Mr Mason was run down from behind by a Nissan car as he rode his bike North up Regent Street, \north of \Oxford Circus and near its junction (on the other side of the road) with Little Portland Street. The collision occurred at around 6.20 pm on 25th February. Sadly Mr Mason died of his injuries on 14th March.
At the outset the Coroner (to his considerable credit) asked his officer to read out a moving tribute to Michael Mason written by his daughter Anna Tatton-Brown. The tribute is set out here on Ross Lydall's blog
The Coroner then asked Mr Mason's daughter to give some evidence about his long experience riding bicycles.
Witness evidence and CCTV evidence was less than entirely clear but left no doubt that no witness aside from the Nissan driver failed to see Mr Mason on his bicycle. The evidence was quite clear that he had the required lights including a brightly flashing rear light fixed above a red reflector which would reflect back light from car headlights. The evidence was also clear that the area (as one might expect) was well lit by street lights. The CCTV footage did not cover the immediate location of the collision.
The scene in daylight and in different traffic conditions is shown on google thus
The fatal collision occurred just south and west of the traffic island in the photograph. you are looking North and you have to imagine the yellow line is not there. The bus stop has apparently moved as it was further North alongside the pedestrian island at the time of the collision.
Although some witnesses queried and offered explanations as to why Mr Mason was riding towards the centre of the road, the police investigator had no difficulty in agreeing that Mr Mason had every right to be there for any number of reasons and there is no possible criticism of his position in the road.
The collision investigator also gave evidence that the physical evidence on the car and the bicycle made it clear that this was a 'linear' collision with the bicycle and the car pointing in the same direction at the moment of impact. This ruled out any swerving immediately before the collision.Further the rear tyre left a mark and dent mid way between the centre line of the car and its offside. That is to say right in front of the position where the driver was seated.
The driver was commuting home in Hertfordshire from her work at a hairdresser's salon in central London. She was driving a 'motability' car owned by a disabled friend. She gave evidence consistent with her accounts to the police that she did not see Mr Mason or his bicycle at any time before the collision. She was travelling at somewhere between 20 and 30 mph and did not brake before impact. She carried on and parked 30 metres up the road before returning to the realisation she had hit a cyclist. In answer to a question which she was warned that she need not answer she accepted that if the cyclist was there (which from the physical evidence he unquestionably was) she should have seen him.
The driver was asked questions about her eye-sight. She passed the police's vision test (reading a numberplate) at the scene at night using her distance vision spectacles. She kept about her person a further pair of spectacles for reading and was adamant that at the time of the collision she was wearing the distance vision spectacles used to demonstrate acceptable vision to the police.
A detective from the Serious Collisions Investigation Unit confirmed to the Coroner that there were no criminal proceedings taken against the driver and that decision had been taken by the Metropolitan Police without reference to the CPS.
The Coroner returned a finding of accidental death and declined an invitation to consider a Prevention of Future Death Report relating to a default 20 mph speed limit. He observed that when the Met Police collision investigator was invited to consider whether a 20 mph speed limit would save lives he regarded such a notion as speculative. He commented that Mr Mason had not been wearing hi-viz or a helmet but did not go so far as to suggest that either would have made any difference. (Indeed he could not have suggested any causal relevance as there was absolutely no evidence of such).
I have only included reference to that which came out in Court and have not covered everything but this should be sufficient to give a reasonable impression of the evidence and the decisions taken.