Michael Mason Inquest

[Dan B]

there is still no evidence of careless driving

"I can't see where I'm going or what's on front of me due to this sea of flashing brake lights, what the fark, I'll carry on driving at 25 mph anyway". Using the normal and everyday meaning of the words "competent" and "careful", would you describe this as meeting the standard of "competent" or "careful" driving?

If not, how and where does the legal definition of "careful" depart so drastically from its dictionary meaning?

 

[Mugshot]

CCTV shows her driving close to the centre line without deviating, so her road positioning was correct.

That's on the pictures - what can't speak can't lie.

The police assessed her speed as appropriate, they can speak and can lie, but no other witnesses said the car was going too fast, and if I know anything about traffic density in London, it's most unlikely she could have been going very fast.

No.
In this case a road user is struck from behind whilst operating their vehicle in a manner which according to the evidence would appear to suggest it was being operated lawfully. The road user striking them was either going too fast (I did not say they were speeding) or their positioning was incorrect or both. Had they been going more slowly they would not have struck the cyclist they would have stayed behind them, had they been positioned correctly they would not have struck the cyclist they would have stayed behind or overtaken them. The speed and positioning of the motorist is only correct if you remove the cyclist from the equation.

 

[Mugshot]

Not merely sad, but insane. I do no use the word lightly. I get the astonishing impression that @Pale Rider is typing with a straight face. Look for a second at the uncritical acceptance of the breathtaking nonsense in the second quote above. If this is to be credited, then it goes without saying that all motor traffic should be barred forthwith from all urban roads after dark - are we seriously expected to accept that drivers cannot be expected to 'pick out anything'? What are they, and we in their path, relying on - God? If it is not 'careless' to kill a human being in front of your eyes because you failed to see he was there, the the word has no meaning. The rest is weasel words.

I agree. I mentioned bias earlier which Lemond is now attacking and doing his best to suggest that I am being anti police. I was talking simply from a human level that for anybody to find this incident acceptable or careful with the detail in the evidence that we have and then for others to defend that assessment, I do actually struggle to find the words, I simply cannot understand it.

 

[Lemond]

146 posts, most of which defend the rights of drivers to kill.

Really? Find me one.

 

[Arrowfoot]

The sentiments expressed in this case in general is about Police failing to refer this to CPP. Their internal review on why it was not referred is also found wanting. The remark about drivers can't see at night because of the lights is quite hilarious. The logical next step would be to ban cyclist at night in London and other busy cities for their own safety.

On whether the driver in this case should be prosecuted or not or even culpable is best left to the appropriate parties - CPP and courts.

I am just surprised where a fatality has occurred and with all the things present, the Met decided undertake the role of DPP and the courts.

 

[Lemond]

The cap fits.

I don't wear a cap. I prefer a helmet. That's probably something else you can attack me over.

 

[glenn forger]

You can keep making this point until you are blue in the face, but it isn't going to change a thing. The act of hitting a cyclist from behind isn't in and of itself evidence of careless driving, or any of the other offences with which a driver can be charged.

You claimed DI Mason was only following the Highway Code when he mentioned Highway Code advice, now you're saying he can ignore Highway Code Rules. That's making up evidence.

 

[glenn forger]

Is there evidence that either the collision or death could have been avoided with a helmet? No, DI Mason made that up. And if the HC is the bible, how come advice takes precedent over rules?

 

[benb]

You can keep making this point until you are blue in the face, but it isn't going to change a thing. The act of hitting a cyclist from behind isn't in and of itself evidence of careless driving, or any of the other offences with which a driver can be charged.

If you honestly think that failing to see another road user, and driving into them from behind doesn't meet the legal definition of careless, then I despair.

 

[Dan B]

Ms Purcell said: 'It felt like something had fallen from the sky, I was totally unaware of the cyclist, I heard an impact.'

She added: 'I didn't really know what had happened, I pulled in next to the Boris bikes, put on my hazard lights and leapt out of the car to go back to the scene.

Asked by Martin Porter, Mr Mason's family's barrister, if she had the radio on she said: 'I don't remember, but I don't normally have the radio on.'

Mr Porter asked: 'You were unaware before you stopped that you had hit a cyclist?'

She said: 'I stopped and ran back, it could have been a pedestrian.'

http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/newsgallery/?news_id=39245

I don't think it would have made any difference whether he swerved violently at the last minute or moved position half a mile ahead, she's admitting there she didn't see him at all - not that she only saw him too late to do anything about it. Would you describe this as "careful"?

 

[benb]

There is no plausible explanation as to why she didn't see Mr Mason that could be a defence to careless driving. Is there?

 

[Dan B]

I don't wear a cap. I prefer a helmet. That's probably something else you can attack me over.

I can't see how that's even vaguely relevant unless it's the source of your reluctance to hold a driver who killed a helmetless cyclist to acount for it

I think I would rather it wasn't

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

There is no plausible explanation as to why she didn't see Mr Mason that could be a defence to careless driving. Is there?

No reasonable or justified explanation that I can see.

 

[Wobblers]

CCTV shows her driving close to the centre line without deviating, so her road positioning was correct.

That's on the pictures - what can't speak can't lie.

The police assessed her speed as appropriate, they can speak and can lie, but no other witnesses said the car was going too fast, and if I know anything about traffic density in London, it's most unlikely she could have been going very fast.

That in no way proves that she was driving in a safe and appropriate manner! It only shows that she was driving close to the centre line without deviating within the field of view of the CCTV. Nothing more. It certainly does not demonstrate that she was paying the due amount of attention on the road. Her very own testimony - that she did not ever see Mr Mason even though he was right in front of her - is evidence that her standard of driving falls far short of that expected from a competent driver.

 

[Pale Rider]

I will give you another real situation, not the same, but kind of similar.

A few years ago in 30mph street near me a child on the pavement, to use the mother's words, 'slipped my hand',

The little lad dashed between two parked cars and was killed by a moving car.

Witnesses said the driver was doing about the speed limit, but had no chance of avoiding the collision.

The driver was not charged.

Perhaps you all think he should have been, but I do not.

Thus it is possible to collide with something in front of you while still being a careful and competent driver.

No one is suggesting Mr Mason dashed into the path of the car, apart from anything else he was riding a bicycle.

But the car did not deviate - that's on the CCTV.

Mr Mason must have deviated or he would not have been hit.

How long was Mr Mason in front of the car before he was hit?

Again, no one knows.

But the collision investigators seem to have concluded it was not very long, maybe a second or two.

If that is so, a careful and competent driver had no realistic prospect of avoiding a collision, given reaction times and stopping distances.

Thus the careless driving part of the charge is a non-starter.

For the private prosecution to have any chance of success, the family will need to come up with new evidence, hopefully that Mr Mason was cycling in the path of the car for several seconds before he was hit.

Evidence of the driver not wearing glasses would also do, clearly a careful and competent glasses wearing driver would not drive without them.

Without new evidence, I think the DPP will take the case over and stop it.

Even if the case proceeds to a crown court trial, a defence barrister will make mincemeat of it.

As @spen666 posted earlier, a defence application at the close of the prosecution case that there is no case to answer looks very likely to succeed, assuming the judge doesn't chuck it earlier.

@Arrowfoot tells me he can 'guarantee' the prosecution case will proceed, perhaps he/she knows something I do not.

I'm not bold enough to guarantee anything with the law, but I can't see how, as the law and the case currently stands, there will be a conviction.