Breaking News: Driver in Mick Mason case acquitted by jury

ChairRDRF wrote:

beezus fufoon wrote:

ktache wrote:

bikelikebike, go shove that helmet up your fat arse.

Is anyone going to admit to liking his comment.

Well done for your restraint chairRDRF.

 

 

I liked it, not because I agreed with it, but because it challenges the consensus here, albeit in a clumsy way...

sure there will be anger and a feeling of injustice when something like this happens, and it does seem to happen an awful lot

- on the one hand we have people talking about violence, on the other, people raising lots of money to take it to an unsympathetic court, both of which seem a bit pointless and even counterproductive to anything resembling a just society...

personally I think the example set by Stop de Kindermoord in the Netherlands would be a better use of our time, energy, and money.

 

I don't think "challenging the consensus" is in itself neccessarily a good thing. Maybe the consensus just happens to be right, although it is pretty damn uncomfortable to be part of it in this car-obsessed society.

As to what we do next - I have taken part in Stop the Killing protests (which are based on the Dutch example) and that's something to do. But it doesn't mean we give up on changing the current situation which is just inequitable, wrong and won't work for people who want/need to get about by bke and on foot.

You say that you think the consensus happens to be right - can you explain to me how the focus on prosecuting (or persecuting) individual motorists will help change attitudes?

It seems the motorist is already quite comfortable playing the victim card, with the inflammtory "war on motorists" slogans of the gutter press, and the courts/justice system is equally motor-centric in its outlook - it seems to me that this idea of indivduals seeking justice (in whatever form) against other individuals has a limited effect on challenging the wider perceptions here.

beezus fufoon wrote:

ChairRDRF wrote:

beezus fufoon wrote:

ktache wrote:

bikelikebike, go shove that helmet up your fat arse.

Is anyone going to admit to liking his comment.

Well done for your restraint chairRDRF.

 

 

I liked it, not because I agreed with it, but because it challenges the consensus here, albeit in a clumsy way...

sure there will be anger and a feeling of injustice when something like this happens, and it does seem to happen an awful lot

- on the one hand we have people talking about violence, on the other, people raising lots of money to take it to an unsympathetic court, both of which seem a bit pointless and even counterproductive to anything resembling a just society...

personally I think the example set by Stop de Kindermoord in the Netherlands would be a better use of our time, energy, and money.

 

I don't think "challenging the consensus" is in itself neccessarily a good thing. Maybe the consensus just happens to be right, although it is pretty damn uncomfortable to be part of it in this car-obsessed society.

As to what we do next - I have taken part in Stop the Killing protests (which are based on the Dutch example) and that's something to do. But it doesn't mean we give up on changing the current situation which is just inequitable, wrong and won't work for people who want/need to get about by bke and on foot.

You say that you think the consensus happens to be right - can you explain to me how the focus on prosecuting (or persecuting) individual motorists will help change attitudes?

It seems the motorist is already quite comfortable playing the victim card, with the inflammtory "war on motorists" slogans of the gutter press, and the courts/justice system is equally motor-centric in its outlook - it seems to me that this idea of indivduals seeking justice (in whatever form) against other individuals has a limited effect on challenging the wider perceptions here.

If you think that a private prosecution is "persecution", I'm afraid you don't get it.

There is plainly a need for a package of measures. But there do seem to be grounds for suggesting that if you don't see what is in front of you, you are guilty of a careless driving offence, and getting a succesful prosecution for that is reasonable. After all, it might send out a deterrent message.

If the prosecution is not succesful, as in this case, there are grounds for having offences of careless driving as summary offences with a magistrate making an objective decision which avoids (careless motorist sympathising) juries. There are also arguments for having clearer definitions of careless and dangerous driving, which CyclingUK have argued for. But whatever, trying to get prosecutions seems to me to be a reasonable - if certainly not the only - step to take.

