Breaking News: Driver in Mick Mason case acquitted by jury

This is why we need new legislation with a reversed burden of proof (yes RBoP's are a part of legal systems). If you drive into the back of someone then that in itself is evidence of careless driving, unless you can provide evidence to the contrary.

Oh no witnesses, I did nothing wrong. A good example of when a legal principle is reduced to absurdity.

The current rules aren't fit for purpose, that's all. Doesn't mean this driver didn't do anything wrong. They did, and shouldn't be on the roads. And they should be compensating the family.

@bikelikebike

The attached police complaint response only highlights how the legal system and the police have taken upon themselves to interpret causing death by careless driving in as lenient a way as possible.
One of the counter factors to charging Ms Purcell given is that Mr Mason's rear lights could've been lost among the many lights of Regent Street. How this is a justifiable excuse is beyond comprehension and completely irrational. Maybe I should drive through red lights in future if there happens to be other light sources within a 10m radius? There are many lights in most urban locations, it's not an excuse for not concentrating on the ones that matter.
The police investigation also says the fact Ms Purcell's car did not swerve or change course is evidence she was driving carefully. This is once again absolutely incredible. To anybody with a brain that again just shows she was oblivious to potential dangers and basically ploughed straight into Mr Mason with no appreciation for his presence.
The criminal justice system in England is completely broken. Day by day I realise we live in a banana republic with Victorian era laws.

Incidents like this make me question our system here in the UK. It appears to be that cyclists are at the bottom of the ladder when it comes to the law, I suspect potholes are more important in some peoples eyes. Sadly, hundreds have cyclists have die din the last few years and no one cares. I am scared by what is now defined by a "competent driver". 

@bikelikebike

I'm assuming that Mr Mason wasn't the sort of guy to ride around with a tesco set of lights on, besides which, this is just utter tripe

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.

Seriously? Is so little expected of drivers that they 'lose sights' of bike lights just because there are other lights about?!? Do you lose sight of car lights and play bumper cars every night?

Once I have spotted I cyclist on the road and I'm approaching, I do not lose sight at all until I'm past, and if the traffic is slow moving I still don't lose sight as I expect them to be coming up the inside again or maybe even the outside (which I don't like as much tbh).

Just read a report which says that the borrowed car belonged to the hairdresser of the Duchess of Cambridge.  Can anyone confirm?

Might just explain the reluctance of the police to properly investigate and pass on to the CPD, or am I clutching at straws?

Strict liability. Drive into your MP on their way to their next constituency surgery while shouting 'STRICT LIABILITY' down a megaphone.

I'm not surprised one bit. This will have been the jury: "Well, we've all not seen someone , haven't we? We all make mistakes. Not her fault, just bad luck, she just didn't see him".

For me, as already said, it highlights the need for reform.

There are some good points here that need fleshign out and investigating / countering.. whatever.

For instance, the fact that there is no evidence of wrong doing in this case. without evidence there is no conviction.

Why is the fact that a driver literally drove into the back of a cyclist without deviating from their line or braking (until impact), not considered evidence of careless driving?

surely that is very clear evidence of lack of care? 

This again comes back to strict liability. We don't know if Mr Mason jumped out of a bush and into the path of the driver... and as far as I can understand, its that degree of doubt that means that the driver did nothing wrong. That is, to be frank, ridiculous. 

She drove into someone without seeing them... it should be for her to prove why that was not negligent. 

Then there is the comment about perfectly legal lights being 'lost' within other lights. If legally compliant lights are not regarded by law to provide sufficient location of a cyclist than they are not fit for purpose and need to be reformed. 

If helmet use is being cited as contributory factors in these cases, then this needs looking at too. We need to know how much difference a helment makes and whether or not death would have been avoided. For convictions to count on this, then the myth of helment safety needs to be debunked, and the proven facts around helmet protection publicised. 

There are plenty of points to come out of this case that need to be grabbed and acted upon. 

Some drivers really are getting an easy ride in the courts : 

http://www.stratford-herald.com/68627-driver-cleared-causing-mans-death....

Driver admitted her car was in the opposite lane but had no explanation for how this happened.  

She didn't know - and was cleared. 

