- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Justice (Lonpicman, Wikimedia Commons)"Road rage" driver who left cyclist brain damaged found guilty by jury
A motorist who denied being subject to “road rage” when his car struck a cyclist, leaving the victim with serious head injuries from which he may never recover and in a wheelchair, has been convicted by a jury of causing serious injury through dangerous driving.
Former soldier Michael Gledhill, aged 23, was convicted of the offence this afternoon at Leeds Crown Court.
He had initially maintained that the car he was driving made no contact with the bike that 69-year-old John Radford was riding, but accepted that was the case after being presented with scientific evidence.
The court had heard that Gledhill was driving on the A616 to Huddersfield Royal Infirmary, where his girlfriend was due to undergo a scan on his second child, when he became involved in an altercation with Mr Radford in July last year.
The driver admitted sounding his horn at the cyclist, whom he claimed was “weaving” across the road, saying, “I beeped my horn so he knew I was there so I could try and get around him,” according to a report of the trial in the Huddersfield Daily Examiner.
He admitted that he had exchanged words with the cyclist but couldn’t recall exactly what was said, and that it involved “generally name-calling, probably some swearing.”
Gledhill, at the time a Lance Corporal in the Yorkshire Regiment who was awaiting his discharge from the army, insisted he had not driven at Mr Radford on purpose in an attempt to frighten him.
Angry
But on cross-examination by prosecuting counsel Sam Andrews, he concurred that the victim only became angry after he had sounded his horn.
Mr Andrews put it to him: “At that minute, your thought was giving this man stick wasn’t it?” said Mr Andrews.
Gledhill replied, “Yes.”
He was then asked how traces of paint from the bumper of his car were found on Mr Radford’s bike and replied, “I don’t know.”
Mr Andews asked him: “Do you accept now that the evidence found scientifically shows your car came into contact with the bike?”
Again, he agreed.
The prosecutor put it to him, “You were full of road rage,” an accusation Gledhill denied.
The case was raised at last week’s parliamentary debate on cycling by Mr Radford’s local MP, Jason McCartney, who said of the cyclist, who suffered brain injuries and is confined to a wheelchair: “He is now very severely disabled.
“John is confined to a wheelchair and totally dependent on others, and will remain so for the rest of his life.
“The family, whom I have got to know very well indeed, are now looking for a home with specialist nursing care for him,” he added.
Helmet
In his opening comments to the jury Judge Christopher Batty made some comments that caused consternation in cycle campaigning circles.
He said of John Radford: “He cycled for much of his life and it was his usual practice not to wear a helmet. He was not wearing one on this day. As a result he was seriously injured which has had a profound effect on his life.:
In hus summing up the judge clarified these remarks, instructing the jury that nothing should be read into John Radford not wearing a helmet. It was, he said, common practice as Mr Radford found a helmet impaired his hearing and chose not to wear one for safety reasons.
No celebration
Martyn Bolt, a friend of John Radford and a trustee of the Cyclists' Defence Fund was at the trial this week.
He told road.cc he was happy that justice had been done, but said: "This guilty verdict is not a cause for celebration, but one for contemplation, as two families, the Radfords and the Gledhills, have been irreparably changed by a moment's anger that led to the collision that caused John such tragic injuries."
Bolt implored drivers to be patient on the roads. He said: "Ask yourself if your journey is really that important, and if you feel impatient, take a deep breath.
"This has ruined two families. John Radford's grandchildren will never see the John Radford we all knew and Michael Gledhill's children face a spell without their father if he is sentenced to prison."
Bolt said that the trial had also served to illustrate the importance for prosecutors to challenge conventional thinking about cyclists on the road, and for cycling organisations to educate prosecutors.
"It was said several times in the trial that John was riding 'further out than normal' when he was riding in a position that would be considered good practice.
"We provided the prosecution with a copy of Cyclecraft, the foundation of the government's Bikeability program, for their office library."
Completely avoidable
In a statement released through their solicitors Slater & Gordon, John’s family said: “After today nothing for us changes, our dad was a very active man. This completely avoidable incident has robbed him of his retirement choices, not only the sport of cycling which he lived for but the enjoyment of sharing things with his family especially his grandchildren.
“We are also will have to live through the after effects of this tragedy. As there is not a glimmer of hope of any quality to dad’s life, it is truly torturous to live with.
“There are no winners in this case. The lives of two families – Gledhill’s and ours – have been changed by the events on that day and nothing will ever make up for that.”
Mr Radford’s family paid tribute to the people who had given them strength during the past 15 months.
