Cyclists' Defence Fund appeals for funds on anniversary of Michael Mason collision

oldstrath wrote:

So in summary, according to those defending the lack of action, cyclists must  obey  the 'should'in Rule 59, because a licensed driver with adequate  distance vision cannot be expected to see a bike light. But drivers need not obey Rule 213 and provide adequate  space  for sudden changes of direction. Just because.

So the only way to get the police to take seriously any incident in which  a driver hits me is to pile on as much hivis and reflective  gear as my body will  accommodate,  and fit the brightest, largest lights i can purchase? Except then the poor ickle dears will complain of being blinded.

Rule 213 does not seem to be relevant. This was a dual carriageway. Ms Purcell was in the right hand lane hugging the centre line. Mr Mason was in the left hand lane 1.5 metres from the kerb. In order for the collision to occur, Mr Mason must have changed his position and moved into the right hand lane. This was not a swerve around a pot hole. 

Housecathst wrote:

But honestly what's this link ment to add to your argument. 

So just I'm totally clear about my vulnerability as a cyclist as long as a driver isn't speeding or drunk they can driver their car into an object or a person and there can be no criminal recourse against them ?

Yes. If the cyclist is riding in a way that makes a collision with a driver exercising reasonable care unavoidable. Hence the link to the video. 

Quote:

Are you suggesting that Mr mason cycling has anything in common with this ? I really hope not

How many times do I have to say that there should be no prosecution as we don't know how Mr Mason was cycling and how Ms Purcell was driving in the crucial few seconds before this accident? Did Mr Mason feel unwell and lose control of his bike? Did he do a shoulder check, make a clear hand signal and move in an orderly fashion into her lane while she was daydreaming? 

There is no way of knowing and therefore no evidence to put before a jury to consider.

Quote:

*Im just being trolled aren't it* 

Don't be lazy minded. I am not trolling you, I am disagreeing with you and supporting my opinion with reasoned argument.

Anyway, I have said my piece.

Housecathst wrote:

So just I'm totally clear about my vulnerability as a cyclist as long as a driver isn't speeding or drunk they can driver their car into an object or a person and there can be no criminal recourse against them ? 

Would you prosecute these drivers?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIZYD-35CbQ

Housecathst wrote:

"And get it right, I am not defending the motorist, I am defending the decison of the Police and CPS and Coroner not to prosecute."

That's splitting hairs and amounts to the seam thing.

No it isn't. I don't know what the motorist did or didn't do so I am in no position to either attack or defend the motorist. I know the decisions that the Police & CPS took and having read the report, I can understand why they chose not to prosecute.

Quote:

You just seam overly well read on this topic for a contributor with so few posts.

Not really. I remember this accident but was unfamiliar with the details so when I saw the headline calling for donations I clicked on the article. Before giving a donation or signing a petition, I always check what I am signing up for so I followed some of the links in the articles and comments before I read this:

http://road.cc/sites/default/files/IOR%20Mr%20M%20Mason.doc

on the road.cc site, all of which to my surprise persuades me that the CPS made the right decision even though they horribly bungled the communication with the late Mr Mason's family in the aftermath.

There might be other relevant evidence out there that I am not aware of that has a bearing on this case that could change my mind. I only hope that the family are not being led down a path that will end in highly-predictable disappointment. 

L.Willo wrote:

From the police report:

DI MASON records the facts as:

Mr Michael Mason was in collision with the Nissan Juke.

Mr Mason died from the injuries sustained during this collision, a head injury.

Ms Purcell was the driver of the Nissan

There are no witnesses that describe the driver taking any action that would cause the collision.

There are no witnesses that describe Mr Mason taking any action that would cause the collision. Initially he was at the nearside of the road and at some point he moved to the offside. No witnesses are available as to why he changed his position in the road or when he did this. He may have had to avoid an obstruction in the road or a pedestrian stepping in front of him. No one person can say for sure.

Mr Mason was not wearing a protective helmet (cause of death given as a head injury) or any high visibility clothing, he was wearing dark clothing.

Mr Mason was displaying lights on the bicycle but these lights could easily be lost to a drivers sight in a busy central London Road in the dark where there are numerous other lights displayed.

The Nissan Juke car and Mr Mason’s bicycle were  examined and found to have no faults that contributed to this collision.

Ms Purcell passed all road side tests including an eyesight test in the dark, the legal requirement being to pass this test in daylight.

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. Mr Adijarim also states that the Nissan did not deviate or brake. Again this statement is inaccurate. It is clear from the CCTV taken from ‘Top Shop’ that the Nissan braked at the point of collision and then put on Hazard warning lights for the vehicle.

