The details of the prosecution following the death of Mick Mason.

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

So much in there to discuss / debate / be furious about. MUST avoid getting on my high horse.

*disclaimer – NO victim blaming in the next sentance – just my personal thoughts on my own sensible personal risk-reduction*

It does however re-enforce the need to be in highly visible cycling gear – fluorescent in the day / reflective at night. Won’t stop all accidents and lack of it is not an excuse for others but for me – rather be bright than dead.

It does however re-enforce the need to be in highly visible cycling gear – fluorescent in the day / reflective at night. Won’t stop all accidents and lack of it is not an excuse for others but for me – rather be bright than dead.

Ooo, that’ll upset Bez

Holy crap, hears a sound like flying sack of potatoes hitting her car and did not stop to investigate. Also the police failures here are shocking. Not contacting all the witnesses in a fatal accident is appalling.

Other than condolences to the family, I have nothing positive to contribute at this stage. I’m glad the prosecution was pursued, hopefully enough outrage can be generated to change the perception of cyclists rights.

Thankfully four days off before I commute to work again, I can reflect a bit and be angry instead of scared by this article…

Did we not do the Purcell case the other day ?

Must not bite. Must not bite.

Did we not do the Purcell case the other day ?

Yes, when many of the facts in Duncan’s article were not in the public domain.

Teach me to skim. I shall go read the link again

That does not make comforting reading in the slightest……

It appears to suggest that you can be a sh1t driver, cause an accident & stand a good chance of getting away with it..

It does however re-enforce the need to be in highly visible cycling gear

She didn’t see him even when he was on her bonnet. I don’t think a yellow vest would have helped.

It appears to suggest that you can be a sh1t driver, cause an accident & stand a good chance of getting away with it..

+1

🙁

Reading that made me feel a bit sick. A few months ago, I was crossing at a pelican crossing while walking to work. The light was on red, but an old woman sailed through and nearly ran me and another gentleman over. It was incredibly close. I ran after the car and tracked it down to a car park. The old woman was paying for her parking ticket and I just screamed at her, “do you know what the hell you just did? You sailed through a red light and nearly killed me!!!!!” She looked utterly confused and couldn’t believe it, but was very apologetic.

When I did my advanced driving course for work, the instructor said something quite profound to me. She said “I find it quite disturbing that one can pass their driving test in their late teens, then never be tested again for the rest of their life, accumulating a lifetime of bad habits.” Something to think about. Stay safe out there.

She didn’t see him even when he was on her bonnet. I don’t think a yellow vest would have helped.

She says she didn’t see him. I find that statement almost unbelievable.

A very sad case, and one the demonstrates some of the major failing out justice system has when dealing with the types of incidents. Point 3 near the end of the article is a major point that imo cant be ignored, but how do you fix the problem?

in respect of which a police force with an illustrious history and reputation such as the Metropolitan Police should be ashamed.

What? The MET, those exemplars of good practice and accountability.

So the guy who prevented the driver from leaving the scene of an accident was an irrelevant witness? Sky potatoes.

Unfathomable on many levels

Was she the wife of someone high up in the MET? I’ve just read the whole article and now feel sick and worried about the outcome for my family if i was involved in a similar collision. It doesn’t make sense, falling potatoes?

Just read the article, thanks, it does relay a lot of the facts and detail about the very sad case.

I recently had to attend a speed awareness course as I had been speeding.

I firmly believe that ALL motorists should have further training after say three years, the standard of driving is pretty poor in general and very bad in congested cities.

The speed awareness course did reinforce a lot of the issues discussed in this case, 5 second rule, looking and reading the road, the speed limit being exactly that, a maximum limit, appropriate speed for the conditions.

How does a case like the get reviewed? There just seems so many errors, and wider issues of attitude and wording of guidelines.

The speed awareness course did reinforce a lot of the issues discussed in this case, 5 second rule, looking and reading the road, the speed limit being exactly that, a maximum limit, appropriate speed for the conditions.

Is this 5 second rule a real thing?

Count 5 seconds. It’s a scarily long time.

Is this 5 second rule a real thing?

No, it’s ridiculous and IMO a transparent attempt at arse-covering.

