2014-02-25 - Rider Down/Fatality, 309 Regent Street

An independent witness at the scene (Neil TREVITHICK) stated that with the sea of brake lights, flashing lights and movement it would be difficult for a driver to pick out anything.

Supposition from a random member of the public. Regent Street is very well lit. MrMason's lights were legal.

Mr MASON was not wearing a cycle helmet, the cause of death being head injury.

A 69 year old man was hit by a ton of metal from behind. A helmet is of no practical benefit at that speed.

CCTV recovered from 2 independent venues highlighted that Ms PURCELL’S vehicle was travelling at an appropriate speed. This is corroborated by the minor damage caused to the vehicle after impact.

The vehicle collided with the bike from behind. The front of the car hit the rear wheel, a rubber tyre filled with air. There wouldn't be significant damage to the car.

Whilst there was always debate as to whether Mr MASON was there to be seen, there was no argument, in my opinion, as to Ms PURCELL’S vehicle being visible.

Relevance? Mr Mason was hit from behind, the visibility of the car would not be a factor.

Mr Michael Mason was in collision with the Nissan Juke.

It might be mere semantics, but it was indisputably the other way round.

There are no witnesses that describe the driver taking any action that would cause the collision.

Mr Suber Abdijarim's evidence was that the Nissan was traveling above the speed limit.

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.

Pure supposition. If anything, surely the dark clothes would stand out against a background of so many lights?

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.

Disingenuous. At the point of impact, or immediately afterwards, all the witnesses saw the car stop. Mr Adijarim is surely referring to the moments prior to the car hitting Mr Mason.

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.

Critical, I would say, because it would mean that Ms Purcell didn't immediately stop even after hitting Mr Mason.

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.

Yes there is. Every other witness clearly saw Mr Mason. Ms Purcell was unable to explain why she did not.

there is no evidence available to show Ms Purcell did nothing more than act as a careful and competent driver and that this incident was nothing more than a tragic accident.

There is the unchallenged fact that she failed to notice a cyclist who was behaving entirely legally and had fulfilled all legal obligations.

DS EDWARDS suggested that it would be cruel to have a member of the public charged with either a criminal or traffic offence knowing they were innocent

It is not the job of the police to decide innocence.

DI Mason offers a litany of excuses and contradicts himself. It stinks.