Cyclist defence fund Michael Mason

[MartinC]

The rationale presented by the police in their rejection of the complaint is inconsistent and doesn't withstand any forensic scrutiny.

They claim that the driver couldn't be expected to see (i.e. observe and judge speed, position) the cyclist amongst the other lights in the street but also claim that the evidence of other witnesses as to the cyclists road position is reliable. You can't have it both ways.

[pwa]

My reading of the police report is that there is no firm evidence to rule out the possibility that Mr. Mason veered to the right suddenly, requiring the driver to take rapid evasive action. In this scenario his inconspicuous clothing would not have helped the driver to spot his manoeuvre quickly enough. What might have led Mr. Mason to veer out is unknown (if it did happen) but it could be something as simple as a cat running out into the road. We don't know that he veered out at all, but we don't know that he didn't. We don't know that he didn't move out in the usual "safe" manner, but we don't know that he did.

And sadly, not knowing must mean that there is no conviction. I know some think differently, but I would not want to have guilt presumed until innocence is proved.

[MartinC]

My reading of the police report is that there is no firm evidence to rule out the possibility that Mr. Mason veered to the right suddenly, requiring the driver to take rapid evasive action. In this scenario his inconspicuous clothing would not have helped the driver to spot his manoeuvre quickly enough. What might have led Mr. Mason to veer out is unknown (if it did happen) but it could be something as simple as a cat running out into the road. We don't know that he veered out at all, but we don't know that he didn't. We don't know that he didn't move out in the usual "safe" manner, but we don't know that he did.

And sadly, not knowing must mean that there is no conviction. I know some think differently, but I would not want to have guilt presumed until innocence is proved.

Yebbut, no one's arguing for a conviction just that the de facto evidence that a driver failed to see a cyclist and drove into them causing their death merits the issue being tested in a court.

[Vorpal]

Or even that the decision of whether to prosecute should be taken by CPS.

[Psamathe]

I don't know enough about the case nor the law to comment on this particular tragedy.

But (talking in a general context), it does seem that significant action should be taken against the driver. Either the driver did or did not see the cyclist. If they did not see the cyclist (e.g. sun in their eyes, busy on the phone, too many legally light other bikes, etc.) then they should not have been moving. To continue driving when you cannot see if/what you are going to hit/crush must make you guilty of one or more motoring offences. If the driver did see the cyclist and the cyclist was riding legally (i.e. not RLJ'ing, etc.) then hitting them must make the driver guilty of one or more motoring offences.

It seems to me that in such instances it is more a question of what books get thrown at then rather than if the case is pursued at all.

Ian

[TonyR]

My reading of the police report is that there is no firm evidence to rule out the possibility that Mr. Mason veered to the right suddenly, requiring the driver to take rapid evasive action.

Its known as a SWISS (pronounced swizz) - Single Witness Suicide Swerve. Its the claimed cause of all cyclist deaths where the driver is the only living witness.

[horizon]

What might have led Mr. Mason to veer out is unknown (if it did happen) but it could be something as simple as a cat running out into the road. We don't know that he veered out at all, but we don't know that he didn't. We don't know that he didn't move out in the usual "safe" manner, but we don't know that he did.

And sadly, not knowing must mean that there is no conviction. I know some think differently, but I would not want to have guilt presumed until innocence is proved.

As you rightly point out, the right freely to kill another human being in the UK is reserved for motorists. AFAIK there is no other person in the UK that has the right to punish someone by death should they err. Motorists really believe this (and the courts and police back them up). Only the Highway Code (that pesky little book) stands in their way and squeaks that motorists should slow down when passing vulnerable road users.

When I pass a cyclist when I'm driving I allow for cats and potholes, even just plain stupidity. And I allow for the swerve. 99% of motorists don’t, as they know that they are entitled freely to kill. I know this all the time from my cycling and the risks that drivers take with my life.

My opinion of motorists falls further after each cycle ride. That they then have the effrontery to stand up in court and say “The cyclist made a mistake and I was therefore within my right to kill them - that will be a lesson they will not have to learn again!”

What a wonderful country we live in.

[reohn2]

Horizon
Spot on!

IMO&E cyclists in the UK are non people,they're looked upon as nothing deserving of no attention or courtesy by a significant minority of drivers,that would be bad enough in itself,but we also are in the position that the police and courts are of the same opinion.
That is a terrible situation for cyclists in a modern so called civilised society.
It's sad and it's disgusting,but it's the truth,one only has to look at the sentences handed down by courts in the unlikely event of a conviction should a case ever get that far.
Also the flimsiest of excuses for causing the death of another human being vehiclicide(new word but I think it'll catch on ),in one such case a driver claiming a cyclist hopped of the curb in front of his vehicle when there was no footpath on that stretch of road.
Other's recently reported that the sun was in the driver's eyes,cases where their driving was clearly below any kind of standard as to be completely unbelievable when such people are found not guilty.

As I drive and ride around a cursory observation confirms lots of illegal vehicles and illegal driving,certainly upward of 10% and possibly as much as 20%,illegal lights,number plates,speeding,illegal parking,etc,etc.Plus the number one culprit,mobile phone use whilst driving,an act so dangerous as to rank up there with D&D.
It seems to me law enforcement in this country with regard motorists(if not in total) is so lenient as to be all but blind,so is it any wonder drivers think they can quite literally get away with murder?

