Michael Mason Inquest

[Lemond]

Stop with the victim blaming. Stop it.

A man died because yet another a driver didn't pay enough attention to what they were doing. The street was lit. The car has headlights. If the driver had been looking, and seeing, they would have seen the poor guy. Regardless of how he was dressed. And not killed him.

And the Met in this case are either bent or chuffin' incompetent, and in either case deserve everything thrown at them by cyclists.

I'm not blaming anyone and certainly not the victim.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I'm not blaming anyone and certainly not the victim.

You should be blaming someone, because someone is to blame for a cyclist's death.

 

[Lemond]

You should be blaming someone, because someone is to blame for a cyclist's death.

i don't need to blame anyone. I'm more than happy to accept the possibility that sometimes accidents do happen.

 

[glenn forger]

An accident is unavoidable. Can you think of a way a driver could avoid running into and killing a cyclist doing nothing wrong?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

i don't need to blame anyone. I'm more than happy to accept the possibility that sometimes accidents do happen.

Perhaps they do. But this is a thread about a very specific incident.

Thus, two things seem to run against your argument

1. Michael Mason's death wasn't an accident and someone caused his death "is to blame"
   
2. Even the Met, in common with other UK police forces, have given up on the mealy-mouthed, and factually incorrect, bolloxology of "Road Traffic Accidents" and now talk about "Road Traffic Collisions"

So you accept whatever possibility you like and when a driver kills, mains, injures, or just scares the shoot out of you, or someone you care about, or someone you know, we can all tut-tut and say "accidents will happen."

 

[Wobblers]

i don't need to blame anyone. I'm more than happy to accept the possibility that sometimes accidents do happen.

And by saying that you guarantee that there will never be any decrease in the number of accidents in the future.

Do you ever catch a train? Have you ever flown? These both are extremely safe forms of transport exactly because there isn't any attitude that "accidents happen". All accidents have causes. Air and rail travel are extremely safe exactly because those causes are exhaustively investigated - and appropriate measures taken to prevent it happening again. I for one am not happy to say that "accidents just happen", because we'll never find out just why they happen or be able to learn from them.

 

[Lemond]

Do you have a family?

Yes I do. What does that have to do with this discussion? I imagine not a god damn thing.

 

[Dan B]

. I'm more than happy to accept the possibility that sometimes accidents do happen.

Do you have a family?

Yes I do.

Were they accidents as well?

 

[Lemond]

Perhaps they do. But this is a thread about a very specific incident.

Thus, two things seem to run against your argument

1. Michael Mason's death wasn't an accident and someone caused his death "is to blame"
   
2. Even the Met, in common with other UK police forces, have given up on the mealy-mouthed, and factually incorrect, bolloxology of "Road Traffic Accidents" and now talk about "Road Traffic Collisions"

So you accept whatever possibility you like and when a driver kills, mains, injures, or just scares the shoot out of you, or someone you care about, or someone you know, we can all tut-tut and say "accidents will happen."

So who is the "someone" that caused Mr Mason's death? The police can't say one way or the other?

 

[glenn forger]

So who is the "someone" that caused Mr Mason's death? The police can't say one way or the other?

Gale Purcell. If I cycled into the rear of your car whose fault do you reckon it would be?

 

[theclaud]

So who is the "someone" that caused Mr Mason's death? The police can't say one way or the other?

Her name is Gale Purcell. The person who drove her car into him, causing his death. HTH.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

So who is the "someone" that caused Mr Mason's death? The police can't say one way or the other?

Stop digging for pity's sake.

The driver of the car in question admitted, in evidence, at his inquest, in Court, that she did not see him, and struck him with the car she was driving. And he died. Proximate cause.

As to the police, they can't, or rather won't, say one way or the other why they chose not to take criminal proceedings.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Her name is Gale Purcell. The person who drove her car into him, causing his death. HTH.

I've always wondered if this Gale Purcell is the same as Gail Purcell, hairdresser to Kate Middleton, as was, who got burnt in the salon. I only speculate about this because the lack of a prosecution has a ghastly feel of "friends in high places" about it.

I hope a private prosecution takes place. I hope, the CPS, mightily hacked off by the Met by the lack of referral, take it over and run it to conclusion. But I won't hold my breath.

 

[Lemond]

I've always wondered if this Gale Purcell is the same as Gail Purcell, hairdresser to Kate Middleton, as was, who got burnt in the salon. I only speculate about this because the lack of a prosecution has a ghastly feel of "friends in high places" about it.

I hope a private prosecution takes place. I hope, the CPS, mightily hacked off by the Met by the lack of referral, take it over and run it to conclusion. But I won't hold my breath.

Blimey. So now this is all some kind of cover up organised by the royal family? Instead of seeking out conspiracy theories, why can't you accept that there's been no prosecution because no evidence of a crime exists. No witnesses, no cctv, no indication of speeding, no evidence of reckless or dangerous driving. And, of course, no evidence that Mr Mason did anything wrong either. Nobody can prove what happened, therefore no prosecution. Surely that's only right, isn't it? Better a guilty man walks free than an innocent man goes to prison?

 

[glenn forger]

No witnesses, no cctv, no indication of speeding, no evidence of reckless or dangerous driving.

What are you talking about?

Thirteen witnesses, two camera's worth of cctv, witness reports of speeding, clear evidence, admitted by the driver, of failing to see the cyclist.