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

What a disgrace.

I do not know if Mrs Purcell is to blame or not but I think it is essential that her driving behaviour is examined and tested in a court of law.

I do struggle with this.

I'm certain it's right that the police should have to prove guilt, not a citizen have to prove innocence. That's quite a fundamental thing. And I know that practically speaking not every single 'accident' can be sent to court to determine culpability. But these situations feel different somehow. Perhaps I'm biased because I ride a bike, or because I feel society ought to seek to protect the vulnerable from the powerful, but I somehow feel that if there is reasonable doubt that Mr Mason caused his own death then the case should be heard.

The officer seems to cite his lack of helmet and hi-vis and the fact that the road was busy with other lights as his reasons for not prosecuting. Since none of those things is a concern of traffic law I'm not sure how that's enough.

I'm going to ponder this further tonight and decide whether to donate in the morning. At the moment I think I will.

Some interesting comments on decisions to prosecute in road traffic cases from the Cycling Silk blog. It's not directly linked to this case (although the preceding post is a summary of the inquest) but has some relation.

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

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.

Wrong though this decision seems, I very much doubt that this will be the end of the matter, and people will continue in their efforts to obtain judicial redress for Mr Mason and his bereaved family.

The officer seems to cite his lack of helmet and hi-vis and the fact that the road was busy with other lights as his reasons for not prosecuting. Since none of those things is a concern of traffic law I'm not sure how that's enough.

Remember that we live in a country that has a common law system based to an extent on precedent. Every time this stuff gets brought up in court, there is a small chance of it ingraining itself further. It already corresponds to popular superstition common sense widely-held prejudices that 'cyclists bring it on themselves', so why could it not, at some point, enter law that cyclists have to wear helmets and hi-viz?

there is no evidence available to show Ms Purcell did nothing more
than act as a careful and competent driver

Except, you know, killing a cyclist.

*"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."

"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 is infuriating. Driving a car is a precious luxury, not a right, picking out hazards amongst the noise is an essential part of earning the right to drive. If you can't cope with the sea of lights then you're by definition not safe on the roads.

It makes me seethe. I can't begin to imagine how the relatives and loved-ones of Michael Mason must feel.

You really did a great job of picking that whole account apart - nice one! (This sounds sarcastic but I obviously mean it sincerely)

The single witness that matters is the driver of the car. She told the Coroner's court that she didn't see the cyclist until after she had run into him, immediately in front of the driver's side of the car. The police consider that

"there is no evidence available to show Ms Purcell did nothing more than act as a careful and competent driver"

Speculation deleted

Not relevant and not appropriate to the rider down forum.

A judge at Westminster Magistrates Court has just given the go-ahead for the private prosecution to proceed at Crown Court:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/motorist-speeding-when-she-hit-cyclist-in-fatal-collision-in-regent-street-a3343821.html

Impressively, £60k has been raised in crowdfunding for legal fees.

if the driver was speeding she was breaking the law. Mr Mason was doing nothing wrong. Yet the cops blamed the cyclist for not wearing a plastic hat.

I don't remember it ever being reported before that the driver was speeding.

Her words from the inquest alone should be enough to convicted, something along the lines of "If he was there I should have seen him"

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

Probably best not to speculate.

I didn't realise that there was a fundraising page in this case.
https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/justiceformichael

It trust there is enough money to cover the cost of the case.

A driver has appeared at the Old Bailey accused of killing a 70-year-old London cyclist in a private prosecution brought by a cycling charity.

Charity brings private prosecution against driver over cyclist's death

£65k of the £75k raised

Case listed to start today at the Old Bailey.

Gail Purcell, 58, of Colney Street, St Albans, is charged with causing death by careless driving contrary to section 2B of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Teacher Michael Mason, 70, died in hospital 19 days after being struck during evening rush hour on London's Regent Street in February 2014.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/03/driver-faces-private-prosecution-over-death-of-cyclist-in-london

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/hairdresser-didnt-see-cyclist-she-hit-and-killed-in-regent-street-a3506036.html

Woman cleared of killing cyclist in Britain's first crowdfunded prosecution

WTF?

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.