Coroners have seem many accident reports and have the power to have them looked at again.
This coroner did not, so it's an indication the accident report was done correctly within the guidelines.
You say you would have no complaint if it had gone to the CPS.
They are no more likely to say this case passes the full evidence test than the police are.
Your problem is you have decided on a verdict - 'guilty' - with no reference to any evidence or how the system works.
You are then faced with the uphill task of trying to make everything fit into your desired outcome.
It never will.
But you will get more and more frustrated trying to make it so.
Yet again your argument boils down to an appeal to authority and a claim that I, and indeed everyone else who has been picking holes in your arguments have already decided guilt. It might surprise you to learn that I, if this case had got to court, and had been on the jury, probably would not have found the defendant guilty. You are perfectly entitled to hold your preconceptions and prejudices. But you have no rights at all when it comes to having any expectation on not having them called out.
You have failed in any sense to explain just why the police was adequate. Quite the reverse - you have entirely failed to account for the weight place on one witness who speculated (and it is pure speculation, not fact) that Mr Mason was "lost in a sea of lights". You have not supplied any explanation at all as to why the police did not check what the visibility of a cyclist in similar conditions would have been from the driving seat of that Nissan Juke. You have erronously equated driving straight and without deviation at one single point to be evidence of competency. In fact, you've ignored all the arguments that myself, Adrian and others have made. Instead, you've simply said that this is correct, "because system". In which case, the system is failing the needs of vulnerable road users, not to mention justice. But even that does not explain why the police did not bother to find out whether or not Mr Mason
was readily visible: one simple check would have confirmed or denied whether or not a good case could be made. Not to mention that I, and doubtless many other cyclists would like to know the results so as to determine whether or not we need to make changes. I doubt any procedural system would have ruled that out. But no. Instead, a bland assurance about the system. That somewhat precludes any hope of improving matters. And that is just not good enough.
