However, the driver we are talking about in this case by her own admission failed to see Mr Mason until after she had hit him, parked the car, and gone back to see what had happened. Perhaps the collision would have been unavoidable if she had seen him, we'll probably never know, but the fact is that she hadn't seen him. And, to my mind at least, driving while not seeing things directly in front of you is not particularly careful.
Michael Mason Inquest
- Thread starter glenn forger
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
However, the driver we are talking about in this case by her own admission failed to see Mr Mason until after she had hit him, parked the car, and gone back to see what had happened. Perhaps the collision would have been unavoidable if she had seen him, we'll probably never know, but the fact is that she hadn't seen him. And, to my mind at least, driving while not seeing things directly in front of you is not particularly careful.
Missed that bit, where do they say that?
One might equally well say "Mr Mason must have moved within his lane or the Nissan driver would have driven past him while remaining oblivious to his presence".
Pale Rider
Legendary Member
The best evidence I can find from the report:
"We were unable to show the point at which Mr MASON moved over to his right. All we could conclude was that during a distance of 25 to 30 metres, Mr MASON at some point changed his position in the road."
Unfortunately, we don't know where the car was when the deviation took place.
If the family can somehow prove Mr Mason was in the car's path for several seconds or more it will help their case.
I live on Planet Evidence.
Again from the report:
CCTV showed Mr MASON cycling between 1.5 to 2 metres from the kerb line. No CCTV exists depicting Mr MASON moving from his line of travel, i.e. moving out to his right. This is something he must have done in order for the collision to have taken place.
CCTV, physical evidence and Ms PURCELL’S own account prove that she had always maintained her position in the road, adjacent to the central white line.
As the copper says, she didn't deviate, so he must have done or the collision could not have happened.
Pale Rider
Legendary Member
I did say that upthread, because it is correct.
And driving along a road while being oblivious to the presence of the other road users you're overtaking is the mark of a careful driver, is it?
Mugshot
Cracking a solo.
So what was the point in your scenario?
30 metres at 25 mph is 2.6 seconds, but that number is only relevant if Mr Mason was stationary. If Mr Mason was travelling at 15mph and the closing speed was 10mph, Ms Purcell would have had up to 6.7 seconds to observe him before running into the back of him. But in any case this is irrelevant to whether she was driving carefully as she didn't even try to avoid him
Pale Rider
Legendary Member
To qualify as a careful and competent driver, you do not have to see everything, you just have to avoid hitting anything.
Clearly, seeing everything is the best way to avoid a collision, but if you avoid one more by luck than judgement you are not, in these type of circumstances, guilty of any offence.
If you are driving like a lunatic and manage not to crash into anything during a police chase you would still be guilty of dangerous driving.
Mugshot
Cracking a solo.
Well that's a start. It's a pity that the driver was unable to even achieve this.
Cyclists, cars, bikers, buses etc all at one time or another will move across to any lane but the vehicles behind will have to pace themselves. There is no such thing as holding the line and ploughing into someone in front as thought it they have right of way. More like the driver of the vehicle was not paying attention.
I found the "holding the line" argument hollow. Of course the comment about can't see anything because of the lights takes the cake. Whether the cyclist was not wearing a helmet, riding butt naked or sporting facial hair has also no bearing. Sure the helmet might have protected him but thats a different matter.
I found the "holding the line" argument hollow. Of course the comment about can't see anything because of the lights takes the cake. Whether the cyclist was not wearing a helmet, riding butt naked or sporting facial hair has also no bearing. Sure the helmet might have protected him but thats a different matter.
Pale Rider
Legendary Member
One could speculate on many things and what you say could have happened.
But the courts operate on evidence, the evidence of her driving includes the the CCTV - straight and steady - her own account, examination of her car and her mobile and that it was a slow speed collision.
None of the above gives any evidential support to careless driving.
In common law, drivers are required to have a proper lookout at all times.
http://m.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/1...ore_crash_which_killed_pensioner__court_told/
Mugshot
Cracking a solo.
You appear to have missed a rather important part out there.
Pale Rider
Legendary Member
If there is some evidence of careless driving I am sure everyone would like to see it.