- 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)Cyclist paralysed after driver drove into the back of group during Flatlands 600k overnight event
A man has been jailed after a hit and run left one cyclist paralysed and two others seriously injured. Michael Bradbury drove off after hitting the three cyclists from behind on the A15 south of Lincoln at around 2am on September 10 2017 despite knowing that he had hit “something”.
Peterborough Today reports that William Tweddell, Adrian Boswood and Christopher Pratt were taking part in the 600km overnight cycling event, the Flatlands 600k, which involved around 70 cyclists riding from Essex to Goole and back in 40 hours.
Midway through their ride, the three men were diverted by police onto the main trunk road between Lincoln and Sleaford following a fatal collision on their chosen B road at Branston.
Riding in single file with powerful lights and reflective clothing, they were hit from behind by Bradbury, who was driving south to Sleaford after attending a work party.
The motorist had already stopped at a fast food outlet because he felt tired and admitted in interview he was aware of his eyes becoming heavy but chose to continue because he was not far from home.
Police arrested him at his home three hours after the collision having examined ANPR camera footage and found mesh from his VW Scirocco at the scene.
He asked officers, "What did I hit?" and later claimed he had told his girlfriend he would go to police after he had slept.
He admitted having "one or two drinks" at the party but a breath test showed only a small level of alcohol in his system and he was not over the drink-drive limit.
His car insurance had been cancelled after he failed to provide details of his no claims bonus, but the judge accepted he might not have known this.
Bradbury admitted three charges of causing serious injury by dangerous driving and was jailed for three years and nine months, banned from driving for three years and must take an extended driving test.
Tweddell and Boswood were both riding recumbent bikes, while Pratt was riding a road bike.
Bradbury hit Tweddell, then Boswood and finally Pratt, who was also hit by Boswood.
Katherine Goddard, prosecuting, said that the three men were left lying in the road or on the verge. “Mr Pratt got up, Mr Boswood tried to stand up but couldn't do so and Mr Tweddell was immediately knocked unconscious."
Tweddell was admitted to the Queen's Medical Centre in Nottingham where he did not wake for a month after suffering a traumatic injury to his spine, multiple fractures and a bleed near his brain.
He remains in hospital, having been moved to a specialist spinal unit in Sheffield. In April his heart stopped for an hour before he was resuscitated. He is paralysed from the chest down and has been forced to sell his Colchester dental practice.
Boswood also spent ten days in hospital after suffering multiple fractures and internal bleeding, while Pratt suffered several fractured ribs.
In a statement released through Leigh Day law firm Tweddell and his wife Sue said: "Bill is still in hospital, with no idea of when or how he might come home. Bill is now going to be leading his life from a wheelchair, he is paralysed from his chest down and needs intensive support for his personal care and breathing issues day and night.
"We would like to raise the need for car drivers to be fully aware of cyclists on the road; for them to take full responsibility, have insurance and have the decency to stop if they are involved in a collision.
"We have other road users to thank for calling emergency services, which undoubtedly saved Bill's life. The last year has been a rollercoaster of emotion, affecting all of our family, friends and work colleagues. We have been robbed of dreams for an active retirement."
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- don simon fbpe 4 min 27 sec ago
If we can encourage 30% of drivers to stop using the car that is a positive for everyone, 60% and drivers are on almost car free roads, peds and...
- Patrick9-32 21 min 7 sec ago
Annnnnnnd the twitter account is gone. I am guessing there were some awkward conversations in the Froome household this morning....
- don simon fbpe 34 min ago
An end of season used pro bike for £1500 is affordable, just choose the rider carefully.
- lesterama 1 hour 1 min ago
Not an advertorial, and you've not used one yet, but:
- Flâneur 1 hour 12 min ago
From a population density 6 times higher?...
- bobbinogs 1 hour 12 min ago
Corrected that for you
- hawkinspeter 2 hours 9 min ago
Growling and barking are often signs that a dog is scared or uneasy, but yeah, that'll be why the sign is there.
- Secret_squirrel 4 hours 6 min ago
You do get that there will be no material differences between the 2 right? Apart from 150g (1/3 of a poo or a 1/3 of a water bottle full) or so or...
Add new comment
22 comments
Let's not pretend that this sentence is in any way harsh. This cunt hospitalised three people, one of whom is now paralysed and seemingly bed-bound. He admitted that he knew he was unfit to drive, yet got back in his car after stopping. Any other weapon other than a vehicle and the sentence would have been triple this.
The only plausible reason for not stopping after hitting something as big as three people is that you know you've just hit three people. A rational response would be to stop and check what you've hit, and check for damage to your car. Nobody simply drives off after a collision like that unless they know they've done something bad.
I think he summed it up very well, except he hit 3 cyclists and drove off. Why do you think he told his girlfriend he would go to the police once he had slept, if he did not know he had done something wrong?
No becaue he was arrsted 3 hours after and had a breath test which shows little alcohol. Police are used to having the count back calculation used to work out the alcohol level at the time, so saying he as pissed isn't correct.
So lets see if I've got this right pratt goes on the piss, decides to drive home stops because he's drunk so much he needs to soak it up, goes back on road hits two cyclists but knowing that he's drunk he cowardly flees the scene to give him time to sober up and/or drink copious amounts of coffee at home so he might pass a breath test and tells police he didn't realise he'd hit something!
And he (only) got three years
No. You haven't got it right. Embellishing the narrative to enhance your outrage is , well, peurile.
If the police found him to have negligible alcohol in his breath 3 hours after the incident then his alcohol level at the time would have been under the current England and Wales limits and certainly under prosecution levels because the police like to give motorists leeway just like for speeding
That's not to say that that any alcohol in his bloodstream at the time would not have affected his driving on top of being tired. Was he likely driving at.near the limit initially if not over it, I would say absolutely and indeed had a detrimental affect on his ability to drive safely even if under with the added fatigue involved.
