Michael Mason Inquest

[glenn forger]

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]

And?


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

 

[Spinney]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[andyfraser]

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]

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]

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

 

[glasgowcyclist]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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