidence to prosecute clearly does exist though. The driver hit and killed a person on the road and admitted that they had completely failed to see them. To my mind that should be sufficient to say that they shouldn't be allowed in charge of a vehicle again.


----------



## Lemond (3 Apr 2015)

User said:


> Not so. In one of the examples I linked for you, you championed the right for a person to leave a human dead or dying in the road, potentially to be run over some more, on an assumption that they had hit an animal. Please don't try to justify that one any further because I really can't see you making it anything other than worse.



Oh grow up, I did no such thing.


----------



## Pale Rider (3 Apr 2015)

User said:


> We don't need the law changing, we need it enforcing.



At the very least you need a big change in the way the DPP obliges the police to make charging decisions.

The pressure to push this case through to court may be successful.

But that won't stop another family hitting the same buffers in the next case.

If you achieve the policy or law change I and @CopperCyclist have suggested, all drivers in future will be treated in the way you seek.



User said:


> That is the verdict I would like to see a court arive at. It remains the right of a jury, once it gets there.



Gambling on a jury verdict is an option.

But even if the private prosecution gets to court, there are still many hurdles to cross before a jury gets to decide on it.

Evidentially, it remains a very poor case, the DPP can stop it any time, the judge can stop it at any time.

Even if the prosecution get as far as presenting their case, the defending barrister will inevitably make an application there is no case to answer.

The decision on that is up to the judge, but I reckon it's a knocking bet he will allow it.

I've been involved in a lot of death by careless and death by dangerous cases which have got as far as a jury.

Juries seem to find them very hard to decide.

I can think of at least two cases where the jury was hung - no decision.

No help to the family because the driver leaves court in the same position he/she entered it - not convicted of any offence.


----------



## Lemond (3 Apr 2015)

User said:


> Your words, for which you have no foundation beyond wishful thinking
> "But in instance the driver honestly believed that she had hit an animal, not another human being. As did the police."



Here's my "foundation" as to why I said the driver believed she had hit an animal: Because that's what she said. She said - on camera - that she thought she had hit an animal. She was then arrested on suspicion of failing to stop at the scene of an accident, but no charges were brought. And at the subsequent inquest the coroner described what happened as a tragic accident and recorded a verdict of accidental death. How is any of that wishful thinking on my part? It's what actually happened.


----------



## Pale Rider (3 Apr 2015)

User13710 said:


> The Yorkshire Ripper honestly believed that god had told him to murder women. Did the police let him off?



No, although the police arguably missed a couple of chances to nick him.

I once had a chat with Sutcliffe's trial barrister, James "Jimmy" Chadwin QC.

He was rightly very highly regarded in criminal law circles, although as I said to him, he didn't do much of a job for Sutcliffe because he got 13 life sentences.

Chadders was suitably amused by my chiding.

This excerpt from his obit in The Times sums him up well:

An advocate of considerable charm and charisma, Chadwin was able to influence juries with an almost effortless ease. With his rotund figure, battered wig and penchant for cheroots, he bore more than a passing resemblance to Horace Rumpole. Like John Mortimer’s creation, he had an ingenious mind that frequently produced surprising results. His good-natured humour and seemingly limitless fund of anecdotes was much admired by other barristers and by the Bench.


----------



## Dan B (3 Apr 2015)

CopperCyclist said:


> Did you stop reading after the point you quoted? You've just basically said exactly what I said in the rest of my post - no argument here!


No, I read the whole thing and liked it.


----------



## oldstrath (3 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> No, although the police arguably missed a couple of chances to nick him.
> 
> I once had a chat with Sutcliffe's trial barrister, James "Jimmy" Chadwin QC.
> 
> ...



Nothing about looking for truth in there. Not a necessary qualification for a good barrister?


----------



## Lemond (3 Apr 2015)

User said:


> The driver's wishful thinking which you champion.



Again, you've misunderstood. It's the rule of law I champion.


----------



## Dan B (3 Apr 2015)

Lemond said:


> Again, you've misunderstood. It's the rule of law I champion.


No, it's the rule of procedure you champion.


----------



## Pale Rider (3 Apr 2015)

oldstrath said:


> Nothing about looking for truth in there. Not a necessary qualification for a good barrister?



