Michael Mason Inquest

[Lemond]

A man, who was it would appear fulfilling all the criteria legally required of him to go about his business, is killed having been struck by a car. The person driving says they had not seen them, this despite clearly being able to see as they passed a test to determine if they could or not. This is level of driving is then described as careful by a senior police officer. Removing cyclist or motorist bias from the equation and ignoring corruption and fabrication conspiracies, to argue that this is in any way an acceptable level of competance and should not be charged accordingly strikes me as extraordinary and terribly sad, but I suspect you knew that's what I meant.

But surely you must accept that the police need evidence to bring about a charge / prosecution, not just an idea that someone did something wrong. In this instance, none of the evidence gathered suggested that the driver was doing anything wrong in terms of speed and road position. An eyewitness who was himself walking within the cycle lane, said that the conditions that night might have made Mr Mason hard to spot. Another eyewitness said that they saw Mr Mason overtake the Nissan Juke, which means he might not have been directly in front of the car until the very last moment (which might explain her claim that she didn't see him). So, if we really are removing bias from the equation, how could the police possibly prosecute the driver?

 

[Mugshot]

But surely you must accept that the police need evidence to bring about a charge / prosecution, not just an idea that someone did something wrong. In this instance, none of the evidence gathered suggested that the driver was doing anything wrong in terms of speed and road position. An eyewitness who was himself walking within the cycle lane, said that the conditions that night might have made Mr Mason hard to spot. Another eyewitness said that they saw Mr Mason overtake the Nissan Juke, which means he might not have been directly in front of the car until the very last moment (which might explain her claim that she didn't see him). So, if we really are removing bias from the equation, how could the police possibly prosecute the driver?

I feel this has been repeated time and again, but I will indulge you.
I do not see how it is reasonable for a person that is lit in a manner which is required by law, who it appears was seen by two pedestrians so was clearly not invisible, could be struck by a motorist that quite clearly is able to see and as a consequence be killed. I do not think it is reasonable to suggest that the driver was not doing anything wrong in terms of speed or road position, it would appear that her speed was too high because she struck the cyclist (I am not suggesting she was speeding) and it would appear that her positioning was incorrect because she struck the cyclist. I don't really care that the police say they have investigated as I have personal experience of a traffic collision where I was told that a thorough investigation had taken place by both an attending officer and subsequently his superior officer and no further action would be taken which I continued to challenge and the individual responsible was eventually charged and found guilty of driving without due care. So with no bias, I think that a man has lost his life and his family deserve to have the case tried in court.

 

[Lemond]

I feel this has been repeated time and again, but I will indulge you.
I do not see how it is reasonable for a person that is lit in a manner which is required by law, who it appears was seen by two pedestrians so was clearly not invisible, could be struck by a motorist that quite clearly is able to see and as a consequence be killed. I do not think it is reasonable to suggest that the driver was not doing anything wrong in terms of speed or road position, it would appear that her speed was too high because she struck the cyclist (I am not suggesting she was speeding) and it would appear that her positioning was incorrect because she struck the cyclist. I don't really care that the police say they have investigated as I have personal experience of a traffic collision where I was told that a thorough investigation had taken place by both an attending officer and subsequently his superior officer and no further action would be taken which I continued to challenge and the individual responsible was eventually charged and found guilty of driving without due care. So with no bias, I think that a man has lost his life and his family deserve to have the case tried in court.

How can you say "I don't really care that the police say they have investigated..." and then claim that you're not biased? Clearly, by your own admission, you are not prepared to accept anything the police say. If that's not bias, I don't know what is.

 

[Pale Rider]

Back up a moment. I thought that the matter of whether he died or not had no bearing on whether she was driving carelessly..

It doesn't, the two things are separate.

But to be guilty of the offence, she has to have caused the death and driven carelessly.

We all agree she caused the death, so that's one thing out of the way.

It then has to be proved her driving was careless.

My reading of the evidence is that she was driving carefully, and there is certainly no evidence she was driving carelessly - within the meaning of the offence.