Rich_cb wrote:

I originally thought that this private prosecution was a waste of time and money as the result was, unfortunately, entirely predictable.

It has actually served to illustrate the inadequacy of current legislation.

If you can hit and kill someone because, by your own admission, you weren't paying attention and be acquitted of any wrongdoing then it's obvious that the legal framework of motoring offences is flawed.

Parliament should now be the focus of the CDF's efforts, without changes in the law further prosecutions will achieve little.

I agree whole heartedly.

Though i should say, private criminal prosecutions are never likely to be successful - the fact that the crown hasn't prosecuted is likely to be highly prejudicial (perhaps the jury shouldn't be made aware of who the plaintiff is?).

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

Acquited by a jury of her peers.  Most of whom will have been fed  adiet of cycle hatred by the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Sun, the Standard.

But still.  None of us gives a shit really, because if we did, we would do something about it.  Every time tacks were spread over a cycle path, six inch nails would be dropped from an overhead gantry onto a motorway.  Every time piano wire was stretched across a rural path, a paving stone would be dropped onto a car on a motorway.  Every time a cyclist got abuse shouted at him at the traffic lights, he would toss his 3-KG D-lock through the windscreen of the car.  And every time a gross miscarriage of justice like this happened, the murdering fuck would be located and dealt with.

But none of the above will happen, because oooh, 'violence is wrong'. 

Back to munching your bran muffins, the lot of you.

I like this approach:

Non-destructive and extremely inconvenient.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/31/stop-a-douchebag-russia...

Tricky to do from a bike, but would work nicely for, ooh lets see, Sainsburys vans parked on pavements

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

Acquited by a jury of her peers.  Most of whom will have been fed  adiet of cycle hatred by the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Sun, the Standard.

But still.  None of us gives a shit really, because if we did, we would do something about it.  Every time tacks were spread over a cycle path, six inch nails would be dropped from an overhead gantry onto a motorway.  Every time piano wire was stretched across a rural path, a paving stone would be dropped onto a car on a motorway.  Every time a cyclist got abuse shouted at him at the traffic lights, he would toss his 3-KG D-lock through the windscreen of the car.  And every time a gross miscarriage of justice like this happened, the murdering fuck would be located and dealt with.

But none of the above will happen, because oooh, 'violence is wrong'. 

Back to munching your bran muffins, the lot of you.

a jury of 12, 10-11 likely to be drivers, and half of those to be below average but all who consider themselves careful and competant. 

also I think the failure of the polce and cps to act is in itself a potential cause for reasonable doubt - 'why are we here? the police didn't think she did anything wrong, it's just those cyclists picking on this poor woman.' etc etc

also, from the met polce report "Mr Mason was displaying lights on his bike, but these lights could have easily be lost to a driver’s sight in a busy London road in the dark where there are numerous other lights displayed." So maximum brightness lights from now on.

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

Acquited by a jury of her peers.  Most of whom will have been fed  adiet of cycle hatred by the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Sun, the Standard.

But still.  None of us gives a shit really, because if we did, we would do something about it.  Every time tacks were spread over a cycle path, six inch nails would be dropped from an overhead gantry onto a motorway.  Every time piano wire was stretched across a rural path, a paving stone would be dropped onto a car on a motorway.  Every time a cyclist got abuse shouted at him at the traffic lights, he would toss his 3-KG D-lock through the windscreen of the car.  And every time a gross miscarriage of justice like this happened, the murdering fuck would be located and dealt with.

But none of the above will happen, because oooh, 'violence is wrong'. 

Back to munching your bran muffins, the lot of you.

Because, what would be the outcome of that war?.... Look to Northern Ireland, The middle east...

Because we know that eye for an eye solves nothing, and most of us wold like to solve this, not make it worse.

Because  "In the ongoing battle between soft shelled bodies and 1.5 ton steel cubes, the soft shelled bodies have yet to score a significant victory" .... Sheldon Brown.

