Lemond
Senior Member
- Location
- Sunny Suffolk
Like I said, the evidence needed to bring about a charge or prosecution clearly doesn't exist.
There's nothing "wrong" with it.
Michael Mason Inquest
- Thread starter glenn forger
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Like I said, the evidence needed to bring about a charge or prosecution clearly doesn't exist.
There's nothing "wrong" with it.
glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
You have a driver admitting to hitting the cyclist whom she, by her own evidence,"should have seen". There is the position of the damage to her car, directly in front of the driving position. Of all the witnesses to the collision, she is the only person who failed to see the cyclist; she can offer no explanation for her failure. Neither she, nor anyone as far as I can tell, places any fault on the cyclist, or reports him making any sudden manoeuvre.
If the test to be applied is that her driving was that of a careful and competent driver then her actions must be examined in court or we are all farked.
Or is "oops" now considered to be good enough as a defence?
GC
Lemond
Senior Member
- Location
- Sunny Suffolk
Mate, I honestly have no idea. All I'm saying is that the experts in this instance reached a decision not to prosecute based on the evidence available. surely that's the right thing to do?
Lemond
Senior Member
- Location
- Sunny Suffolk
I've no particular axe to grind here, but this happened in the early evening so not on a clear day. Also, apparently one eye witness stated that the impact was made by the wing mirror, so maybe rammed from behind isn't entirely accurate either.
OP
OP
glenn forger
Guest
Please read the article: "The collision investigator also gave evidence that the physical evidence on the car and the bicycle made it clear that this was a 'linear' collision with the bicycle and the car pointing in the same direction at the moment of impact. This ruled out any swerving immediately before the collision.Further the rear tyre left a mark and dent mid way between the centre line of the car and its offside. That is to say right in front of the position where the driver was seated."
Witness statements are often unreliable. Forensic evidence is much more trustworthy.
Pale Rider
Legendary Member
The witness saw what happened.
The collision damage investigator did not see what happened and is purely making assumptions.
Such assumptions can be clever and insightful.
They can also be - like so many assumptions - badly misleading.
The collision damage investigator did not see what happened and is purely making assumptions.
Such assumptions can be clever and insightful.
They can also be - like so many assumptions - badly misleading.
OP
OP
glenn forger
Guest
The witness didn't see the impact:
http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/newsgallery/?news_id=39245
Mod Edited - leave the personal stuff out.
http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/newsgallery/?news_id=39245
Mod Edited - leave the personal stuff out.
jefmcg
Guru
(thanks mod)
But still, wow. From the article linked to
(now forensics may indicated that he didn't see the what he thought he saw, but you can't claim witnesses didn't see it)
OP
OP
glenn forger
Guest
Thanks, that witness did not see the impact, as I said. Let's limit ourselves to what we know and not make stuff up.
D
Deleted member 26715
Guest
Reading that last link makes it confusing, the witnesses appear to put the rider in several places at once, on the offside, 1M from the kerb, turning right & then the forensics say he was directly in front of the car between the centre line & offside. Despite all of that I do find it difficult to believe that no charges we made against the driver, driving without due care & attention at least, which by her own admission she was.
jefmcg
Guru
Either he saw the impact, but misinterpreted what he saw, or he's a liar. I'm not as lief as you are to call someone a liar. Or making stuff up, when they are quoting a witness.
I think it might be useful to discuss the inquest with a little less aggression.
OP
OP
glenn forger
Guest
That's a long piece with conflicting witness statements, so selectively quoting the one, lone remark that contradicts all the other evidence is highly discriminatory. A car is on your near side. The wing mirror hits you. How on earth do you get propelled towards the impact, onto the bonnet?
Three witness statements, plus the forensic evidence, and pale rider picks the one, lone quote that implies blame on the cyclist. You'll have to explain why you don't think that's selective, especially accompanied by the claim "the witness saw what happened"? In context the same poster has a long history of posting factually inaccurate stuff to allocate blame. I'm happy to stand by what I said.
Three witness statements, plus the forensic evidence, and pale rider picks the one, lone quote that implies blame on the cyclist. You'll have to explain why you don't think that's selective, especially accompanied by the claim "the witness saw what happened"? In context the same poster has a long history of posting factually inaccurate stuff to allocate blame. I'm happy to stand by what I said.
glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
It's possible the witness heard the bang then looked to see the rider hit by the wing mirror, then the bonnet and then into the road. The witness might not have seen the first impact which the forensic evidence suggests was the front of the car. Although it would be rather odd to be hit by a wing mirror (actually a door mirror these days) and to then be thrown forward and over the bonnet. But I'm just guessing here, like most folk.
GC
my guess... frontal collision, cyclist thrown to off side, car continues past cyclist who is then falling "witness" heard bang, looked and saw bike part way down the side of the car hitting wing mirror.
in my smidsy, i hit and damaged front wing, both passenger side doors and rear wing as the car turned across me and i bounced down the side. A witness, not seeing the first impact, could have "seen" me riding into the side
Pale Rider
Legendary Member
Forger,
I picked no quote - stop making things up.
I have no long history of anything - stop making things up.
You have a long history of obsessively portraying every cyclist/driver collision as the fault of the driver.
Anyway, how many inquests have you been to?
I've been to probably more than 250 over more than 20 years.
My observation in this thread about expert evidence is based on that experience.
You may be, but are probably not, aware the coroner has the power to refer a case back to the police for further investigation/consideration of charges, if, in the coroner's judgment, the decision not to charge is incorrect.
As far as I can gather, this has not happened.
I agree the decision not to prosecute looks odd.
But the police/CPS/coroner hold no brief for the driver - they couldn't care less whether she gets done or not.
They all seem to agree no criminal charges is the correct decision in this case.
It would be better for all concerned if the reasons for that decision were made clear, but the public bodies and officials concerned rarely see it as part of their remit to explain their actions to the wider public.