I'm also of the opinion that policing is now so politicised as to be all but inept and has totally lost it's effectiveness.


What a wonderful country we live in indeed!

[Tonyf33]

My reading of the police report is that there is no firm evidence to rule out the possibility that Mr. Mason veered to the right suddenly, requiring the driver to take rapid evasive action. In this scenario his inconspicuous clothing would not have helped the driver to spot his manoeuvre quickly enough. What might have led Mr. Mason to veer out is unknown (if it did happen) but it could be something as simple as a cat running out into the road. We don't know that he veered out at all, but we don't know that he didn't. We don't know that he didn't move out in the usual "safe" manner, but we don't know that he did.

Where's the evidence to support that theory?

The police have basically made judgments on if, buts and unproved theories, simple actual facts have being overlooked as being unimportant/irrelevant. On top of that in exactly the same scenario with other road users there would be no 'get out clause' offered up as there couldn't possibly be anything 'reasonable' to excuse the culprit

[kwackers]

Where's the evidence to support that theory?

The police have basically made judgments on if, buts and unproved theories, simple actual facts have being overlooked as being unimportant/irrelevant. On top of that in exactly the same scenario with other road users there would be no 'get out clause' offered up as there couldn't possibly be anything 'reasonable' to excuse the culprit

This case and the other involving the young lad and the texting driver are imo a good reason as to why camera's are a good idea. In both cases they'd demonstrate exactly what happened.

Not that it excuses what seems to me like someone driving down a road without a clue what's happening in front of her. I can spot a guy in black in an urban environment a few hundred yards away no problem. But it seems we're heading down a path whereby unless you've ticked every box then any half wit can kill you no questions asked.

[pwa]

My "scenario" was just one example of a way in which the driver may have not been to blame. I can just as easily imagine how the driver could be to blame, We just don't seem to have enough to be sure.

I don't accept that a driver running into the back of a cyclist must always be to blame. Usually, probably, but not always. I have seen cyclists make sudden swerves into traffic, testing the ability of a driver to react. Even a careful driver can sometimes have a close call (or worse) because of someone unexpectedly moving out. Again, I don't have any evidence that this is what happened here, but without good witness statements we are left with too little to take this further. I too find that frustrating.

[Vorpal]

When a car hits another from behind, the burden of proof is on the driver in control of the rear vehicle. Because we generally assume that if a driver cannot stop in time s/he was following too closely or distracted. I cannot see why this does not apply when a car hits a cyclist.

[reohn2]

When a car hits another from behind, the burden of proof is on the driver in control of the rear vehicle. Because we generally assume that if a driver cannot stop in time s/he was following too closely or distracted. I cannot see why this does not apply when a car hits a cyclist.

Exactly!
And on other threads there are lots of complaints of drivers overtaking far too close,amongst other intimidating and dangerous manoeuvres.
The whole problem with a significant minority of drivers is that they don't see a bicycle as a valid vehicle and so needn't to be treated as such.
That is the problem IMHO.
Bicycles are slow two wheeled vehicles that wobble and change course with their lane due to any amount of reasons,potholes,pedestrians or animals stepping out in front of them,road debris such as gravel,broken glass,hedge clippings,roadkill,etc,all of which are hazardous to a cyclist and need to be negociated around ,not over as is the case with cars and bigger vehicles.
Also there's a complete lack of understanding by such drivers why cyclists need to ride away from the curb and need to ride in the centre of the lane,or in some circumstances on the outside of the lane.
Cyclist are seen by some motorists as a hindrance to their forward progress,it's borne out of arrogance,impatience and self preference,bolstered by their belief that they have more right to the road than cyclists.
The worst thing is that the authorities,government,police,etc,are doing nothing to change that opinion,either by enforcement of the law or education of the ignorant drivers who are growing in number IMHO.

[pete75]

When a car hits another from behind, the burden of proof is on the driver in control of the rear vehicle. Because we generally assume that if a driver cannot stop in time s/he was following too closely or distracted. I cannot see why this does not apply when a car hits a cyclist.

Of course it should. Mind you I had a cyclist run into the back of my truck last week. On a country lane he appeared to be draughting me at about 25 mph. Herd of deer started jumping hedge onto the road I hit the brakes hard, stopped but he didn't.

[thirdcrank]

More from the CPS guidance.

If the evidence is capable of proving how an incident occurred (e.g. a collision), the case can be put on the basis that there is a very strong inference that the defendant was driving below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver.

In the absence of any explanation by the defendant as to the cause of the collision, a court may infer that the offence was committed, but where the defendant does provide an explanation for the collision, however unlikely, you will have to consider whether to proceed.

The civil law doctrine of res ipsa loquitur [the thing speaks for itself] has no direct application to the criminal law. (But see Wilkinsons at para 5.52):


"the fact that res ipsa loquitor has no application to criminal law does not mean that the prosecution have to negative every possible explanation of a defendant before he can be convicted of careless driving where the facts at the scene of an accident are such that, in the absence of any explanation by the defendant, a court can have no alternative but to convict"

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road ... iving/#a30

The reality is that over the last three decades or so, this principle, or a version of it, has been used as a reason for not prosecuting drivers shunting the vehicle in front.

(edited to remove a bit of text that I did not intend to include.)