Cyclist defence fund Michael Mason

[Psamathe]

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.

I wonder if a car rear-end provides more evidence in that there will be damage to areas of each vehicle providing information as to the nature of the collision (e.g. on a rear wing/front wing, straight on number plates meeting, etc.) and (in many situations) the drivers will normally stop where they are and get out, get their smartphones out and start taking pictures (for many years before the advent of smartphones/digital cameras I used to carry a disposable film camera in my car the whole time - though never needed it).

Ian

[Vorpal]

The police hardly examine the evidence, unless there is a death, and even then it seems that they may not be as thorough as they once were. This is anecdotal, but I doubt that similar cases were dealt with differently. I knew someone (haven't seen him in more than 10 years) who was the first shunt in a two or three car shunt on the A12. He thought it was an insurance scam accident, or an error on the part of the driver in front. He *said* that the driver in front changed lanes, pulled in front of him with less than a car length to spare, then slammed on the brakes. The police said that in the traffic conditions (heavy, London bound traffic, approaching Brentwood) this was predictable behaviour and there was no reason to look for fault with the driver of the front car. The person considered at fault was sent on a driver education course in lieu of points, and his insurance had to pay for the damage to all involved vehicles.

[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.

I wonder if a car rear-end provides more evidence in that there will be damage to areas of each vehicle providing information as to the nature of the collision (e.g. on a rear wing/front wing, straight on number plates meeting, etc.) and (in many situations) the drivers will normally stop where they are and get out, get their smartphones out and start taking pictures (for many years before the advent of smartphones/digital cameras I used to carry a disposable film camera in my car the whole time - though never needed it).

Ian

I believe in the OP case the bike was hit squarely from behind and point of impact was directly in front of the driver ie; off side front bumper.

[karlt]

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.

That's liability - responsibility in a civil case. Where damages are awarded and what insurance pays out on. The standard of proof here is "more likely than not".

In a criminal case, such as we're talking about here, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. The standard of proof here is "beyond all reasonable doubt".

There seems to be a lot of confusion in people's minds about these two very separate and distinct aspects to the legal system.

[pwa]

In reply to Vorpal's comment that when a vehicle runs into the back of another it is generally assumed that the following vehicle is to blame, I agree that this also applies when the "vehicle" hit is a cyclist. But there are exceptions even when it is two cars involved, especially if the vehicle in front has suddenly pulled out into the path of the other vehicle. It happens. I was driving a small van about 20 years ago and managed to drive into the back of a car that had just pulled out into my path as I drove at about 20mph. I had barely time to react. The car nipped out quickly and I hit its right side rear corner as it straightened up. The nudge my van gave it straightened it up further, making it look to any passer by that I had shunted a car that was slowing down. Fortunately the car driver was apologetic and we had a very civilised conversation and all was well. But my point is that the following vehicle is not automatically to blame.

[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.

That's liability - responsibility in a civil case. Where damages are awarded and what insurance pays out on. The standard of proof here is "more likely than not".

In a criminal case, such as we're talking about here, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. The standard of proof here is "beyond all reasonable doubt".

There seems to be a lot of confusion in people's minds about these two very separate and distinct aspects to the legal system.

I understand the distinction. And I provided an example in my following post, where someone was given the opportunity to take a driver eudcation course in lieu of points (or criminal prosecution). I suppose that it is possible that if a case had gone to court my acquaintance would have been found not guilty. But he was not given that opportunity.

[[XAP]Bob]

There is also a distinction between "reasonable" doubt and "all" doubt. And I suspect that juries are leaning towards "all" doubt because they are bombarded in the media with a representation of cyclists as weaving, RLJing scofflaws...

[Bicycler]

I suppose that it is possible that if a case had gone to court my acquaintance would have been found not guilty. But he was not given that opportunity.

Surely you always have the opportunity to go to court and plead not guilty? I take it he chose not to do so?

[Vorpal]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. My acquaintance opted for a course (apprently) because he was led to believe that a prosecution was likely to be successful, despite his assertion that the driver in front had caused the shunt. IIRC, he said that he was told that he had a choice between a fine and points, or a driver awareness course. I don't of course, know what the police officer said to him, which is much more likely to have been along the lines of 'we can prosecute you, which is likely to result in a fine and points on your licence or you can enrol in a driver awareness course...'

[Tonyf33]

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.

That's liability - responsibility in a civil case. Where damages are awarded and what insurance pays out on. The standard of proof here is "more likely than not".

In a criminal case, such as we're talking about here, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. The standard of proof here is "beyond all reasonable doubt".

