Cyclist defence fund Michael Mason

[JimL]

The comments from the Metropolitan Police are pretty disgusting.

Here in Scotland I'm pretty sure every road death would be investigated and a report submitted to the Procurator Fiscal who decides on prosecution or not and I was under the impression that England had adopted that system some years ago.

[Bicycler]

Linked from the Road CC article, the Investigating Officer’s Report, explaining Met's reasons for not referring Mason case to CPS:
http://road.cc/sites/default/files/IOR% ... 0Mason.doc
gives a fair bit more detail. Whilst the helmet and clothing comments are disgusting it does indicate a lack of witnesses of the actual collision.

[Vorpal]

The CTC publication on this topic....

http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/20150319-met ... mason-case

[reohn2]

Isn't it obvious that the police regard to the law in total is appalling.
They're corrupt and political in total.
There's hardly a day's gone by this week when I haven't heard or read stories of corruption,incompetence,lies and deceit by high ranking police officers,Hillsborough,Cyril Smith and this case to name a few.
Fizzing would describe my feelings of disgust toward them and I have no faith whatsoever in them.

My heart goes out to the family of this unfortunate man and I feel for them,my family went through the same police incompetence when we lost our granddaughter some two and half years ago.They're despicable.

[iviehoff]

That news has hit me quite hard. A cyclist meeting all legal requirements can be hit from behind by a car and be to blame for his own death.

I despair.

It isn't news, it's been a common feature of the application of law for a long time. But no one is blaming the cyclist.

Let's try to understand where it comes from by looking at the kind of case where I think even you would call it an accident. If you were walking down the street (in Britain where extreme weather is uncommon) and suddenly a tornado or lightning strike caused masonry from an adjacent building to fall and injure you, I don't think you would have much luck pinning the blame for it on the owner of the building, unless it was evidently a dangerous structure, and I think you would accept it is reasonable to call this an unfortunate accident. (Nor would anyone say you were to blame for your own injury.) Thus, I think, we have to acknowledge that some outcomes are accidents, even when some other party (in this case the building owner whose building was inadequate to stand up to extreme weather) could in principle be found responsible. There's a limit to how much responsibility we can place on third parties to look after others, because otherwise life just becomes too costly if all houses have to be built to tornado standard in mild-climate Britain. This is essentially what has happened in the cyclist case - the other party has not been found negligent, not that the cyclist was themselves to blame. I'm not saying that's right, I'm just saying it's what happens.

This is a far from unique case. Cars have repeatedly killed cyclists from behind in foggy situations and when blinded by the sun and not been found to be negligent. There was the case where a woman overtook two cyclists on a blind bend, then perceived a car coming the other way, went close to the cyclists to avoid the car, but one cyclist, an inexperienced one, wobbled, fell off, and ended up dead under her car. A friend of my father was struck and badly injured by a car pulling out of a drive into the road in good visibility, but was able to argue no negligence similar to this case, and the police didn't prosecute.

This is of course quite wrong. People should have a duty of care to keep a watch for slower road users. Slow vulnerable road users are not so very unlikely an occurance like the tornado, thus people should be required to cater for their presence. And if they are there to be seen failing to see them because you were momentarily distracted is not an adequate excuse. They should have a duty of care to respond appropriately in fog and difficult sun conditions to ensure that they don't run down cyclists they may not be able to see. But most jury members are car drivers, and unless the law is rewritten explicitly to specify that situations such as these are negligence, juries will continue to acquit, and the police won't bother prosecuting because they know juries usually acquit.

Of course even if the law is improved as I suggest, it will occasionally remain the case that a cyclist will be proceeding blamelessly along the road and be killed without any blame being ascribed to the driver. If the driver suddenly collapsed with previously undiagnosed epilepsy, or an escaped cow suddenly ran out into the road, or something like that, it could still happen. Maybe a driver could even get away with blaming the bee that stung them.

[JimL]

Your analogy just isn't correct and the police are saying the cyclist was more to blame by not wearing hi-viz and helmet and by suggesting the cyclist must have moved suddenly and without looking into the path of the car( without any evidence). The driver is excused for not seeing the cyclist due to the sea of light making it difficult to see someone in front of her.It shouldn't be for the police to decide whether a jury will convict that should be for an independent prosecutor working for the public interest.

[Vorpal]

Let's try to understand where it comes from by looking at the kind of case where I think even you would call it an accident. If you were walking down the street (in Britain where extreme weather is uncommon) and suddenly a tornado or lightning strike caused masonry from an adjacent building to fall and injure you, I don't think you would have much luck pinning the blame for it on the owner of the building, unless it was evidently a dangerous structure, and I think you would accept it is reasonable to call this an unfortunate accident. (Nor would anyone say you were to blame for your own injury.) Thus, I think, we have to acknowledge that some outcomes are accidents, even when some other party (in this case the building owner whose building was inadequate to stand up to extreme weather) could in principle be found responsible. There's a limit to how much responsibility we can place on third parties to look after others, because otherwise life just becomes too costly if all houses have to be built to tornado standard in mild-climate Britain. This is essentially what has happened in the cyclist case - the other party has not been found negligent, not that the cyclist was themselves to blame. I'm not saying that's right, I'm just saying it's what happens.

