DaveP wrote:It's hard to credit isn't it?
The cyclist was legally lit up.
OR WAS HE????
First let me say that I do not doubt in the slightest, that Michael Mason was perfectly conspicuous to any following driver who was keeping a proper look-out. I am only trying to find an explanation for the reluctance of the Police to forward this case to the CPS for prosecution.
Martin Porter says: "The evidence was quite clear that he had the required lights" but he mentions only a "brightly flashing rear light fixed above a red reflector". I do not doubt that these devices performed perfectly well, but assuming the flashing light also had a steady mode (as virtually all flashing lights do) this light, as well as the reflector, is required to be made to an approved standard and marked accordingly.
Very few of the rear lamps now on the market have a valid approval mark. The situation is better with reflectors, but not when those reflectors form part of a non-approved lamp. So I think it is more than likely that this bike was not equipped with any approved rear lamp.
Pedal reflectors are also relevant for rear conspicuity and also required by law (unless the bike is more than 30 years old). But these are nearly always absent from the pedals of 'serious' cyclists.
So it seems to me more likely than not, that Michael Mason, in common with many other responsible and well-lit cyclists, whilst complying pretty well with the spirit of the law, was actually riding illegally.
Might the technical illegality of the rider's lighting equipment explain the reluctance of the Police to prosecute the driver?
I've tried to ask Martin Porter about this, but he has not replied.