Michael Mason Inquest

[Dan B]

212

When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162 to 167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so.
213

Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.

I mean, maybe the highway code has got it all wrong and what they should have said was "when overtaking cyclists, maintain your speed and direction and try not to even look at them"?

 

[Dan B]

To qualify as a careful and competent driver, you do not have to see everything, you just have to avoid hitting anything.

So, if I am observed driving down a motorway with my eyes shut, using the rumble strips to steer, the police have no case against me? I find that hard to believe

 

[Dan B]

If there is some evidence of careless driving I am sure everyone would like to see it.

Er, she hit someone that she didn't even see.

 

[Pale Rider]

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

Dan,

This sounds good, but you are mis-reading the report.

All it says is the cyclist changed position on a stretch of Regent Street that is 25m to 30m long.

There is no evidence as to the exact position of the car at the time of the deviation.

Thus it is impossible to calculate how many seconds the bike was in front of her before she hit it.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

For all the emotion, and as a London rider who'd hate to be in the same position I put in to the fund, that we have here, I think what @Pale Rider is doing here is clinically looking at what has been published about the case and explaining (from a position of some knowledge) why the decision has been made. And while I don't like it, it is kind of compelling. I hate the idea that a driver on Regents St has killed a cyclist and it appears nothing is being done about it. Unfortunately, the legal system we have, as has been shown multiple times in this thread, has been used and come to a conclusion. The conclusion is horrible, but based on what the options are it looks like the case has nowhere to go. While the gut reaction is, this should be pushed and pushed it looks like a court wouldn't prosecute, without more evidence. What is obviously wrong to the majority of people posting on this thread isn't enough. We don't know if she came up behind him while he was riding straight and true and just drove through him, similarly we have no idea if he had a lapse of concentration and moved for the bit of road he needed without any kind of observation. Both could be true and that's all that matters without evidence to prove which it was.

Again, I think we've been given the answer. This case has faltered because of the requirement to prove, in law, things that the evidence can't prove. If the law was changed to 'Causing Death by Driving' with no requirement to prove, based on the legal definitions, careless or dangerous driving then this, and other cases would get to the next stage and have their day in court. Maybe that's where the focus needs to be?

Although the emphasis used, when the statements were made and how they were released, especially the retraction. Those were undoubtedly a travesty.

 

[PK99]

[

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

The movement posited took place somewhere in the 25 to 30 m, it could have taken place anywhere in the 25-30 m distance and a 2m lateral movement could take place in less than a second

 

[Mugshot]

If there is some evidence of careless driving I am sure everyone would like to see it.

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.

You appear to have missed the bit where she killed somebody whilst driving.

 

[Dan B]

Thus it is impossible to calculate how many seconds the bike was in front of her before she hit it.

In which case your assertion that the collision investigators said it was "probably a second or two", based on that same 25-30m measurement, is also incorrect.

 

[Pale Rider]

For all the emotion, and as a London rider who'd hate to be in the same position I put in to the fund, that we have here, I think what @Pale Rider is doing here is clinically looking at what has been published about the case and explaining (from a position of some knowledge) why the decision has been made. And while I don't like it, it is kind of compelling.

That is what I've been doing, I do find the conclusions compelling and I'm not sure I entirely like them.

My relatively mild attempts at justifying the decision not to prosecute will be like a pea shooter compared to a howitzer if a defending barrister ever gets hold of it.

The family need to be prepared for that.

The only alternative I can see is to automatically prosecute the surviving person in every fatal collision.

I don't like that either, not least because of child who ran into the road example I gave above.

 

[Dan B]

The movement posited took place somewhere in the 25 to 30 m, it could have taken place anywhere in the 25-30 m distance and a 2m lateral movement could take place in less than a second

Most people, when a cyclist swerves 2m laterally across the road in front of them in less than a second, notice it has happened. Our brains are hard-wired to detect movement

 

[Dan B]

We don't know if she came up behind him while he was riding straight and true and just drove through him, similarly we have no idea if he had a lapse of concentration and moved for the bit of road he needed without any kind of observation. Both could be true and that's all that matters without evidence to prove which it was.