What you are suggesting is the equivalent of Belgium going to war against the USA. Unlikely to go well for Belgium. If Belgium has a problem with USA, they're better off trying to politically take over the UN, and win the hearts of the rest of the world. Longer, more difficult, but with a higher chance of ultimately achieving their goal.

Paul_C wrote:

trying to get a fair trial would be like trying to find a white man guilty of murdering a coloured person in the deep south of the USA in the 50's or even 60's...

Not just back then, but also applies to present day.

wellsprop wrote:

How the hell is that possible?!

I don't know.  I wasn't there.

peted76 wrote:

Oh this is shit. So very shit. Shitty shitty shit cock monkey arse nipple twunts. 

Dont bottle it up like that: tell us how you're really feeling.

P3t3 wrote:

Is there some technicality or special feature of this case that has not been reported? I mean, on face value it just doesn't make any sense.  

Judges give juries direction on points of law - so the judge's direction could easily lead to the acquittal.   One of the issues is due to the CPS not prosecuting it indicates there was insufficient evidence in the first place to bring a prosecution.

On and I've always been told that most of what you say immediately at the scene of a car incident if you caused it would be discounted.   It is only what you say later at a police station, other people's evidence of what you were doing before the incident, camera evidence, whether you looked/smelled in toxicated etc that would count.   This is due to the fact that you would be in shock after the incident so not in your normal state of mind.  (I'm sure there was some court case about this.)

I know when one of my sisters' got run over and killed the driver said he didn't see her.  Likewise when one of my brothers' and myself  saw a child get run over but not killed when arranging my mum's funeral, the driver said she didn't see the child.   Neither were prosecuted.   So the standard response for any car driver doing anything wrong is to say you didn't see the person you maimed or killed.

Finally as the case took place in London there is likely to be non-drivers and cyclists on the jury. I know plenty of people who live in London and don't drive plus many who cycle regardless of whether they drive or not.  So it's not about the jury's own habits, which we don't know about,  but the fact that the standard of proof to get a conviction  of any sort when you injure a  more vunerable road user under current legislation is too high.

Bluebug wrote:

Judges give juries direction on points of law - so the judge's direction could easily lead to the acquittal.   One of the issues is due to the CPS not prosecuting it indicates there was insufficient evidence in the first place to bring a prosecution....

...So it's not about the jury's own habits, which we don't know about,  but the fact that the standard of proof to get a conviction  of any sort when you injure a  more vunerable road user under current legislation is too high.

Right - so its just the way the case played out and a burden of proof issue then?

Bluebug wrote:

I know when one of my sisters' got run over and killed the driver said he didn't see her.  Likewise when one of my brothers' and myself  saw a child get run over but not killed when arranging my mum's funeral, the driver said she didn't see the child.   Neither were prosecuted.   So the standard response for any car driver doing anything wrong is to say you didn't see the person you maimed or killed.

This is pretty logical though isn't it.  Its very very rare for a driver to hit anything with their car intentionally, especially a person, because the average person isn't a violent murderer.  When they say they didn't see them, they really mean it.  

I guess the standard that we hold drivers to is too low, my driver training never covered how to look, where to look, or any techniques to avoid not paying enough attention.  

Bluebug wrote:

 

This is pretty logical though isn't it.  Its very very rare for a driver to hit anything with their car intentionally, especially a person, because the average person isn't a violent murderer.  When they say they didn't see them, they really mean it.  

I guess the standard that we hold drivers to is too low, my driver training never covered how to look, where to look, or any techniques to avoid not paying enough attention.  

Which begs the question, what were they doing that stopped them seeing them? I cannot ever recall driving on the road and then suddenly realising there was another road user nearby that I had previously not seen. It's a horseshit excuse and  simply should not be accepted , if a car driver says this then they have  obviously not been giving  the road their full attention, and if you are not giving the road your full attention whilst travelling along at 30mph+ then you are IMHO being careless.