Michael Mason Inquest

[glenn forger]

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]

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]

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

 

[PK99]

[

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]

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]

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]

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]

[


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]

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?

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

 

[Lemond]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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?