Lots of mentions of what the victim was wearing but no mention the driver was driving someone else's motability car as first reported.
Motability cars are congestion charge exempt aren't they. So possible a car that shouldn't have ever been there or was being wrongly used.
I really can't see that just saying you didn't see someone before the point of impact makes you innocent. I did think, wrongly it appears, that being aware of your surroundings was fairly important.

If that nutter who attacked the Houses of Parliament had just stopped after the crash - he'd have been able to use the same defence that the other driver used.  He'd have walked off scot free.

“I accept my car was there and I am sorry that it happened. I am devastated about it.”

She added: “What I just don’t understand is why? No one has explained how or why and what I might have done to prevent it.”

Last said: “I don’t believe I did anything wrong.”

She said she could not recall doing anything to put anyone in jeopardy or why her car drifted.

Quick show of hands: who here thinks bikelikebike is L. Willo reincarnated?

I was picked for jury service but when i got there i had to let them know my occupation and after sitting for 2 days i was told "you might as well go home as your never going to be picked by the defence" it seems actually knowing the law is detrimental to jury service!!!!!

Very few driving offences are heard by a jury in Scotland.  Accused persons generally cannot elect to have a jury trial unless they are likely to go to jail for a long time.  Worth a thought?

She was never charged or prosecuted for responsibility for his death.  The jury never decided on her responsibility.  Your lack of understanding of this is telling.

Does one not have responsibility for ones actions?  

She drove a car into him.  He is dead.

I suppose this comes down to the following... I don't think driving is that hard. I don't struggle to see things in front of me. I can look left, right, forward and behind as necessary, and in a sequence that does not leave blind spots big enough for a cyclist to sneak into unseen. I know this because it's never happened in over 20 years driving.
It's never been even close. Sure I've had closer moments where I've thought, 'shit if I wasn't looking mate...' but the thing is, I was looking, not through luck, or the grace of God, but through competence and basic attention.
I am not exceptional at driving, far from it. My point is that driving is not rocket science.
The point that accidents happen, and that this incident was simply one of those things doesn't wash with me. If so, if people aren't expected to see what is in front of them, if it is accepted as being too much responsibility for a driver to be expected to make, then we need to re -evaluate the very premise of driving. It is clearly not safe to let people drive... they are not up to it.
That's how I see it.
For me, there needs to be a reason why the woman failed to see the cyclist. If not, then there is a failure of duty of care. I get what the law says, but the law is wrong... I'm sorry, but it is.
The justification put forward is as sad as it is unacceptable to the majority.
I can't believe bikeisbike, that should I drive straight into your children and took their lives, and said 'I simply didn't see them' that you would be as sanguine with reciting the law as you are. Would you be as accepting that this was an unavoidable accident?
There is desperate need for reform.
Going back to presumed liability, surely it is just as bent and unfair as the current system... for all we know, Purcell was doing her make up. We don't know, as you said, therefore there is no case to answer.
Equally, we don't know if mason threw himself into the road in front of the car, we don't know.
Changing the law to presumed liability simply moves the assumption from being the latter, to the former. Common sense would suggest Purcell wasn't paying attention.
If mason pulled out in front of her, it should be reasonably possible for Purcell to argue that was the case. Was the impact at, or just after a junction? Is there evidence of reasons why mason may have moved into the carriageway in front of Purcell? If so, no case to answer.
SMIDSY should not be an accepted way of life.

Brilliant, the troll has now compared not seeing a cyclist (with lights on) to not seeing a horizontal cable deliberately positioned to be difficult to see and already difficult to see due to it's size. One of which you should expect to be looking for (and seeing!) when driving a vehicle, the other you would not expect to normally look for while cycling.

Total cretin. If this troll has a driving licence i sincerely hope it is recinded... Or maybe they'll get hit by a driver that didn't see them leaving them with injuries which means they cannot ever drive again.

If a blind person looks but does not see, are they good to have a driving licence?

Cycling UK have an extremely informative review of the case here http://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/duncandollimore/mason-verdict

Makes it even more baffling, both the police's failure to gather evidence and to take it to CPS, and the jury's failure to convict.

5 seconds.

A driver cannot be expected to react in 5 seconds.

Please god no:

"Following her acquittal, Mrs Purcell, of Colney Street, St Albans, is now seeking to recover some of her costs of fighting the case."

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/woman-cleared-of-killing-cyclist-in...