PC Gamble, the Collision Investigator states that Mr Mason was run over by the Nissan Juke but he is unable to confirm this for sure. I do not consider this relevant. It is clear Mr Mason died from injuries sustained in the collision.

There is no evidence available to say that Ms Purcell did a deliberate act or did anything that was negligent in relation her driving to cause this collision.

============

 

.... and on that basis she should be prosecuted? Really? People should be dragged through the court system even though there is no evidence to support a case? Is that what you are really saying?

 What defence barrister is not going to have a field day with those cards in his hand? A prosecution in these circumstances is an abuse of power and a complete waste of time, in my opinion. It will fail, and if by some freak she ends up with a jury of 12 car hating cyclists who wrongly convict, the verdict would be overturned on appeal.

 

 

 

She drove her car into a cyclist who was lit in accordance with the law. If that lighting is not believed by the police to be adequate they should say so, and explain what is. Otherwise we are left with the only possible conclusion that killing legally lit cyclists is fine.

"There is no evidence available to say that Ms Purcell did a deliberate act or did anything that was negligent in relation her driving to cause this collision."

At least, she ignored rule  213. But apparently it's  fine for drivers to ignore the Highway Code. But not for  cyclists, because unlike drivers, we're not special. Unfortunately,  I'm  sure you're right, the system would find a way to let her off. Doesn't mean the CPS should not at least have tried.

oldstrath wrote:

She drove her car into a cyclist who was lit in accordance with the law.

Or, he carried out a dangerous manoeuvre and swerved into her lane at the last minute giving her no chance to take avoiding action. We don't know. There is no CCTV unfortunately and no witnesses of the crucial part of the accident; the manoeuvre of Mr Mason turning into the lane that she was occupying at a lawful and appropriate speed for the conditions.

It isn't victim blaming. The prosecution has to prove that she was negligent. Because there isn't proof, it doesn't mean that she wasn't negligent, it just means there is no case to answer.

There is no evidence that she ignored rule 213 either.

Bobbinogs wrote:

I donated previously.  Tried to add a bit more but, despite several attempts, the Paypal bit just didn't work.  

I couldn't get PayPal or Visa to work, despite disabling all the security gizmos in my browser, and trying a different browser.  Do I need to try a different operating system next?

grumpus wrote:

Bobbinogs wrote:

I donated previously.  Tried to add a bit more but, despite several attempts, the Paypal bit just didn't work.  

I couldn't get PayPal or Visa to work, despite disabling all the security gizmos in my browser, and trying a different browser.  Do I need to try a different operating system next?

Managed to get it working.  Previously I was using Chrome on Windows 7 but I retried on another laptop with Microsoft Edge running on Windows 10 and it all went through fine.  I did try Chrome on Windows 10 which is my usual browser and that had the same issues.  

Total is currently £59,691.

L.Willo wrote:

No. What is important in terms of launching a prosecution is evidence, and based on the investigation, there is no proof of carelessness or recklessness. They don't know how this accident occured because no one saw it happen and CCTV didn't pick it up. Re: visibility, have you not had the experience of looking for someone familiar in a crowd but only becoming aware of them when they start waving?

I'd say it happened because she was, at best, too close. I'd  like to see this prosecuted,  then at least we'll  know for sure the legal system  thinks we should expect to be killed unless we go around dressed like a hivis version of the Eddystone lighthouse.

oldstrath wrote:

L.Willo wrote:

No. What is important in terms of launching a prosecution is evidence, and based on the investigation, there is no proof of carelessness or recklessness. They don't know how this accident occured because no one saw it happen and CCTV didn't pick it up. Re: visibility, have you not had the experience of looking for someone familiar in a crowd but only becoming aware of them when they start waving?

 

I'd say it happened because she was, at best, too close. I'd  like to see this prosecuted,  then at least we'll  know for sure the legal system  thinks we should expect to be killed unless we go around dressed like a hivis version of the Eddystone lighthouse.

Based on what? Gut feeling? Prejudice?

The Highway Code already tells you what you should do in terms of visibility, Rule 59. If you choose not to do it, so be it, but don't be surprisedthat it is a factor that will and ought to be considered in the event of an accident.

There is no need to waste public finances funding a failed prosecution due to lack of evidence.

L.Willo wrote:

oldstrath wrote:

L.Willo wrote:

No. What is important in terms of launching a prosecution is evidence, and based on the investigation, there is no proof of carelessness or recklessness. They don't know how this accident occured because no one saw it happen and CCTV didn't pick it up. Re: visibility, have you not had the experience of looking for someone familiar in a crowd but only becoming aware of them when they start waving?