Except that in your example, the building owner is still liable for the injury and his / her insurance would pay compensation unless the owner were shown to be negligent, for example, not having repaired masonry that was known to be in poor condition.

[thirdcrank]

I suspect we are already past the point of no return.

The safeguards, such as they were, provided by the opportunity to challenge a lack of a prosecution or a lack of effort in an investigation, at the coroner's inquest (always held with a jury in the case of a fatal traffic accident) has gone and I thought that was on the basis that the CPS were better able to make the decision. based on admissible evidence. That assumes that the CPS sees the evidence. If they do, they can point the police in the direction of further evidence which might be obtained. From something already linked on this thread or another related to this, it seems that a Chief Crown Prosecutor who was actively taking that approach was recently criticised in an inspection jointly undertaken by HM Inspectors of Constabulary and of the CPS. (As a point of info, the current Chief Inspector of the CPS is a former Chief Constable of Kent.)

That suggests to me that the authorities consider that the decision on whether or not to submit a file for consideration should lie with the police without any formal review of the decision. There has been a trend in recent years that when police officers are given the power to exercise a quasi-judicial function, the rank of the officer is prescribed. So, the power to authorise a search of premises including a dwelling, issuing a search warrant in all but name, is in most circumstances restricted to officers of at least the rank of inspector. As the decision not to refer a file to the CPS isn't formally catered for in legislation, no level for the decisionmaking is specified. Not necessarily a big deal because putting braid round somebody's neb doesn't automatically make them better at their job. OTOH, the knowledge that a file of evidence will be reviewed by senior officers, CPS, HM Coroner, does tend to give an incentive to do the best possible job. And as less priority has been given to "roads policing" so the number of officers with relevant experience, especially at more senior level has fallen sharply.

[Graham]

I suspect we are already past the point of no return.

. . . Meaning that the CPS definitely won't proceed with a prosecution ?

Only leaving the possibilities of a private prosecution OR no further action ??

[Bicycler]

In truth I was using the word "blame" lazily as I see it as part of a broader victim blaming culture. Ivan is quite right, the police here are not blaming Mr Mason for his death but assessing the possibility of a successful prosecution. In truth, given the current faith in bin man jackets and plastic hats they are probably right that his attire alters the probability of that. As with other posters though, I thought that assessment was the CPS's job

Again I agree with Ivan we need the law to be rewritten. The current offences of careless and dangerous driving are too difficult to prosecute.

[iviehoff]

Your analogy just isn't correct and the police are saying the cyclist was more to blame by not wearing hi-viz and helmet and by suggesting the cyclist must have moved suddenly and without looking into the path of the car( without any evidence). The driver is excused for not seeing the cyclist due to the sea of light making it difficult to see someone in front of her.It shouldn't be for the police to decide whether a jury will convict that should be for an independent prosecutor working for the public interest.

My apologies, I was working from my earlier memories of the case, and I didn't read the latest document until now. My memory was that there were witnesses saying Mr Mason was perfectly visible and the driver had no excuse for overlooking him. Maybe I'm confusing that with another case, because nothing like that is in these latest papers.

Now I have read it, I wouldn't put a slightly different slant on your interpretation. Things such as absence of helmet are recorded as facts, but it is not evident from the document they are material to the decision. It is not completely clear from the narrative which are the decisive facts in the decision. The helmet should not have been a decisive fact.

But I would agree that the 2 main facts that ought to have been relevant (given legal precedent, not personal view) are the conclusion the cyclist "must have" deviated to the right and the "sea of light" making it difficult to see the cyclist's lights. The first fact may have been decisive on its own. If a cyclist suddenly moves to the right oblivious of moving into the path of a 30mph car who could not reasonable slow down in time, then that is misadventure. It seems we have no evidence of this.

I find the "sea of light" argument, offered by an independent witness, very odd. I frequently cycle on busy roads in central London in the dark throughout the winter (though I mostly try to avoid it, but short sections of busy road are hard to avoid without extended detours) and I generally find cyclist lights very distinctive: I have never experienced a "sea of lights" confusing me as to what I am looking at, even at big multilane junctions. I have on a couple of occasions had trouble seeing things because one road user's lights were dazzling me (sadly on rare occasion a cyclist), but that is quite different and not alleged here. But what I have noticed though is that some cyclists ride with rubbish lights, or with nearly flat batteries, or with a coat overhanging their light: when they do so, if they are additionally wearing dark clothing, they are easily overlooked. We are not told in detail about Mr Mason's lights. If they were indeed poor lights, then the fact of him wearing dark clothing would, from my own experience of cycling around central London, make him hard to spot, whether on a busy road or a lightly trafficked one. I have several times nearly collided with other cyclists through being unable to see them in such circumstances. Maybe the witness was saying that Mr Mason's lights were poor, but if so he chose a rather poor and unclear way of saying it.