“Throughout the last 15 months we as a family have received tremendous support from friends; family; Yorkshire Air Ambulance; Hospital staff in Leeds General Infirmary and York District Hospital; West Yorkshire Police; Cyclists' Touring Club (CTC) and the cycling community; Martyn Bolt, a cyclist himself and the former Mayor of Kirklees; Slater & Gordon lawyers; the staff at his current place of residence Woodlands Neurological Rehabilitation Centre in York
"John’s daughter’s Emma and Helen have received support and flexibility from employers Locala CIC and Leeds City College.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- hawkinspeter 1 min 46 sec ago
How about a strategically placed tube of super glue that might accidentally split when the bike is sat on?
- AidanR 13 min 27 sec ago
Whilst I understand your anger, I don't think the death penalty is really appropriate in this situation (or ever).
- NickSprink 38 min 29 sec ago
I haven't bought a bike from Halfords since 1994. I learned my lesson
- BalladOfStruth 46 min 36 sec ago
There's a difference between a "pedestrian walkway" and "a space that a pedestrian can physically fit through". This is the latter, and is intended...
- Surreyrider 58 min 33 sec ago
Don't know exactly where the footage was shot but if it's close to Surbiton High, it's not Surrey Police's area.
- andystow 1 hour 2 min ago
Have you taught them the two most important signals for expressing your dissatisfaction with someone's driving?
- HLaB 1 hour 16 min ago
I'm no court system legal expert but I suspect it may be means tested against his income. Hopefully £80 is a significant amount to him
- kil0ran 2 hours 9 min ago
Fascinating, thanks. It was interesting in TCL this year how Matt Richardson was throwing up after every sprint whereas Lavreysen looked fresh as a...
- Secret_squirrel 2 hours 16 min ago
I have one problem with artists painting bikes. Most of them try to use the bike frame as a canvas, and they make particularly shit canvases. ...
- mark1a 3 hours 24 min ago
That's right, it's possible that ktache may have meant Quest.
Add new comment
22 comments
This was just posted on the Audax UK FB page, hope no one from the family minds me updating this here.
"update on John Radford from his daughter
Hi All
I just wanted to drop you a line to update you on our situation with dad....
Sadly its not good news. We are living through the final chapter of this tragic incident. The day after the court case ended specialists requested that enough was enough and all there efforts were not benefiting anyone. We agreed
Dad came home to meltham on friday to start his palliative care.
Dad is still looking good all things considered he is in a very deep sleep and I hope it remains this way.
I will be sure to update you when things change but wanted you to find out from us rather than through other people. Please share this information as you feel necessary.
Thanks again for all your help and support over the last 15 months.
Love emma and family xx"
My issue with this whole situation is that the charge was wrong.
It was attempted murder IMHO
The fact that he used a car as a weapon instead of his fists or a brick meant that he got away with it.
As the article states, 'there are no winners'. It's bloody difficult not to react if you get 'bullied' by a car, but you have to think about the consequences if the situation escalates. As the cyclist, you're the most vulnerable...fact!
Chris Crossland, the National Chair of Audax UK spent three days attending the court sessions. He has posted an objective, well written and detailed account of the hearings on Audax UK Forum. http://www.audax.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=186.msg2668;topicseen#msg2668
MODERATORS: Can you please delete some of the comment raised above by two individuals. The comments are unnecessary and degenerating this story into personal abuse.
This behaviour is such a shame given the terrible experience of John Radford, relatives and friends.
"This guilty verdict is not a cause for celebration, but one for contemplation, as two families, the Radfords and the Gledhills, have been irreparably changed by a moment's anger that led to the collision that caused John such tragic injuries."
I salute Mr Bolt for this comment. He understands that anger, blame and attempts to atone are all futile. Life-changing moments can happen in a blink of an eye to any of us that could be avoided with just a little bit of self-control and self-restraint.
I knew John, I road a lot of Audax miles with him. It's just so sad and tragic that it was so avoidable. My condolences to his family.
Now there is a golden opportunity for a sentence that actually reflects the seriousness of this incident. From the CPS:
"...the maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment and/or a fine with a mandatory 2 year minimum period of disqualification (unless special reasons are found not to disqualify) and endorsement. An extended retest is also mandatory."
As one purpose of a custodial sentence is to act as a deterrent then surely there is strong justification for a maximum sentence."
I'm not holding my breath though...
