Author Topic: John Radford  (Read 46169 times)

Re: John Radford
« Reply #175 on: October 22, 2014, 08:47:30 pm »
I'm surprised the the judge is reported to have said (of helmets) "He was not wearing one on this day. As a result he was seriously injured which has had a profound effect on his life."

Surely that's prejudicial.

possibly, but the whole quote is,'He said Mr Radford was a keen cyclist who had sustained catastrophic injuries. “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.

“I tell you this because when you’re dealing with this case it could be difficult for you to remain dispassionate or at the very least not to have sympathy for him and his family.” Mr Andrews told the jury Mr Radford spent many months in hospital after the incident and “may never recover properly.”

“The issue for you is twofold. Did Michael Gledhill drive dangerously and was that dangerous driving the cause, the main cause of that injury.”
'

I understand that the law will look to the root cause of injury/death. In this case it seems, from our perspective at least, that the car hitting him from behind forcefully was the primary cause, even if the lack of a helmet lead to more severe injury than might have been the case if he was wearing one at the time. Not wearing a helmet didn't cause him to be run into by a car.

There is a further question here that the judge hasn't mentioned, which is, 'Was the contact deliberate or accidental?' The law does separate intent from outcome, although in this case I'm not sure there is really any need to. The behaviour appears to have been deliberately aggressive and, even if the result was not what was intended, there was an intent to intimidate or frighten and the driver should have been aware that there was a risk it would be a worse outcome than that.

A very nasty case indeed. I will be silent on sentencing as there is no way to undo what is done and so there is no suitable punishment. Protecting everyone else now becomes the prioirty.

Re: John Radford
« Reply #176 on: October 22, 2014, 09:42:29 pm »
Yep, I should have said attempted murder. A custodial sentence would be the bare minimum that would be acceptable here to most of us.
I wonder if John would distinguish what has been done to him as any different to murder? In his shoes, I would not.

Re: John Radford
« Reply #177 on: October 22, 2014, 10:26:17 pm »
... even if the lack of a helmet lead to more severe injury than might have been the case if he was wearing one at the time... 

let's hope that someone points out to the jury that a cycle helmet may be effective for impact speeds up to around 12mph.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1235.html

Re: John Radford
« Reply #178 on: October 22, 2014, 11:06:44 pm »
possibly, but the whole quote is ....

Irrespective of the rest of his words the judge explicitly said that John was seriously injured as a result of not wearing a helmet - this is not proven. In fact it's victim blaming of the worst sort. Hence my dismay at the judge's words.
You're only as successful as your last 1200...

Re: John Radford
« Reply #179 on: October 23, 2014, 11:13:00 am »

Re: John Radford
« Reply #180 on: October 23, 2014, 05:20:57 pm »
Driver found guilty and will be sentenced on 25th November. http://www.roadjustice.org.uk/johnradford

Re: John Radford
« Reply #181 on: October 23, 2014, 05:57:36 pm »
Relieved the he's been found guilty of the more serious offence of Dangerous Driving.
You're only as successful as your last 1200...

caerau

  • SR x 3 - PBP fail but 1090 km - hey - not too bad
Re: John Radford
« Reply #182 on: October 23, 2014, 07:26:57 pm »
The right verdict but as the family's statement says on the thread on Facebook - there are no winners here.  Very sad all round, one can only hope that this serves as deterrent to others - sadly I doubt it will.
At lease we're (for once) not looking at a miscarriage of justice.
It's a reverse Elvis thing.

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: John Radford
« Reply #183 on: October 23, 2014, 07:54:59 pm »
The right verdict but as the family's statement says on the thread on Facebook - there are no winners here.  Very sad all round, one can only hope that this serves as deterrent to others - sadly I doubt it will.
At lease we're (for once) not looking at a miscarriage of justice.
Yes indeed.

I thought that was an admirable statement by his family.  And I think John would approve.
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Re: John Radford
« Reply #184 on: October 23, 2014, 08:17:52 pm »
 Sadly, it only takes a split second to do something which someone later regrets. Its called Road Rage and few, very few motorists are aware of the serious injury with which they as motorists can so easily inflict on others. Living in a city, I see such stupidity each and every day that I go out and just pray that I will survive. My thoughts are with Johns family at this time.


Re: John Radford
« Reply #185 on: October 23, 2014, 08:37:10 pm »
I'm encouraged to think that the judge's strange statement (alluded to earlier) does not seem to have affected the verdict.

On the question of how easy it is to badly injure someone, I agree, but prefer to think that most people actually DO understand how easy it is.  Most people manage to be more restrained than this man , fortunately.

Redlight

  • Enjoying life in the slow lane
Re: John Radford
« Reply #186 on: October 23, 2014, 10:09:46 pm »
On the question of how easy it is to badly injure someone, I agree, but prefer to think that most people actually DO understand how easy it is. 

