- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Michael MasonWhere next for Road Justice cycling campaign following Mick Mason case?
Following the acquittal of the driver accused of causing the death of cyclist Michael Mason through dangerous driving last week, Cycling UK – who brought the case via the Cyclists’ Defence Fund (CDF) – have expanded on what happened during the trial and how they might approach future campaigning.
In a long blog – which is well worth a read for anyone interested in what cyclists face within the UK justice system – Cycling UK's senior road safety and legal campaigns officer, Duncan Dollimore, outlines many of the details of what took place in court.
If you followed the case on this site, you’ll be aware that a private prosecution was brought as the Metropolitan Police declined to ask the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to do so.
Another significant issue faced was the driver’s position that she simply didn’t see Mason, as exemplified by her statement that upon hearing the impact, she “didn’t know if it was a pedestrian or if something had come from the sky, a bag of potatoes.”
The CDF also found that several witnesses had been left unquestioned; that victim-blaming rationale had been employed when concluding why Mason hadn’t been seen; and that CPS guidance had been ignored with regards to charging decisions in fatal road collision cases.
There is far more to mull over than can be mentioned here, but a police collision investigator’s suggestion that five seconds’ reaction time should be allowed for a driver needing to take evasive action is perhaps also worthy of mention. Just think about how much can happen in five long seconds next time you’re behind the wheel.
Despite the acquittal, Dollimore concludes that much has been gained and he suggests three main problems revealed by the case to be included in future Road Justice campaigning:
1. The current guidance regarding referral of fatal road collision cases to CPS for charging decisions needs to become a requirement, a rule which police forces can’t simply ignore as they did in this case;
2. Collision investigation standards are urgently needed, with accreditation and increased transparency as called for by RoadPeace through their collision investigation campaign.
3. The current classification of careless and dangerous driving offences, how driving standards are assessed, and charging standards, are simply not fit for purpose. They must be changed, with the standard of driving required being more objectively determined. Currently, the law requires jurors to consider whether another driver’s standard of driving fell "below", or "far below" the standard which they believe would be expected of "a careful and competent driver", whatever that standard might be. One person might well think they’re a careful and competent driver as they overtake a cyclist whilst speeding, leaving a 30 cm gap. I would disagree, so our perspectives on what falls "below the competent and careful driver" test will be irreconcilable. We are asking jurors to apply a standard that few understand, and which is far too subjective.
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- bensynnock 28 min 3 sec ago
There also seems a constant requirement for public consultation about every change to three roads, but I don't remember there being any...
- Bigtwin 28 min 2 sec ago
It's sad to see the likes of Milla under threat of disappearance, but the bike indrustry needs to sort itself out. Selling bikes that cost more...
- bensynnock 31 min 44 sec ago
Sure, but if the section in the picture is always flooded then it's effectively unusable.
- Secret_squirrel 1 hour 53 sec ago
Time to ban him completely? He's clearly incapable of learning his lessons and will always keep pushing both the technical and sporting boundaries.
- espressodan 1 hour 16 min ago
"Chris Froome says 2025 would potentially be his last season"....
- lerrup 3 hours 3 min ago
This is correct, if we're going to invest in the criminal justice system we should do so on catching people and processing them through the system...
- Surreyrider 3 hours 9 min ago
I think the frames are open mould so there will be others exactly like it around the world decked out as another brand. I saw a few comments on...
- Sriracha 3 hours 24 min ago
Will the CPS/Courts follow through, one wonders?
- Surreyrider 4 hours 28 min ago
Beware though, the new Defy models are more aggressive than previously. Getting quite close to the TCR now....
Add new comment
35 comments
First up... that whole 5 second thing.... man that grates on me. Not so much that someone said it, and meant it, but that it was not challenged and dismissed in court.
If I was there, I'd probably want to do a visual reconstruction of that in court. Make someone stand up, then starting next to them, I'd walk away for five seconds. then I'd stop, turn around and say, 'Go', and walk towards them, saying they have five seconds to get out of my way.
its a ridiculous figure.