But it isn't all that matters. Even if he had swerved at the last possible moment such that no driver on earth could possibly have avoided him, that driver would still have seen him. The driver in this case did not see him. Read her words at the inquest. That is not careful driving.

 

[Mugshot]

For all the emotion, and as a London rider who'd hate to be in the same position I put in to the fund, that we have here, I think what @Pale Rider is doing here is clinically looking at what has been published about the case and explaining (from a position of some knowledge) why the decision has been made. And while I don't like it, it is kind of compelling. I hate the idea that a driver on Regents St has killed a cyclist and it appears nothing is being done about it. Unfortunately, the legal system we have, as has been shown multiple times in this thread, has been used and come to a conclusion. The conclusion is horrible, but based on what the options are it looks like the case has nowhere to go. While the gut reaction is, this should be pushed and pushed it looks like a court wouldn't prosecute, without more evidence. What is obviously wrong to the majority of people posting on this thread isn't enough. We don't know if she came up behind him while he was riding straight and true and just drove through him, similarly we have no idea if he had a lapse of concentration and moved for the bit of road he needed without any kind of observation. Both could be true and that's all that matters without evidence to prove which it was.

Again, I think we've been given the answer. This case has faltered because of the requirement to prove, in law, things that the evidence can't prove. If the law was changed to 'Causing Death by Driving' with no requirement to prove, based on the legal definitions, careless or dangerous driving then this, and other cases would get to the next stage and have their day in court. Maybe that's where the focus needs to be?

Although the emphasis used, when the statements were made and how they were released, especially the retraction. Those were undoubtedly a travesty.

We do know however that two witnesses claim to have seen Mr Mason whilst a driver claims to not have, at all.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

We do know however that two witnesses claim to have seen Mr Mason whilst a driver claims to not have, at all.

And I really hope that if it gets to court, that is enough. But there's a disconnect here between what seems to be obvious and common sense and what the law requires to prove that something has actually happened. I guess it's that old legal bugbear of better one guilty person going free than one innocent person in prison. And naturally that's all well and good when it's not the wrong guilty person going free.

Presuming @glenn forger posted a photo from the scene (and not a random police officer investigating a Nissan Juke on Regent St, in post #317 ) then it looks like the accident took place on the northern half of Regents St, a walk through there on Google Maps actually shows the road width changing quite a lot which would make it interesting that she wasn't also changing road position, although equally if he came across to the centre of the road, I can't see where he would have been going, unless he was getting ready to right turn in to Mortimer St very early (as it's beyond where the photo was taken and again my presumption is she stopped, walked back, phoned emergency services and the Juke is still where she left it. There's a lot of 'if' in that.) Of course, the Google maps is July 2014, I don't know if the road changed a few months prior to that.

Much as I hate it, debate is about looking at the options and I'd not want us to shoot the messenger with @Pale Rider here, because he's only trying to show what will happen if it gets to the next step and like it or not, we're hardly unbiased here.

 

[Pale Rider]

Many of you won't like it, but her account of not seeing the cyclist supports her position in some ways.

It certainly doesn't harm it.

Had she said: "I saw the cyclist and then crashed into him" she would have been in bother.

Her 'not seeing him' is also supported by the independent witness who said general visibility was poor because of the 'sea of lights'.

A defending barrister will almost certainly make a point roughly as: "My client didn't see the cyclist until the bang of the collision, thus it is likely he deviated into her path at the last moment.
"The collision was therefore unavoidable so she cannot be guilty of careless driving."

As I've said, I am only putting what I expect will be put in court.

In all cases, the jury will be told by the judge: "To return a guilty verdict you must be satisfied so that you are sure of the defendant's guilt.
"Nothing less will do, if you think the defendant probably did it, that is not good enough, in those circumstances you must return a not guilty verdict."

It shows how difficult it is to secure any criminal conviction.

I sometimes wonder how it is the prisons are full.

 

[Dan B]

It's the same sea of lights as is apparent every night of every workday on every road in London, and if she was a regular commuter on that route (or any route) it can hardly have come as a surprise to her

And should a careful and competent driver not be expected to see a cyclist ahead of them even if they weren't on a collision course?