There seems to be a lot of confusion in people's minds about these two very separate and distinct aspects to the legal system.

Define reasonable, the BARD statement crops up and people/jurists fail to understand what that actually means. is it 'reasonable' from the evidence that the driver was not looking/was distracted, EVERYONE else saw Mr Mason, that is a hard fact, the CCTV picked up Mr Mason, another fact, MR mason was riding legally, another fact, the driver drove directly into the rear of Mr Mason, another fact. It is wholly UNREASONABLE to assume the driver could not have seen him or being unable to avoid the collision given the facts unless their standard of driving was far below that of a competent driver..that is perfectly clear AND reasonable except to the police..sorry judge and jurors

[thirdcrank]

The police hardly examine the evidence, unless there is a death, and even then it seems that they may not be as thorough as they once were. ...(My emphasis)

The first bit of that (highlighted in red) is undoubtedly true. The following from the CPS, and earlier versions of it were taken as the cue to stop bothering. "Minor collision" can cover almost anything.

It will not necessarily be appropriate to prosecute every case where a minor collision occurs e.g. where the incident is of a type that involves minimal carelessness which may occur when parking a vehicle or in traffic queues. The extent of any damage does not matter in such cases; it is the extent of the driving error. Prosecutors should ensure that proceedings are not conducted for the sake of settling questions of liability for the benefit of individual drivers or insurance companies.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road ... g/#content

When it eventually became an (ACPO?) policy to concentrate on fatals and near fatals (KSI) the rationale was that this would allow greater resources to be concentrated on the most serious cases. I've no first-hand knowledge about the bit in blue. Cases are reported where considerable efforts seem to have been made to obtain evidence such as phone records. OTOH, there are have been allegations that some investigations were inadequate. eg the death of Eilidh Cairns. There have been well-documented allegations that serious injuries have been recorded as "slight," presumably to reduce the need for investigations.

I'm bemused as to why the case which prompted this thread was not referred to the CPS. When the evidence has been properly recorded, eg witness statements and vehicle examiners' reports, it's hardly a big deal to assemble it into a file and submit it. Apart from anything else, it's a good way of passing on the onus of making the decision. There seem to have been several "U-turns" in this case, to the extent that when I read the relevant article on the CTC www, somebody seemed to be welcoming the wrong "U-turn."

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

As has previously been linked, a Chief Crown Prosecutor was recently officially criticised for insisting on seeing all "fatal" files in their area. A lot seems to depend on whether a decision not to charge somebody amounts to a "charging decision." There's room for clarification.

[gaz]

CDF's private prosecution is now set to proceed: http://www.cyclinguk.org/news/20160803- ... mason-case

[thirdcrank]

Since this thread was last active, Martin Porter QC's own private prosecution has resulted in an acquittal and he has written on his "Cycling Silk" blog at some length about the case and the experience he gained. I fear that the bit I've qioted below might be relevant in any case like this where a private prosecution is launched when the police have decided not to pursue the matter.

... (the defendant) said in his evidence that the police had told him "Don’t worry about it, there’s nothing there". Strictly the opinion of the police on the matter is not admissible evidence at all but it was relied upon very heavily by the Defendant to an extent I had not foreseen. I have noticed shades of this in other cases where the police decided against prosecution even if a public prosecution nevertheless took place thereafter. ...

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/

In the present case, the defence will presumably point out that not only did the police decide there was no case, the inquest went along with that.

BTW there's been nothing on that blog for several months now. Is that because he's move to some other form of social media or have his learned friends been a bit unfriendly over his attack on trial by jury?

[Pete Owens]

The prosecution should be much much easier in this case.

First it is a lower bar to prove caeless rather than dangerous driving.
Second there is a undisputed victim.

I always though Martin Porter was a bit ambitious to go for dangerous driving (though the logic was impecable). It was easy for the defence to push the line that he had a bee in his bonnet - and they didn't actually hit him. How, much clearance to give to a cyclist is a matter of subjective judgement - so room for reasonable doubt. Driving straight into the back of someone is an objective fact.

[Tonyf33]

That it's careless driving is in itself an insult of disgusting proportions, by definition killing a human being with a weapon that in the hands of certain types kills thousands every year should mean dangerous is the barest minimum.
That jury's won't convict should also mean changing the law and cases like this (based on motoring standard) be taken out of the hands of such and actual driving experts decide what standard of driving was shown.
I don't imagine an onlooker saying oh, that was careless having driven over an innocent person killing them in the process.
Let's hope that the CPS don't have anything to do with the prosecution because they simply don't have a clue when it comes to getting killers behind bars