Be out in 20months, only so big because it was a hit and run.
I think only when something really drastic happens to your own does it hit home, however that feeling soon goes away as the motoring 'fever' takes over.
Strip back cars to the Ford Anglia days, 50bhp max per ton with a max gross weight for personal motorvehicles of 1500lbs (my 5 seater Vx Astra MKII was 850kg so eminently doable) .
Best of all will be getting rid of human control full stop and reducing speed limits in all built up areas to 18mph and 40 on all but D/C and motorways.
Yet another life needlessly destroyed.
I believe exponential taxation of passenger cars according to their speed capabilities and weight would be really reasonable.
Do you want to have an VW Golf 1.0 that does 0-60 in 10-11 sec? You will not have any difference.
Do you want to have a VW GTi? You will have to pay 1000£ extra per year
Do you want to have a Porsche Cayenne Turbo? You will have to pay 5000£ extra per year.
Do you want to have a Porsche Cayenne Turbo with Panama licences plates? Set legislation so that if you cannot really justify that you actually live in Panama face a 5 times the annual tax and set multiple checkpoints.
The result? Safer roads and less money to the Germans for cars and Arabs for oil.
No, financially it's a non starter because either people will find a way around paying or just stump up. Simply not allowing motors with the weight nor acceleration capability through restriction in power to weight and a top speed of 80mph and the higher speeds can only ever be achieved if on the correct road as speeds to be restricted by a wireless (in road signs/street lights) AND internal GPS system. Forcing motors off certain roads and stopping them up so that they are forced to stick to wider roads and peoiple on bikes, foot, equine can use paralell roads with no fear of harm.
Police in this instance should not have diverted the cyclists onto a high speed road at night knowing that that road has a poor reputation for crashes, often they are forcing cyclists off high speed roads to go the long way around because the road is 'dangerous' so why would you do that when they could have let them through.
Because they couldn't let them through.
There was a 2 car collision just outside the town centre where I live and the road was cordoned off to pedestrians from some way back.
Couldn't or wouldn't? There are many situations where incidents do not warrant closing the whole road off to those on foot, particularly so when it's dark and the other alternate route is literally increasing the threat of harm multiple times over, contrary to standard procedure to do the complete opposite when those road users are on those types of roads at night.
Pleased to see a custodial sentence, and a ban afterwards, just wondering, after his retest will he carry around any points? If so, how many and for how long?
Motor Insurance Bureau.
Although it's a relatively harsh prison sentence for a motoring offence, if the injuries had been caused by any other form of negligence, one would expect the penalties to be far harsher. Meh. But... a 3 year driving ban? Seriously? One of the injured is paralysed for the rest of his life. A lifetime (or 15-20 years) ban would be entirely justified.
Who do the cyclists make a claim against with the bloke uninsured?
And people moan (erroneously) that cyclists are not insured.
Midway through their ride, the three men were diverted by police onto the main trunk road between Lincoln and Sleaford following a fatal collision on their chosen B road at Branston.
So they were only on this road in the first place because of the actions of some other motons on the supposedly safer road? [Edit - I don't care if that event involved legal fault or not - I'm betting it would not have happened had motorists not been present on that road, so ultimately all these accidents are caused by someone's choice to drive]
If the world can cope with the first road being closed temporarily, maybe they should just close that one permanently to motorised traffic? Then ordinary cyclists wouldn't have to risk life-changing injuries at the hands of useless reckless drivers, who repeatedly show they don't deserve to have all these roads provided for them anyway.
Sympathy to those who suffered in this case (though that comment always feels inadaquate to the situation).
@littleonion
It depends. Courts can now order bans to come into force after custodial sentences - so hopefully this is the case here.
For bans that run concurrently, the length of ban should consider the custodial sentence as well. This is from the Sentencing Council:
The incident itself only serves as a warning to vulnerable road users (as if they needed one) that some arseholes think nothing of piloting >1000kg of overpowered metal and plastic around whilst drunk, distracted, tired, or otherwise not really paying anything like the attention such a potentially lethal activity deserves.
The thing that could have served as a warning to such people; would have been a long sentence and a lifetime ban.
Some credit to the judge for a custodial sentence, but why the hell should this stupid bastard ever be allowed back on the road.
While I totally concur with your sentiments, the evidence is that long sentences don't deter illegal behaviour. What deters is raising the chances of being caught, so what is needed is many more police on the road and zero tolerance of law-breaking by drivers; they'd soon get the message. And just imagine the headlines in the tory press! "War on motorists" was just when they were refusing to lower the tax on fuel and were prosecuting people for speeding.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the bans are served concurrently with prison sentence. So assuming that he isn't released early, his driving ban will have expired by the time he is out. Not great really.
But, this is an above-average harshness punishment (i.e. not completely lenient)
Couldn't see the sentence mentioned in the road.cc article - this is from the linked peterborough today story:
He was jailed for three years and nine months, banned from driving for three years and must take an extended driving test.
The driver should be crucified by the side of the road, and once he’s dead his corpse should be left to rot on the cross. That might (just might) serve as a warning to others.
I don't know what to say about the slaughter of vulnerable users by drivers on our roads any more.
This case is only notable because of the relatively heavy sentence, but there are so many more dangerous drivers out there who are a collision waiting to happen, and we must have a system for removing them from the road. The government, as ever, are on the case with a review of dangerous cycling, and have no plans apparently, to start the review of all road laws they promised four years ago.
Yes, this was an individual mistake, but the larger slice of the blame is the government's for continually failing to tackle the problem.