Michael Mason Inquest

[spen666]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

All that black gear and no helmet.

I'm.Gagging.For.It.

 

[spen666]

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]

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]

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]

Legal fundamentalists - gotta love 'em!

 

[GrumpyGregry]

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

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]

So where is his statement then?

google fu not working for you?

(EDIT see post #199)

 

[GrumpyGregry]

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]

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]

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.