I'm curious, are the "special reasons...not to disqualify" listed anywhere? Because it - sadly - seems that "I need to drive to get to work" or "using public is just too inconvenient for me" seems to be enough
As suggested by the previous section, traffic laws in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany give special consideration to the especially vulnerable situation of cyclists vis-à-vis motor vehicles (German Federal Ministry of Transport, 2006). Thus, they generally require the motorist to make special efforts to anticipate potentially dangerous situations and pro-actively avoid hitting cyclists. More- over, motorists are generally assumed to be legally responsible for most collisions with cyclists unless it can be proven that the cyclist deliberately caused the crash. Having the right of way by law does not excuse motorists from hitting cyclists, especially children and elderly cyclists.
Pucher and Buehler, Making Biking Irresistible (2008)
Nothing added by mentioning the assailant's employment.
I'm glad the judge rowed back on the ridiculous and irrelevant mention of the helmet, but I suspect that the "priming" caused by that remark had its effect on the jury.
More importantly, we've seen that cars are regularly used as weapons. When are they going to be regulated as such? It seems obvious that it is far too easy for people with aggressive tendencies to get hold of them.
Housecathst wrote:
Que the sod story about how the squaddie scum bag has shit out another kid so there cant be any question of him going to prison. So 3 month suspended sentence, £200 fine and 3 points on his license.
A motorists occupation has nothing to do with anything in these circumstances, that he was a soldier at the time of the incident is neither here nor there...and yes having another child may have a bearing on the sentencing, but that's not the child's fault nor the mothers (who incidentally would have 'shit' the child out...not the 'squaddie scumbag')....
Yes, it's a tragic story for the cyclist and his family. But it's not exactly the motorists family at fault for the circumstances. Lets hope you're not involved in any incident that puts someone else's life into a similar turmoil...and some unknown starts spouting off shit about your family.
And if he's a former squaddie at 23 something tells me it wasn't an honourable discharge.
A poor assumption. A great many people only do the minimum 4 years before deciding it's not for them, it's utterly irrelevant.
He's a cock for sure but the squaddie thing requires no mention. If he was an ex postman would you have written Postie scumbag?
Perhaps you live in a garrison town.
You can get a cream for that.
Well you can join as a boy soldier at 16. Serve on active operations from your 18th birthday. Given the current cycles of deployment at age 23 this young man may well have seen 5 years active service with 3 years in theatre.
Here's the deployment history of his regiment: for the last 5 years:
Afghanistan 2009–2010
Afghanistan 2011–2012
Kenya 2013
Iraq 2014
Now whilst not condoning his actions in the case of this cyclist, and for all you or I know he may well have been medically discharged for physical or mental health issues or thought that having spent nearly 3 years deployed or intensively training for deployment in a real war zone that he had had enough. For all you or I know he may well have citations or medals.
The army is currently suffering from a loss of long service people because the current intensity of operations is similar in nature to deployments in WW2 rather than the normal intensity they have prior to 2001.
As it happens the cuurrent generation of soldiers have more actual combat experience than any generation of British army soldiers since the 1950s and only then if you count the Korean war. And despite jibes about a softer playstation generation have acquitted themselves with great honour.
So please leave your stupid prejudices behind you. Pusnish the crime and the person appropriately and not tar all soldiers with the same brush or stereotype them. You'll find a lot of old soldiers are active cyclists.
It's unfortunate he was a solider, but my "prejudices" is basic on the fact that I would hope that somebody who had been selected and through military training would better than a common thug who would use a car as a weapon to put somebody in a wheel chair for the rest of there live. Unfortunatly, his previous career (however, distinguished, or otherwise) is relevant to the story, same as it would be if it was a police office, or a nurse. I don't think I'm the only person who would feel that way.
Soldiers are human beings.
Not robots.
The army is a huge community made up from people from many walks of life and backgrounds and they are all different.
Getting behind the wheel has been known to effect the judgement and temperament of people who otherwise would be of good judgement.
That is not an excuse it's simply me trying to understand why people do things that are so stupid, what I fail to understand though is your sniffy prejudiced attitude to members of the forces.
I am guessing it's based on to much media exposure to portrayals of the US Army in film and television. The loud, extremely rigid yes sir no sir culture you see portrayed in the US Army is a million miles away form the reality of service with the British Army who prefer to treat people like grown ups.
I bet he won't get prison, but community service and a fine instead. In fact this is too harsh, probably just a suspended 3 month sentence and parting words Don't do it again ………..
Que the sod story about how the squaddie scum bag has shit out another kid so there cant be any question of him going to prison. So 3 month suspended sentence, £200 fine and 3 points on his license.
Why does being a former squaddie equate to being a "squaddie scumbag"? Shouldn't be a factor really.
The story reported that he was a squaddie and if you drive your car into somebody on purpose the very least you are is a scumbag, I stand by my comment.