Problem is, as much as the chap in question didn't directly say '5 seconds is a reasonable reaction time' its likely that is what the jurors will have taken away.
As for what happens next.
Immediately I'd say, pick your battles, pick a battle you can win. This one was not one that could be won, so shouldn't have been tested.
There is a good point there about forcing police forces to present evidence to the CPS for review in all cases. That is something that should be persued.
Constructive publicity of the current shortcomings in the legal process... not focusing on cyclists but all road users, with a particluar focus on pretty, white female victims. No one will sympathise with a lycra lout, the louder 'we' shout, the more blinkered the majority will be. The message needs to be humanised.
The objective should be, as mentioned, to drive public appetite for more objective clarification of what is, and isn't competent driving.
As a 'control' I'd say driving straight into someone without seeing them without giving any good reason for doing so given... should sit on the side of incompetent driving.
this discussion is pertinent to the reaction time. https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=112493&hilit=4+seconds
the police in the MM case are full of shit/liars/perverting the course of justice.
236 pages
needs a tl;dr
But essentially it seems to be that contributory negligence applies to cyclists, even if the driver was wholly in the wrong. For example if a driver flew out of a junction without looking, straight into you, you'd take 20 to 30% hit on your damages if you happened to be looking the other way, or down at the time. Like I said, thread too long, but would love to know if there's precedent on hi-vis clothing.
The cyclist was expected to see the van and take evasive action, even though the van driver had done something utterly wrong and unexpected, and there was no evidence that the cyclist had seen him.
For me the tl;dr is that even if the driver is a blind witless feck who should not be in charge of a cat, far less a car, the courts will still find a way to put some blame on the cyclist. Apparently we are expected to ride around dressed like hiviz versions of a lighthouse, and still be the ones who react when drivers behave incompetently. As they will.
So if a driver fails to see a perfectly legal cyclist with lights on a brightly lit city street directly in front of them and kills them, it's an understandable error that anyone can make and no fault of the driver.
If a cyclist doesn't see a vehicle which has illegally pulled out in front of them and rides into it, it is still 20% his fault.
British justice at its finest.
No hypocrisy whatsoever. Or bias.
Is the latter not about civil liability, whereas the former is about criminal guilt? So not really like-with-like.
There's still a question as to what happens in the former case in relation to civil liability. One would hope there isn't in fact a double-standard there.
The main point to me seems to be that there's no 'innocent till proven guilty' or 'burden of proof' involved when a cyclist makes a mistake - because the physics of such incidents doesn't care about legal niceties and punishes cyclists immediately, with no right of appeal.
Hence, unless the burden-of-proof is entirely reversed for trials of motorists, there's always going to be a massive asymmetry-of-consequences about motorist-cyclist interactions, even without the biased juries we currently have. Hence they need to be avoided and the two modes need to be separated. I just don't see any other way.
Nothing to do wit this post I know but I would like to complain that the use of side advertising which forces the browser to jump prevents teh audience from reading these blog posts. I wanted to read the comments in this article but after suffering this page jumping I have given up.
You might do worse than try an ad-blocker?
I used to use Adblock (on an iPhone): initially it meant I couldn't use the sidebar navigation. Latterly it meant the site wouldn't load at all. Gave up.
Chaps, without wishing to be too pernickity, the head line of this article refers to what CDF should do now, so rehashing all the old arguments might be entertaining, but really doesn't take us much farther forward. So what should they do?
In no particular order:
Investigate an appeal
Line up allies
Get media involved.
On the last point, I'm amazed at how little publicity this case has had. With so many special components like the police failure to send to CPS, a private prosecution, drivers able to kill at will and police evidence that was literally farcical. If this had been a cyclist killing a pedestrian, the papers would be full of it for weeks, as we know from experience.
good point
I think you've answered that best with the last paragraph - something to raise awareness which would not rely on the courts, parliament, or other less sympathetic media corporations
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/9428975/Stylist-at-Duchess...