Not when it comes to representing a defendant in court.

The idea is to secure the best result for the client, within the law and within what I would call the rules of the game.

A criminal court is adversarial, it's a battle, and the winner is often the one who plays his hand most skilfully.

A lot of it comes down to tactics, some of which we will see in the Mason case.

It's not all bad news for those interested in securing a conviction, there are some very highly skilled prosecuting barristers.

But as a general point, the system is weighted in favour of the defendant - the burden of proof being just one example.

So if all other things are roughly equal in terms of barristerial firepower, the bias in the system will likely result in an acquittal.


----------



## Pale Rider (3 Apr 2015)

User said:


> And this is justice?



It's justice as we currently have it.

I have seen hundreds of crown and magistrates' court cases conclude.

Many times I have seen someone who I firmly believe to be guilty walk free.

On t'other hand, I can only think of one or two cases in which a defendant has been convicted who I thought could well have been innocent.

Hence the phrase: "Better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer."

Apparently coined by Blackstone who had a big influence on the criminal justice system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation


----------



## Dan B (3 Apr 2015)

User said:


> And this is justice?


Well, it at least has the potential of achieving it. Unlike the situation where the police won't even take the case to court, because they're worried they might lose.


----------



## Pale Rider (3 Apr 2015)

User13710 said:


> Leaving aside the extract from your memoirs, my point is that killing someone with a car seems to be the way to get away without even going to court merely by quoting an honest belief no matter how erroneous.



The driver's police interview in this case does appear to assist her, although I would need to see it in full to make a firm judgment.

Simply saying "I didn't see him" will not work in many cases, I've seen drivers convicted who, when it comes down it, didn't say a lot more than that.

Worth bearing in mind the death by offences are still relatively new, death by careless was only enacted in 2008.

Prior to that date, this driver could not have been charged with anything.


----------



## Pale Rider (3 Apr 2015)

Dan B said:


> Well, it at least has the potential of achieving it. Unlike the situation where the police won't even take the case to court, because they're worried they might lose.



Not so, for reasons that have been repeated many times.

But let's look at it from DI Mason's point of view.

He is tasked with a heavy responsibility, deciding whether to push this case forward or not.

He did not shirk that responsibility, he took his decision despite knowing fine well how it would be received in some quarters.

It would have been the easiest thing in the world for him to shirk that responsibility and let the CPS take the hard decision.

That he didn't do that - and other things he's done in this case - indicate to me he is what I would call a proper polis.


----------



## Lemond (3 Apr 2015)

Dan B said:


> No, it's the rule of procedure you champion.



Please stop telling me what I think.


----------



## Lemond (3 Apr 2015)

User said:


> And, once again, I am telling you that, despite your insistence to the contrary, what you appear to be is an apologist for drivers who kill.
> Still taking this at face value, what is the law in question in this case?



Oh well, I guess you can keep repeating yourself if it keeps you happy. You'll still be wrong, but then they do say ignorance is bliss.


----------



## Dan B (3 Apr 2015)

Lemond said:


> Please stop telling me what I think.


I'm not telling you what you think, I'm telling you what you do.

And that's me out of this thread until and unless something actually happens, which I hope will be soon


----------



## Lemond (4 Apr 2015)

User said:


> I offered to take you seriously and you flunked it



Oh no. You don't take me seriously? And I failed some sort of test, too? And there was me, so desperate to want you to like me. I mean, you seem such a nice guy, what with all the nice things you've said.


----------



## Wobblers (4 Apr 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> Coroners have seem many accident reports and have the power to have them looked at again.
> 
> This coroner did not, so it's an indication the accident report was done correctly within the guidelines.
> 
> ...



Yet again your argument boils down to an appeal to authority and a claim that I, and indeed everyone else who has been picking holes in your arguments have already decided guilt. It might surprise you to learn that I, if this case had got to court, and had been on the jury, probably would not have found the defendant guilty. You are perfectly entitled to hold your preconceptions and prejudices. But you have no rights at all when it comes to having any expectation on not having them called out. 

