Michael Mason Inquest

[w00hoo_kent]

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?

Yeah, but that's the sane argument.

Anecdote alert - I was taken off of my motorbike by a minicab. The driver told the police when they arrived (apparently, I was being put in the ambulance after somersaulting across her bonnet) "I got a call in the other direction, I didn't look, I just turned the steering wheel and put my foot down to get out of everyone's way quickly" She came out of two lanes of traffic, from the left lane to the right lane and then U turned. I was filtering past well out of the door zone. I believe I had enough time to swear before I hit her, she was around two car lengths in front of me max. I don't remember accidents, my brain deletes those bits as if I don't need, the git. Only bonus was it wrote her car off as well as my bike. The CPS dropped the case because a car in the outer lane flashed her to come out, thinking that she was just changing lanes in traffic, and this could have been taken by her to mean that it was clear to do her complete manoeuvre.

The law doesn't always do what we think it should.

To which the reply should be, why did you not leave safe space between you and the cyclist when overtaking?

And the reply is "The cyclist was wearing dark clothing and his lights were difficult to see against all of the others. How can you leave a safe space for someone you can't see?"

And then you need to prove that she was doing something specific that was distracting her.

It's an arse.

 

[Lemond]

As i am entirely anti-compulsionist, I don't give a toss what you stick on your head.

Fair enough.

 

[benb]

At no point did the driver say anything along the lines of "I was overtaking the cyclist when they suddenly swerved into my path", so all this nonsense about how long Mr Mason was in front of her is bollox.

She failed to see another road user, and ran them over. That's it. There is no plausible explanation for why she didn't see them, apart from the vague "sea of lights" comment from a witness, which the police have just taken at face value.

Note that other drivers saw Mr Mason just fine, and if visibility was compromised by background lights, a careful and competent driver should have slowed down to make sure they didn't drive into a space they didn't know was clear.

I'm bemused and exasperated as to how anyone can conclude there is insufficient evidence to at least pass this on to the CPS.

And I'll return to the reasons given by the investigating police officers as to why they didn't, which clearly show they were biased in favour of the driver.

 

[Wobblers]

[


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

As I have already said the forensic examination of the impact points on car and bicycle do not support this supposition. Had Mr Mason suddenly moved out in the way you are claiming, the collision would have been very different, with very different impact points.

 

[Wobblers]

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."

That could be countered had the Met, say, staged a reconstruction where a cyclist dressed in similar clothes at the same time would be vidoed from the driving seat of her car to ascertain just how visible he was. They didn't bother. That is what the problem is: they didn't bother. Instead, we have a list of frankly half-arsed excuses - it was dark, no hi-viz, no helmet... There seems to be little effort made by the investigating officer. I'd have no complaint if it had got to the CPS and been rejected on grounds of insufficient evidence. But it wasn't allowed to even get that far.

The other important point is that failure to keep a proper lookout when operating a motorised vehicle is itself evidence of careless driving. Neither does the lack of a helmet have any bearing on the police being able to charge on grounds of careless driving. The witness supposition that Mr Mason was lost in a sea of lights is easily countered by the fact that two other witnesses did see him - as does the observation that the hundreds of other motorists also managed not to hit him.

The fact of collision coupled with her own - under oath - admission that she did not see Mr Mason (failure to keep an adequate lookout) is itself evidence of careless driving. Whether that is enough to go to court is the province of the CPS, not the police.

 

[PK99]

As I have already said the forensic examination of the impact points on car and bicycle do not support this supposition. Had Mr Mason suddenly moved out in the way you are claiming, the collision would have been very different, with very different impact points.

A lateral movement of 2m and straightening up (consistent with the forensic report) could be completed in less than 1 second without the need for a sharp swerve - very different from the 6.7 seconds viewing time suggested by DanB

 

[Wobblers]

A lateral movement of 2m and straightening up (consistent with the forensic report) could be completed in less than 1 second without the need for a sharp swerve - very different from the 6.7 seconds viewing time suggested by DanB

Okay, try it. Try it now, even at the slow speed of 12 mph. Make sure you have someone film the results, do be sure to post it to youtube, so we can see the evidence and time it. I guarantee you will be surprised by the results.

This, incidentally, is yet another obvious defence supposition that could easily be squashed by the prosecution.