[thirdcrank]

I suspect we are already past the point of no return.

. . . Meaning that the CPS definitely won't proceed with a prosecution ?

Only leaving the possibilities of a private prosecution OR no further action ??

Sorry that I wasn't more clear what I meant.

I've posted quite a bit on the original Michael Mason thread (it's even possible that I started it, after reading the comments by Martin Porter on his blog.)

I've tried to separate the decision in this specific case from the more general policy about the submission of "fatal" files to the CPS for a decision or further advice. When I said "past the point of no return" I meant that it had become officially accepted that the police could file an investigation without reference to anybody else.

As for the present case, and in the absence of compelling new evidence, it's hard to see how a prosecution of the driver could now be launched. In other words, we are past the point of no return here as well.

I've not read the file that's recently been linked and unless something happens to spark my interest, I don't intend to do so. The comments of other posters refer to what seem to be comments by the investigator(s) which are not admissible evidence for a prosecution, but which would inevitably be raised at every opportunity by the defence. Let's remember, unless I've missed something here, we are not discussing a file submitted with a view to a decision on prosecution, but one submitted largely with the purpose of justifying no file having been submitted in the first place.

[AlaninWales]

Comments are all over the 'web now anyway.

Let's go through those "facts" which justify not prosecuting the driver:

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.

Apart from driving at a speed where she could not stop in the distance she could see to be clear (not noticing someone in front of you is not seeing the road is clear).

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.

However, he was entitled to move within his lane and any competent or careful driver should have seen him and taken the possibility of his moving within the lane into account. Ms Purcell by her own evidence did not see him and was therefore not driving competently nor carefully.

Mr Mason was not wearing a protective helmet (cause of death given as a head injury)

Irrelevant and should not be included in this report as it has the possibility of making those ignorant of the law (and basic physics) believe it to be relevant.

or any high visibility clothing, he was wearing dark clothing.

Irrelevant as Mr Mason was using lights (as required by law) and was visible to a large number of witnesses; his clothing did not make him invisible and a careful and competent driver would have seen him.

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.

This appears to be suggesting that the legal requirement for lights on bicycles is insufficient? Perhaps it is suggesting we should all be engaging in 'light wars' and dazzling other road users with our lights.
Whatever, there were a number of witnesses who did see Mr Mason amongst the "numerous other lights" and any careful and competent driver who finds themselves dazzled by (e.g.) the profusion of lights will slow down to be sure that it is possible to stop within the distance seen to be clear (not noticing someone in front of you is not seeing the road is clear).

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

So neither vehicle was at fault.

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

So she should have seen Mr Mason (as did numerous witnesses) had she been driving with proper care and attention. Given the facts that he was visible and she says that she did not see him despite good eyesight eliminates two possibilities: Once the obvious is eliminated, whatever is left must be the conclusion: Such as a lack of attention.

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.

Strange that this one witness, clearly at odds with all other evidence, is the only one quoted: This appears to be an attempt to associate any different conclusion with an unreliable statement, which is a particularly poor use of logic.

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.

Indeed it is irrelevant since had he not been driven into by Ms Purcell, Mr Mason would still be alive.

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

Failure to take proper care when driving a motor vehicle is not the same as deliberately driving a motor vehicle at someone. I am not aware that anyone has suggested this was a deliberate act and this statement is another irrelevancy. However to drive in a manner that you cannot stop within the distance you can see to be clear is negligent, as is failure to look out for other road users.

[Bicycler]

Re: the helmet issue and its (ir)relevance. I have no idea what is acceptable in criminal trials. Could someone shed some light? Would the defence be allowed to argue that someone is not guilty of causing death by ..... driving because the deceased ought to have worn something which would have prevented the collision from resulting in his death? If that would be permissible then, given that everyone knows how helmets save lives, it is not as irrelevant to a successful prosecution as we might want it to be.

[Tonyf33]

Re: the helmet issue and its (ir)relevance. I have no idea what is acceptable in criminal trials. Could someone shed some light? Would the defence be allowed to argue that someone is not guilty of causing death by ..... driving because the deceased ought to have worn something which would have prevented the collision from resulting in his death? If that would be permissible then, given that everyone knows how helmets save lives, it is not as irrelevant to a successful prosecution as we might want it to be.

Aside from the zero evidence to support that a helmet would have worked (something seems to allude all the pro helmet lot) by the same definition one would have to apply the same rule in every other walk of life, that helmets get brought up in courts/compo etc. with regard to cycling is disgusting in itself, no other activity is subjected to the same bias and wilful ignorance. It's truly sickening and all because of the 'if one life is saved' brigade..