Michael Mason Inquest

[Drago]

I'm confused. How can cctv evidence be both less than entirely clear, and also clear at the same time, all in the same paragraph?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

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.

30mph? That's absurd! Do you know how the police arrived at this figure?


GC

 

[glenn forger]

No idea:

PC Brian Gamble who investigated the scene said Ms Purcell had been breathalysed, drug tested and eye tested at the scene before being taken for an interview under caution at the police station.

He said: 'Mr Mason was probably travelling at a similar speed to the other traffic on the road which was probably at the 30 mile-per-hour speed limit, there were no climatic factors that contributed to the collision, it was a clear dry evening.'

He said that neither the bike nor the car had any defects that would have caused the accident. - See more at:

http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/newsgallery/?news_id=39245#sthash.J9NiexiV.dpuf

 

[benb]

30mph? That's absurd! Do you know how the police arrived at this figure?


GC

And even if he was, I fail to see how that explains or excuses how the driver ran him down from behind.
If anything it makes it worse, as the driver must have been significantly exceeding that!

 

[benb]

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

Thanks, I've made a donation.

 

[Spinney]

Thanks, I've made a donation.

Likewise.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

No idea:

PC Brian Gamble who investigated the scene said Ms Purcell had been breathalysed, drug tested and eye tested at the scene before being taken for an interview under caution at the police station.

He said: 'Mr Mason was probably travelling at a similar speed to the other traffic on the road which was probably at the 30 mile-per-hour speed limit, there were no climatic factors that contributed to the collision, it was a clear dry evening.'

Thanks.

It doesn't instil confidence in the rest of his assessment of the collision.

GC

 

[glenn forger]

Not at all. Mr Mason was riding north, slightly uphill, and was almost seventy years old. 30mph seems..unlikely.

 

[subaqua]

Not at all. Mr Mason was riding north, slightly uphill, and was almost seventy years old. 30mph seems..unlikely.

And I would wager the driver was wearing the wrong sight correction lenses at the time of the collision.

 

[Crankarm]

Did this driver have a white stick?

 

[Lemond]

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?

What's missing is evidence. That's why the police didn't take this further. Quite right, too.

 

[Lemond]

Other than the evidence of the collision iself and the admission by the driver that she had not seen him. What else did you want?

I don't want anything, mate. All I'm saying is that it's not the police's fault that the evidence needed to bring about a prosecution doesn't exist. They are not at fault here. They didn't "do nothing" as the earlier poster suggests. They simply couldn't move forward with a prosecution because the evidence to do so doesn't exist.

 

[Arrowfoot]

Rammed from behind on a clear day and no prosecution. Wow, thats got to be a first.

 

[jefmcg]

I don't want anything, mate. All I'm saying is that it's not the police's fault that the evidence needed to bring about a prosecution doesn't exist. They are not at fault here. They didn't "do nothing" as the earlier poster suggests. They simply couldn't move forward with a prosecution because the evidence to do so doesn't exist.

Not trying to pile on, but I am genuinely curious: can you suggest some evidence that if they had it would make a difference here?

 

[Arrowfoot]

I don't want anything, mate. All I'm saying is that it's not the police's fault that the evidence needed to bring about a prosecution doesn't exist. They are not at fault here. They didn't "do nothing" as the earlier poster suggests. They simply couldn't move forward with a prosecution because the evidence to do so doesn't exist.

When rammed from behind on a clear day, the onus is on the driver behind to provide an explanation. That did not come out in the Police explanation at all. This is one instance where the Police and Met do not have adduce evidence. The onus falls squarely on the driver.