Michael Mason Inquest

[spen666]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Whitewash.

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

 

[Lemond]

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]

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]

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.