You have failed in any sense to explain just why the police was adequate. Quite the reverse - you have entirely failed to account for the weight place on one witness who speculated (and it is pure speculation, not fact) that Mr Mason was "lost in a sea of lights". You have not supplied any explanation at all as to why the police did not check what the visibility of a cyclist in similar conditions would have been from the driving seat of that Nissan Juke. You have erronously equated driving straight and without deviation at one single point to be evidence of competency. In fact, you've ignored all the arguments that myself, Adrian and others have made. Instead, you've simply said that this is correct, "because system". In which case, the system is failing the needs of vulnerable road users, not to mention justice. But even that does not explain why the police did not bother to find out whether or not Mr Mason _was _readily visible: one simple check would have confirmed or denied whether or not a good case could be made. Not to mention that I, and doubtless many other cyclists would like to know the results so as to determine whether or not we need to make changes. I doubt any procedural system would have ruled that out. But no. Instead, a bland assurance about the system. That somewhat precludes any hope of improving matters. And that is just not good enough.


----------



## Pale Rider (4 Apr 2015)

Further upthread @CopperCyclist said: "@Pale Rider and others who have given the reasons why it didn't go to CPS are correct, accurate and put the case forward well. Under our current system, Michael Masons case had the 'correct' outcome.
"It's a policy and outcome I disagree with strongly."

I agree the reasons the case did not proceed have been put accurately and well by me and others.

I am not going to repeat those reasons yet again.

Moving on, is there any sign of the private prosecution?

The longer the family leave it , the harder it will be to mount.


----------



## PK99 (4 Apr 2015)

User said:


> And this is justice?



Sentence1, lecture 1 of the law course I attended. "The law is not about justice it is about the law"


----------



## CopperCyclist (4 Apr 2015)

PK99 said:


> Sentence1, lecture 1 of the law course I attended. "The law is not about justice it is about the law"



Ha, the trainer at my first day at Ryton all those years ago said something similar. It was along the lines of:

" The law is a set of rules that dictates what you can and can't do. Justice is what is applied to people who do not follow those rules. You will be shocked in your career by the paradox of how the two never seem to go together."


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (26 Oct 2015)

Michael Mason's daughter, Anna Tatton-Brown did a feature on whether the legal system is biased against cyclists on the Victoria Derbyshire slot on BBC News this morning. The link is here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06jt5ds/victoria-derbyshire-26102015 (Starts at 27 minutes in)

There's a shorter clip that's been shown since as part of today's general news but I think it's all covered in the link above.

EDIT: trawling through the recording, I see that there's also a panel discussion at 01:29:00


----------



## glenn forger (10 Aug 2016)

Purcell is in court September sixth:

http://www.cyclinguk.org/news/20160803-cyclists-defence-fund-prosecutes-driver-mason-case


By March of this year, as the second anniversary of Mick's death approached, CDF's Justice for Michael fundraising appeal had raised nearly £60,000, allowing CDF to instruct solicitors to commence a private prosecution of Ms Purcell for the offence of causing death by careless driving. The proceedings have now been issued in Westminster Magistrates Court, with an initial court hearing listed for 6 September.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (10 Aug 2016)

glenn forger said:


> Purcell is in court September sixth:
> 
> http://www.cyclinguk.org/news/20160803-cyclists-defence-fund-prosecutes-driver-mason-case
> 
> ...



Is that a TMN to me (or am I on your ignore list)?

GC


----------



## glasgowcyclist (11 Oct 2016)

Purcell's trial date at the Old Bailey has been set for April 3 2017, charged with causing death by careless driving of Michael Mason.


----------



## PK99 (6 Apr 2017)

http://www.cyclinguk.org/press-rele...ing-cyclist’s-death-sees-car-driver-acquitted


----------



## raleighnut (7 Apr 2017)

PK99 said:


> http://www.cyclinguk.org/press-release/2017-04-06/private-prosecution-causing-cyclist’s-death-sees-car-driver-acquitted


 What's the betting that the majority of the jury were car drivers.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (7 Apr 2017)

PK99 said:


> http://www.cyclinguk.org/press-release/2017-04-06/private-prosecution-causing-cyclist’s-death-sees-car-driver-acquitted





raleighnut said:


> What's the betting that the majority of the jury were car drivers.



You might not be aware but there's a separate thread already discussing the prosecution >> https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/michael-mason-private-prosecution.192019/


----------