ETA: Is such a large sudden deviation really credible for an experienced cyclist in those conditions? I would think not - and expert witnesses are available to support this

 

[Dan B]

A lateral movement of 2m and straightening up (consistent with the forensic report) could be completed in less than 1 second without the need for a sharp swerve - very different from the 6.7 seconds viewing time suggested by DanB

Maybe if you're Danny MacAskill, yes

[ Also: what the previous poster said. Don't argue with someone called "Wobble" about large lateral movements ]

 

[Dan B]

This, incidentally, is yet another obvious defence supposition that could easily be squashed by the prosecution.

This is perhaps what's so enraging about the whole thing. The justice system in this country is adversarial: the prosecution attempt to secure a conviction, the defence try their hardest to get the defendant off, and the hope is that if both sides are fairly matched then justice will be done. It's not up to the police to do the defence's job for them.

 

[Lemond]

Whether that is enough to go to court is the province of the CPS, not the police.

From the Metropolitan Police website: No further action – if there is insufficient evidence to charge or caution a suspect, no further action will be taken by police.

 

[oldstrath]

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.

What actually seems to come out of your attempts (depressingly sadly accurate I suspect ) to justify the decision not to proceed, is that actually driving in crowded urban streets ought to be seen as too hard for anyone. You seem to say that someone can be an adequately competent driver, but still miss seeing a cyclist who must have been in her field of view. I don't doubt that your view is true in law, in which case presumably we should all either give up cycling, or campaign for complete separation.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

A borrowed Nissan Juke, I believe. Euro ncap gave this car a 5 star rating but its safety ratings tell a different story. Adult occupant safety = 87%, child occupant = 81%, pedestrian safety = 41%. (Note that Euro ncap don't bother with rating cyclist safety but I think it's fair to assume that their profile would be fairly similar to a pedestrian's.)

The bonnet provided good protection in most areas likely to be struck by a child's head, but was almost completely poor in those areas where an adult’s head would hit. The front edge of the bonnet also offered poor protection in almost every area tested.
​

The Juke is appalling for pedestrian safety. And yet it's given a top star rating.

In this case, the make of car would probably have limited significance, but it's simply another illustration of a more general point: how safety and responsibility for safety has been exported to the outside.

 

[Wobblers]

From the Metropolitan Police website: No further action – if there is insufficient evidence to charge or caution a suspect, no further action will be taken by police.

Except that "no further action" ignores the available evidence:

• Lack of helmet cited as one reason for no further action - irrelevant to charges against the motorist
• Mr Mason was wearing dark clothing - ignoring the fact that he was legally lit up, and no checks whatsoever made to ascertain just how visible he was to the motorist under those conditions
  
• One witness supposition that "he was lost in a sea of lights" taken at face value - again, as above, no attempt made to check the validity of this suggestion (which in any case ignores the two witnesses who did see him)
• CCTV evidence taken as evidence of no careless driving - it is limited merely to the camera's field of view so is not applicable to the time of impact, nor does it show that the motorist was paying due attention. It is not evidence of careful driving whatever.
• The motorist's own testimony that she "didn't see him" has been ignored

You, in all your attempts at making excuses for the motorist and police, have failed to explain in any way why any of these points are false. Quite the opposite: you've gone to great lengths to produce even more spurious excuses to account for the Met's behaviour. Why is that, I wonder?

 

[Wobblers]

What actually seems to come out of your attempts (depressingly sadly accurate I suspect ) to justify the decision not to proceed, is that actually driving in crowded urban streets ought to be seen as too hard for anyone. You seem to say that someone can be an adequately competent driver, but still miss seeing a cyclist who must have been in her field of view. I don't doubt that your view is true in law, in which case presumably we should all either give up cycling, or campaign for complete separation.

Or, preferably, campaign for better laws so that killer drivers are actually held to account for their actions.

ETA: not to mention insist on seeing an end to such appalling half-arsed investigations such as this one.

 

[Pale Rider]

Or, preferably, campaign for better laws so that killer drivers are actually held to account for their actions.

ETA: not to mention insist on seeing an end to such appalling half-arsed investigations such as this one.

The investigation was not as you describe it, you are simply bleating about it because you don't like the result.

The coroner, who will have seen lots of these, was give full disclosure of the investigation and made no comment about it, other than a finding of accidental death.

The coroner could have asked the police why certain things were not done, or even adjourned his hearing and asked them to reinvestigate, or he could have made a different finding.

That he did none of these things indicates he was content with the standard of the investigation.

Unless something can be found that was critically missing from the investigation then all attempts to undermine it are a waste of time.

There will always be something extra that could have been done, but inquiries must be deemed at some point to be sufficient.