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.
Michael Mason Inquest
- Thread starter glenn forger
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
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
Here for rides.
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.
Chufftard or troll I can't decide. I'm done conversing with you either way.
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
No. No and again no.
OP
OP
glenn forger
Guest
No, it is not, because it was AVOIDABLE.
It's not The farking Mousetrap. We know exactly who caused his death.
Accidents are usually the result of a natural cause or human error and or negligence. The challenge is finding the cause.
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
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.
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.
Last edited:
OP
OP
glenn forger
Guest
So, if someone negligently threw a fire extinguisher off a building and killed someone you'd call it an "accident"?
Apart from the small matter of a driver running down a cyclist from behind.
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
spen666
Legendary Member
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
One of the 64K
- Location
- Maidstone or Greenwich
So what do you think happened considering all the information that has been bandied about? What extra information were they missing?
CopperCyclist
Veteran
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
Here for rides.
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
Senior Member
- Location
- Sunny Suffolk
But nothing that captured the actual moment of impact, which is the point I was trying to make.