One person might well think they’re a careful and competent driver as they overtake a cyclist whilst speeding, leaving a 30 cm gap. I would disagree, so our perspectives on what falls “below the competent and careful driver” test will be irreconcilable. We are asking jurors to apply a standard that few understand, and which is far too subjective.

This for me is at the heart of these cases. Most of us are drivers, and all us are human. I’m willing to bet Bez’s money that some of the Jurors didn’t convict out of a common thought of “There but for the grace of god…”

Asking someone “why didn’t you see this blindingly obvious (:with the obvious caveat of: “to me, with hindsight, in the comfort of my home, and time to reflect”) thing” is far far too subjective and laden with prejudice for any jury to come to a conclusion.

Unless and until we have presumed guilt (like some other countries) in RTAs involving bicycles and peds, look out for another seemingly inconsistent court result coming to these pages soon.

Ooo, that’ll upset Bez

Actually it upsets me, greatly.

Are other road users going to similarly adorn themselves or are we just going to make minority groups compensate for terrible drivers who shouldn’t be behind the wheel?

I am really beginning to lose respect for the Police and Court system, not as people but as a system, i’ve probably harked on about this before, but i got caught speeding, the sign to state that the rural road had dropped from 60mph to 30mph was hidden behind a completely overgrown tree and the village itself is still a good 1/2 mile down the road, but despite showing photographic evidence i was wrong, and duly got the points and fine.

Commuting by bike last year, i got knocked off by a woman pulling out of a side road, bent forks on bike and trashed wheel, i went over bars and on to her bonnet, foot through her windscreen and back pain for months, police attended and have done nothing.

2 months later i was just riding along (wearing hi-viz and quality lights) and a Transit van just hit me with front nearside corner and drove off, broke two of my ribs and damaged bike again, witness behind gave the vehicle registration and livery on side of van, Police confirmed to him registration and the company it was registered to were the same, but almost 8 months later they’ve never even taken a statement from the witness.

So whilst i appreciate campaigns on speeding/ DUI/ mobile phones, they are just going for the “easy score”, people reporting accidents that require some work, then it is too much for an over-loaded, under manned system.

My work is for an insurer investigating accidents as a forensic engineer and looking at insurance fraud, the number of times officers attend an accident, but no police report is filed is about 80%.

What is the 5 second rule?

What is the 5 second rule?

In the dark leave at least a five second gap to the thing in front. It’s not really what Gamble seemed to be claiming, but it does suggest the need to be seen as early as possible.

If you just stop for a moment to consider the harm motorised vehicles cause that we come to consider accetable you cant help but conclude its a ludicrous situation.

Yes they have a utility but that could be achieved with much safer vehicles.

and yes its the drivers that cause these incidents but humans are falable thatsvnot going to change we can remove the opportunity though.

What is the 5 second rule?

I thought it was how long after a cyclist has been smashed by a car, flung into the air and critically injured before someone blames them for not wearing a polystyrene hat.

Horrendous, both the police and the driver.

The thing is, in any other area of English law, the question would have been not “did she see him?” but “should she have seen him?”. The answer to that has to be yes, since he is another road user, was directly in front of the defendant and she is responsible for ensuring that she only proceeds when the path ahead of her is clear.

For some reason where English law involves driving, especially but not exclusively where bikes are involved, and in the absence of alcohol, the police, the law and the courts have this insane attitude that the standard to which we hold people operating heavy, powerful and lethal items of machinery is exceptionally low. It doesn’t make any rational sense and needs to be radically changed, but that will require a major overhaul of what is undoubtedly massively outdated law. And the Govt has no appetite for that.

It’s pretty obvious that this is really an avoidable distraction case that wasn’t properly investigated by the police. The police failings on this matter hugely because the law isn’t there as a safety net. If the question were “should she have seen him” it would have been up to her to prove that she couldn’t have. Because the de facto test is “did she see him”, it’s left up to the prosecution to try to prove that she did, which is very difficult to do.

One assumes her mobile phone was checked although given the other police failings who knows. Maybe that information is available somewhere. There’s a million other things she could have been doing that she shouldn’t have been whilst driving that might explain why she killed another road user. Only she will ever know.

As for the hi viz thing, still trying not to bite.

