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

I don't understand how the relatives can stay so calm at these kind of injustices.
Especially as in this case they've been fighting it long and hard, against not just the blind driver but the authorities too.

Fuck

So it is fine to crash into a clearly visible cyclist in front of you.

Lets hope and pray these violent, senseless deaths happen to the loved ones of those that make these heartless, selfish decisions. It is the only way.

It shouldn't be left to juries to decide these kind of cases they consistently return the wrong verdicts.

17 minutes of deliberation. I can't believe that's enough to even consider the facts of the case, let alone interpret them and arrive at a verdict.

Is it a sign there has been an almighty mess-up, or

But let see what a jury of her motoring peers think..........

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37307463

It can take me 17 minutes to decide what to have for breakfast. Unbelievable.
Is there anywhere the real detail of a case like this can be seen? It must be on CCTV so it must be relatively clear how the incident unfolded.

There some information here

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/inquest-into-death-of-michael-mason.html?m=1

Her defence seamed to be "I don't see anything" and to a jury of motorist that's fine case closed. It's a case that should send chills down the spine of anybody that does travel in a motor vehicle all the time.

How much does general cyclist behaviour affect these outcomes?

If your wearing hi viz and a helmet the defence solicitors will have less reasons to blame the victim But that's about it.

Or do you mean the collective guilt thing, where the jury members once saw a cyclist on a pavement so fuckum ?

this case has really put a nice big official stamp on my general perception of how the UK establishment treats cyclists.

Having already been hit by the car (from behind on a very clear day by a driver who was arrested at the scene based on witness testimony he was driving recklessly but not taken to court or penalised in any way) I've been quite aware of the failings of the legal system and put it down to lack of resources, i.e I didn't die and wasn't left with life changing physical injuries so they were less inclined to spend money on a prosecution.

This case actually just shows there's a political and cultural bias that won't be changed in my lifetime and that every time you go for a ride you have to accept that if anything happens and you get killed, no matter how gratuitously stupid and avoidable the circumstances are, that your family and friends could be left in the same position as Mr Mason's.

It's disgusting and I want to move to a country like the Netherlands with automatic driver responsibility for accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists, if the UK had the same the roads would be far far safer.

Rant over. RIP Mr Mason.

I'm right there with you, but it's worth saying presumed liability is just for civil cases, even in the Netherlands.

Yeah, absolutely but it still seems to ingrain an idea of responsibility and more importantly liability that deters people from this whole idea of SMIDSY that in the UK has turned into a universal defence clause for every shade of incompetence under the sun when in charge of a potentially lethal machine. The fact is-and as cities like Paris or Rotterdam show-there is absolutely no need for so many cyclists to die on the roads, and when the SMIDSY route is taken away people will just have to own their own shit behaviour rather than have the courts whitewash their consciences for them.

People here seem more concerned about their insurance premiums than human life anyway so perhaps it would be more effective too.

presumed liability is putting it simply, even if the UK have that, will it make a difference?

Keys is education, always had been, Spain for instance even show how to overtake cyclists on tv as part of the local government safety scheme.

we need change .... electoral reform please

Cynically, I think the only way we will get the law changed is if we stop it being about cyclists - if the argument is about how careless driving can kill and maim anyone, and focuses as much on pedestrians as on cyclists, then I think there's maybe a chance of overcoming the anti-cyclist bias. But so long as it's just about cyclists, people will switch off.

A legal person's opinion on crowdfunded prosecutions (includes an insight into CPS's reluctance to originally prosecute).

Ms Purcell had been travelling within the 30mph speed limit. so it all hinged on that !

Given that it's now acceptable to not see a cyclist with lights, on a well light road. Can we assume that had Gail been approaching a pedestrian crossing on a red light with 20 school children crossing the road and she'd hit and killed them all the outcome would have been the same. There no reason why not, the red light of a pedestrian cross could just as easily be lost on a busy street.

It's amazing how low we set the bar for motorists to go blindly about there business.

That and the lack of evidence - seemingly her admissions by the side of the road and the obvious signs of the collision on her vehicle were not enough.

Pretty poor show that her driving ticked the 'responsible' box, on the basis that she wasn't breaking the speed limit, speaks volumes for the idiocy of the law. It sets a worry precedent for future prosecutions, crowd-funded or otherwise.

.

http://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/duncandollimore/mason-verdict

In their evidence, six of the witnesses made reference either to Ms
Purcell continuing after the collision, an initial impression that
this was a hit and run, or that she was not intending to stop. She did
stop, but you might think that her reaction to the event would be
something to consider when examining her awareness of her
surroundings, and whether or not she had been or was distracted.

One of the four witnesses the police considered irrelevant gave
evidence that Ms Purcell’s car continued up Regent Street, that he ran
up the street after the car which was stopped at the lights, and
“stood in front of the car and held out my hand and asked the driver
to stop and pull over – I indicated which way to turn the wheel to
help her park the car”.

He said that his first impression had been that she was leaving the
scene, which was why he subsequently took a photograph of the number
plate. Remember, the police didn’t think he was a relevant witness.

Other witnesses referred variously to the car moving on, thinking
initially it may have been a hit and run, and the car pulling up at or
through the lights, suggesting a somewhat delayed reaction to the
thing which she heard but did not see, but which caused a dent in her
car bonnet.

This has really gotten under my skin.

I really can't understand how this woman has been let off the hook for this, nor the legal mechanisms that have facilitated it.

There is something profoundly wrong with any system that creates this kind of injustice.

Genuinely got a cold sweat on after reading that and clicking through to read other absurd things.
System needs some big changes.