Has this had a bearing? If she has permanent leg burn injuries this may have affected her ability to drive and react quickly.
Have to wonder if the connections have a bearing on the police's enthusiasm to exonerate her.
Probably not, if the specially adapted car she was driving was borrowed.
woah!
so if I'm reading this correctly, this story is basically says that Ms Purcell failed to navigate her way around a candle and as a result sued her employer, receiving £40,000
so we have a history of both lack of spatial awareness, and of dubious litigation - I'm starting to see a pattern emerge
The police attitude stinks, we need an independent review of police investigations into such incidents, as it appears that unless there is CCTV or an admission of guilt that the prosecution rate is woefully inadequate. Compare this to the amount of money and effort in the plebgate incident it is clear that the police priority is to protect their own rather than solve crimes and protect the vulnerable.
This is, indeed, depressing reading and it has been a depressing process. I'm especially bothered by the number of references to his not wearing a helmet, immediately followed by cause of death being head injury, as if this was somehow his fault. The cause of death was being hit from behind by a car. That's all I need to know.
maybe she didn't see him, and maybe there were lots of lights but dark clothes and no helmet in no way constitute contributory negligence here. And Regent Street is always lit up like a Christmas tree. And if you struggle to make out definable shapes because of the mass of lights either a) slow right down, or b) get the train home.
i hope Mr Masons family can move on and have a happy life.
The policeman's expectations of a 5s reaction time is a joke. If that's what he really thinks why bother with drink driving laws. 2s at the most or don't drive.
2 seconds! if it's even 0.5 of a second you should go see a doctor!
Dollimore would have more credibility if he got the model of the car right.
That makes very depressing reading.The driver didnt even stop,very scary.
That directly contradicts the report of the police and the coroner.
I'm sure it does, if you don't bother to speak to the witnesses.
"One of the four witnesses the police considered irrelevant gave evidence that Ms Purcell’s car continued up Regent Street, that he ran up the street after the car which was stopped at the lights, and “stood in front of the car and held out my hand and asked the driver to stop and pull over – I indicated which way to turn the wheel to help her park the car”.
He said that his first impression had been that she was leaving the scene, which was why he subsequently took a photograph of the number plate. Remember, the police didn’t think he was a relevant witness."
That's the police report produced by PC Gamble who gave verbal evidence in court that it may take someone 5 seconds to react. A car going 20mph covers quite a distance in that time, and presumably the coroner's findings relied on this report at least in part.
On the other hand, several eyewitnesses testified that she didn't initially stop after the collision but stopped at the traffic lights.
The coroners report, which interviewed the same witnesses at the time without giving them 3 years to change their evidence, says she stopped 30-35m from the accident.
On Regent St there are easily traffic lights within 300-400m of each other, so the distance someone can travel if they were contemplating a hit and run in their mind before coming across a traffic light is not going to be great. In any case, stopping 30-35m on is not an immediate stop, which would have stood out as significant if you had just witnessed a cyclist flying through the air after being hit by a car.
But according to Gamble it would take her another 5 seconds to realise she had hit a cyclist ( or pedestrian, or flying sack of potatoes, or whatever she imagined it was).
In any case this still really all misses the point that this should be a licensing issue, not a punishment issue. The question should not be 'is this woman guilty', but rather ' is she fit to be driving a car?' And the burden of showing that fitness should be on her, just as it is for any licensing of a potentially dangerous activity.
This is the best summation I have read of the frankly stupid and irresponsible legal situation revealed by such cases.
there's nothing to suggest anybody's evidence changed, but you just make up whatever you need to grind your axe.
from what I can make out - there's no cctv footage of the collision and all the winesses claim she didn't stop immediately, which would be consistent with her not seeing him, yet apparently there is cctv of her stopping immediately after the collision, despite the fact that there's no cctv of the collision
Pages