Having driven down Regent Street at night I can easily understand how something gets missed. It’s an assault of bright lights, moving objects, people and vehicles going all sorts of places you don’t expect. A single red light and reflector on the back of a bike just gets lost in the noise. She was obviously driving too fast for the conditions, and I’m in no way defending her, but I can understand her statement of not seeing him.

London is one place I’ll never ride a bike.

@scud
I recently had a bus ( a fkn bus!) cross to my side on the road, not forced by parked cars just crossed the road and drove directly at me. I had to jump the curb to avoid a head on impact.

The Police are not intrested, when I rang to report it the call handler sighed as I said I was on a bike.

The narrative around cyclist and cycling has been allowed to sink so low that anyhing goes, your just a **** cyclist and asking to be killed.

The story around cars however has the full weight of the industry behind it and I say that as someone who has work in that industry for 30 years.

People are rubbish drivers.
The police and courts collude to protect rubbish drivers because they’re also made up of rubbish drivers.

Long term solution has to be the selfdriving/robot cars (Except for Ubercars because they also sound rubbish)
Short term we’re knackered

I recently had a bus ( a fkn bus!) cross to my side on the road, not forced by parked cars just crossed the road and drove directly at me. I had to jump the curb to avoid a head on impact.

The Police are not intrested, when I rang to report it the call handler sighed as I said I was on a bike.

Contact the bus operator and see if it had cameras on board.

I recently had a school bus give me a terrible close pass and force me to do an emergency stop.

Police couldn’t act but driver is being re-educated by employer and Cycling UK used it as part of a representation to Stagecoach – as they had apparently had a few reports about their drivers.

That’s shocking.
Witness has fact he took picture of car number plate at lights to stop car driving off.
Witnesses to say car was being driven faster than other traffic.

And police blame it on the fact the fella didn’t have helmet on, or high viz clothing … even though he had front & rear lights visibly working.

I know police aren’t known for being the brightest of people, but …

Hi Viz/reflective thing, is there not case law to state it’s not needed (despite HWC saying cyclists should wear it)?

On a tangent, it’s a bit mad that cars are still allowed on Regent Street.

Surely there’s a strong case for a car ban and protected cycleways to keep bikes and buses apart on streets like that.

For some reason where English law involves driving, especially but not exclusively where bikes are involved, and in the absence of alcohol, the police, the law and the courts have this insane attitude that the standard to which we hold people operating heavy, powerful and lethal items of machinery is exceptionally low. It doesn’t make any rational sense and needs to be radically changed, but that will require a major overhaul of what is undoubtedly massively outdated law. And the Govt has no appetite for that.

Indeed.

To add to that: modern cars are so comfortable & easy to drive it’s easy to see how drivers can be disconnected from their external environment & loose the awareness that outside of their car (with its AC, heated seats, power eveything, tunes & apps) what they’ve actually got is a 1T+ lump of metallic machine with hard pointy edges that’s very capable of causing serious injury or death…..& it’s them who are controlling that machine!!

Duty of care, required skill set & knowledge upon anyone operating said machinery in any other environment than the PH requires routine testing to ensure the operators skill are still upto speed.

For some **** reason this train of thought is NOT deemed applicable or reasonable for the majority of road users…………

A brightly lit Street at night is one of the worst places for visibility, dusk is also a bad time to be seen. Hi vis is a good idea as are additional lights. It is possible for attentive drivers to miss things in those conditions. However all the illumination in the world won’t help if the driver is oblivious which I suspect was the case here having read the article. Look at it another way if you are wearing hi vis with lots of lights it makes the I didn’t see you defence even less credible.

Hi Viz/reflective thing, is there not case law to state it’s not needed (despite HWC saying cyclists should wear it)?

My commute home was across Norwich and then 20 miles of rural unlit roads, so approach was different for both, on the rural roads it was me trying to make myself seen with Exposure MTB light on bars, reflective strips on clothing, flashing and bright constant light on rear.

As i came into town, i think that there are lights and movement everywhere, so instead of trying to “bright and light”, i’d switch to flashing lights from and back, as to me the colour of clothing etc in town doesn’t do a great deal, but a flashing light is the only thing a cyclist can have that car/ motorbike can’t.