 

I'd say it happened because she was, at best, too close. I'd  like to see this prosecuted,  then at least we'll  know for sure the legal system  thinks we should expect to be killed unless we go around dressed like a hivis version of the Eddystone lighthouse.

Based on what? Gut feeling? Prejudice?

The Highway Code already tells you what you should do in terms of visibility, Rule 59. If you choose not to do it, so be it, but don't be surprisedthat it is a factor that will and ought to be considered in the event of an accident.

There is no need to waste public finances funding a failed prosecution due to lack of evidence.

 

The HC also tells drivers how they should behave to avoid killing cyclists. Why do you think its fine to obsess about hivis but ignore this part of the guidance? Because that would impose effort on the poor little drivers?

L.Willo wrote:

The Highway Code already tells you what you should do in terms of visibility, Rule 59. If you choose not to do it, so be it, but don't be surprisedthat it is a factor that will and ought to be considered in the event of an accident.

It's bullshit like Rule 59 which attempts to put the blame on the victim, who cannot defend themself.
He wasn't wearing Harry Potter's invisibility cloak. Presumably the paramedics had no problem finding this invisible man at the scene? He was right in front of her car and she did not see him, how is this somehow his fault because he wasn't wearing reflective clothing?
You can't control other people's eyes. It's the driver's responsibility to see, not the victim's responsibility to make sure drivers see you. If you drive into something ,or someone, and you didn't see it or them, it's your fault. It should be as simple as that.

ChrisB200SX wrote:

If you drive into something ,or someone, and you didn't see it or them, it's your fault. It should be as simple as that.

Well it isn't. Looking is a voluntary action, seeing is not.

That is why things like appropriate clothing and whether the driver / rider gave appropriate signals and checked that it was safe before carrying out a risky manoeuvre like changing lanes are pertinent to an investigation.

I bet you would quite rightly blast any driver who says that rule 163 is bullshit and should be ignored in an investigation because it is not the law.

You can't pick and choose.

L.Willo wrote:

ChrisB200SX wrote:

If you drive into something ,or someone, and you didn't see it or them, it's your fault. It should be as simple as that.

Well it isn't. Looking is a voluntary action, seeing is not.

That is why things like appropriate clothing and whether the driver / rider gave appropriate signals and checked that it was safe before carrying out a risky manoeuvre like changing lanes are pertinent to an investigation.

I bet you would quite rightly blast any driver who says that rule 163 is bullshit and should be ignored in an investigation because it is not the law.

 

You can't pick and choose.

Willo. 

It seams odd that you rock up after 16 posts (most of which are on this topic) to defend another motorist killer . 

Housecathst wrote:

Willo. 

It seams odd that you rock up after 16 posts (most of which are on this topic) to defend another motorist killer . 

Do you have a point to make or are you just thinking out loud?

And get it right, I am not defending the motorist, I am defending the decison of the Police and CPS and Coroner not to prosecute. On the basis of what I have read about this sad case, there is no evidence, never mind insufficient evidence strong enough to support a prosecution.

L.Willo wrote:

Housecathst wrote:

Willo. 

It seams odd that you rock up after 16 posts (most of which are on this topic) to defend another motorist killer . 

Do you have a point to make or are you just thinking out loud?

And get it right, I am not defending the motorist, I am defending the decison of the Police and CPS and Coroner not to prosecute. On the basis of what I have read about this sad case, there is no evidence, never mind insufficient evidence strong enough to support a prosecution.

I'm with you on this one L.Willo, it's pointless to prosecute due to the lack of evidence of wrong-doing by the driver - reasonable doubt. The money could be better spent, this case is not winnable.

There is an unanswered quesion, Mr Mason was approx 1.5m from the kerb, how far from the kerb was he when the car hit him?

L.Willo wrote:

No. I am sad to conclude that according to the police report, CCTV shows Mr Mason cycling at 1.5 - 2 metres from the kerb, the driver proceeding in an orderly manner but does not show how/why Mr Mason ended up in front of her car. Did he suddenly swerve or did he give a clear signal that she should have seen? Was the collision avoidable? Sadly that evidence is crucial to understanding this accident and neither CCTV nor eye witnesses have the answer. How could you not have reasonable doubts in these circumstances?

Rule 213 of the Highway Code. Shame it's not enforceable law.

If, as you seem to think, the spiel about hivis and magic hats is irrelevant,  why  was it offered  up in the excuses?