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

oldstrath wrote:

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

From the Highway Code introduction:

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

Rule 59: Help yourself to be seen.

Visibility is at the heart of this case. Looking is a voluntary action. Seeing is not.

L.Willo wrote:

oldstrath wrote:

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

From the Highway Code introduction: Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’. Rule 59: Help yourself to be seen. Visibility is at the heart of this case. Looking is a voluntary action. Seeing is not.

I'm confused. First you say what matters is whether he signalled before moving, then you say visibility matters. If she didn't see him, it makes no odds whether he signalled, gave a nazi salute  or stood on his head and rode backwards. Cos she didn't  see him. 

Anyway,  if not be seen really was the problem,  as opposed to not looking or not giving a toss, back to the question of what lights, or should we simply abandon the city steets to the can't  see brigade?

oldstrath wrote:

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?

In case that's too telegraphic,  213 is an explicit reminder to cagers that bikes and motorbikes may have to swerve to avoid obstacles.  If she had been driving carefully , in accordance with this, the question of why he changed position  (if indeed he did) would be irrelevant. I would suggest that her failure to do so is  careless, but I'm  aware that might be expecting more than is delivered by 90% of the drivers out there, so unlikely to be seen as careless by a jury of fellow crap drivers.

L.Willo wrote:

This is a very sad case and I feel for Mr Mason's family but having read the officer's report http://road.cc/sites/default/files/IOR%20Mr%20M%20Mason.doc I understand the decision not to prosecute and I see very little prospect of a private prosecution succeeding.

Despite a thorough investigation, it has not been possible to establish how the accident occurred and therefore impossible to establish to what degree the driver's performance was dangerous, careless or blameless.

As a juror, on the basis of what I have read, and in the absence of new evidence, I would have to return a not guilty verdict.

So you are happy to conclude that if we're  not wearing a helmet and reflective hivis, neither of which is required by law, we can be killed with complete impunity, even  when using legally required lights?  Because it was 'hard to see him'. 

Perhaps someone could advice on what lighting systems might be thought adequate  to allow drivers to see cyclists?