 

[Pale Rider]

I do not think it is reasonable to suggest that the driver was not doing anything wrong in terms of speed or road position, it would appear that her speed was too high because she struck the cyclist (I am not suggesting she was speeding) and it would appear that her positioning was incorrect because she struck the cyclist.

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.

 

[glenn forger]

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.

Mr Suber Abdijarim's evidence was that the Nissan was traveling above the speed limit.

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/michael-mason-inquest.170526/page-21

 

[Pale Rider]

You are OK with the idea that a person who does not see that which is in front of them is regarded as taking reasonable care?

The driver could see what was in front of her, her eyesight was tested.

A driver is obliged to take reasonable care while driving.

A driver is not obliged to drive everywhere at walking pace - the red flag man is no longer required.

So If an obstruction appears in the path of the car at the last second there will inevitably be a collision.

The law allows for that collision to be accidental.

As I said earlier, the only way to be certain of prosecuting every driver in Mr Mason's circumstances is to take the standard of driving out of consideration.

An offence of simply 'causing death by driving' would do it.

There's no doubt before the relatively recent creation of the death by dangerous offence, and the even more recent creation of the death by careless offence, some very bad drivers got away with causing fatal accidents.

I think automatically prosecuting the surviving driver in every case, simply because they survived and were driving, is a step too far.

 

[Dan B]

We know that the cycle and the car were traveling in the same direction at the moment of impact and that the cyclist was in front of the right hand side of the car. It seems at the least implausible that he could have got there suddenly and without warning

 

[Dan B]

I'm pretty sure that there is or ought to be more to careful and competent driving than being able to point the car in the right direction and right speed.

 

[Origamist]

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.

There was a witness who said the driver's speed was excessive (but his opinions were discounted):

"There is witness evidence from Mr Suber Abdijarim which is at odds with other witnesses and the images shown on CCTV. He states that the Nissan Juke was doing over 30mph but I believe this statement to be inaccurate. I have viewed the CCTV and the Nissan Juke is travelling at the same speed as other traffic which is not excessive for the location. This fact is supported by the evidence of PC Gamble, the Collision Investigator who states that this was not a high speed collision."

 

[Origamist]

We know that, as tested, she was capable of seeing what was in front of her. What we do not know is why she failed to see the person she killed.

We also do not know anything that can allow anyone to say with any certainty that the person she killed appeared in front of her suddenly.

She passed the roadside test, but had to wear glasses in order to do so. We only have the word of the driver that she was wearing them at the time of the collision. If she was not wearing her spectacles, it would explain a lot...

 

[Origamist]

That is why is specifically said "as tested"

You were astute to do so...

I wonder if the Met requested CCTV from her commute through central London before the collision to check this aspect of her story...

 

[spen666]

We know that, as tested, she was capable of seeing what was in front of her. What we do not know is why she failed to see the person she killed.

We also do not know anything that can allow anyone to say with any certainty that the person she killed appeared in front of her suddenly.

you appear to have got the burden of proof the wrong way around.

The crown would have to prove the cyclist did not suddenly appear in front of her. Its not for the defence to prove he did suddenly appear.

The crown have to prove that her driving was careless. It is not enough to prove their was an accident

 

[Pale Rider]

She passed the roadside test, but had to wear glasses in order to do so. We only have the word of the driver that she was wearing them at the time of the collision. If she was not wearing her spectacles, it would explain a lot...

It would.

Hard to see where any evidence will come from to challenge her contention that she was wearing her glasses.

If the case gets to court, and if she gives evidence, she could be cross-examined about it.

 

[spen666]

It would.

Hard to see where any evidence will come from to challenge her contention that she was wearing her glasses.

If the case gets to court, and if she gives evidence, she could be cross-examined about it.

The case would have to get beyond 1/2time first and unless there is some evidence of careless driving it won't.

There is plenty of conjecture and supposition ( some of which is probably true) but a lack of evidence. Without that evidence, the Judge will end the trial at the conclusion of the prosecution case, without the defendant going near the witness box