I'm not so sure. Drive on almost any motorway or dual carriageway and observe the tailgating, weaving, speeding, etc.  We have become so used to it that we treat it as normal.   I think the majority of people forget, when they get behind a wheel. that they are fallible creatures attempting to control potentially lethal pieces of machinery. I don't think many are malevolent but the majority is unconsciously dangerous.
Between the Disney abattoir and the chemical refinery

Re: John Radford
« Reply #187 on: October 23, 2014, 10:44:10 pm »
Just now on Twitter, CTC retweeted @martynbolt

"Verdict in John Radford case guilty dangerous driving sentence deferred but will be custodial"

Custodial. I hope it sends a message, I really do.
You're only as successful as your last 1200...

Re: John Radford
« Reply #188 on: October 24, 2014, 12:22:26 am »
On the question of how easy it is to badly injure someone, I agree, but prefer to think that most people actually DO understand how easy it is. 

I'm not so sure. Drive on almost any motorway or dual carriageway and observe the tailgating, weaving, speeding, etc.  We have become so used to it that we treat it as normal.   I think the majority of people forget, when they get behind a wheel. that they are fallible creatures attempting to control potentially lethal pieces of machinery. I don't think many are malevolent but the majority is unconsciously dangerous.

I'm not dismissing the danger; But if I thought the majority weren't aware of the danger, I don't think I'd ever ride again.

pizzicatooff

  • Night riding is inevitable
Re: John Radford
« Reply #189 on: October 24, 2014, 02:40:43 am »
I’ve spent a good deal of time at Leeds Crown Court this week, watching the trial of Michael Richard Stephen Gledhill, accused of causing serious injury by dangerous driving in the incident that left John Radford with serious injuries that have left him disabled and needing constant care.

Other people in the public gallery have included John’s wife Pat, and their daughters Helen and Emma, who have all done their best to act with dignity. Given the nature of some of the evidence, that has not been easy for them at times. Members of Gledhill’s family have also been there, plus a CTC Councillor and CTC councillor-elect. As many of you may know, John was a CTC councillor at the time of the incident. Another AUK member, a good friend of John’s, was also there.

I did not construe the comments by the judge about John not wearing a helmet as indicating that this had in any way been a contributing factor in the injuries that John received. Within the context of what he was saying, this seemed clear, and I wrote as such in the notes that I was making at the time. Nothing was made about this during the trial by either prosecution or defence, and it was not mentioned in counsels’ closing speeches or the judge’s summing up.

Day one also saw counsels’ opening statements, a few delays resulting from the judge’s commitments in other cases, and a move to a different courtroom, so it felt that we hadn’t seen much done.

The evidence presented by the prosecution seemed fairly convincing as the second day drew on, with witnesses mostly presenting a coherent view of the incident and the events leading up to it over a short space of time. Forensic evidence linking paint fragments found on a mudguard stay cap had been found to match paint on the car’s front bumper. The presence of these fragments on that stay cap was strong support for the contention that there had been forceful contact between the car and the bicycle.

Day three dealt initially with statements Gledhill had made to police at various times after the incident. Gledhill had consistently denied that there had been any collision but his memories of the incident were very hazy, and he was unable to recall a lot of the details such as, for example, anything of what he had said to John or what John said to him while they were conducting a shouting match via his car window.

To some surprise in the public gallery, Gledhill himself was called as a witness, and defence counsel led him through a series of gentle questions about the whole affair and about his qualities as an NCO in the army. I have to say that I thought that the prosecution’s cross examination that followed this was brutal. My impression was that Gledhill’s credibility as a witness was demolished bit by bit. I’m probably biased in favour of John, but I couldn’t help feeling for the young man as this proceeded.

A lot of the detail is in the Huddersfield Examiner reports available on their website so I won’t go into that. In any case, following Gledhill’s testimony the defence requested an adjournment to consult with him and his family. When they returned, defence counsel said he would be calling no further witnesses.

That led us to today with closing speeches and summing up. The jury went out to consider at about 12.10pm, and everybody was called in at 2.55 pm, with whispers that there was a verdict. As most of you will know by now, the verdict was guilty.

The judge said that a custodial sentence was inevitable and a date for a sentence hearing of 25 November was agreed, giving time for reports to be prepared. Gledhill was also disqualified from driving with immediate effect until that date, when a formal ban will be imposed as well as the length of the custodial sentence.

There is absolutely nothing good that comes out of this affair for anybody who has been involved in it.

Martyn Bolt has posted on Facebook the Radford family’s statement made following the ending of the trial. For those who don’t do Facebook, here it is:

Quote

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 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.”.


LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: John Radford
« Reply #190 on: October 24, 2014, 08:48:55 am »
Thank you for the comprehensive report. Hopefully the driver gets the significant punishment that he deserves. I am tired of drivers getting a smack on the wrist for killing riders I know.
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

Re: John Radford
« Reply #191 on: October 24, 2014, 08:55:20 am »
Thank you Pizzicatooff

Re: John Radford
« Reply #192 on: October 24, 2014, 10:17:03 am »
Yes, thanks again.  What a horrid business, which just goes on for John and his family, who have been very dignified throughout.

Re: John Radford
« Reply #193 on: October 24, 2014, 10:31:30 am »
Interesting how the court case went, with Gledhill's father not giving evidence even though he was in the car at the time.
Justice for John, but it will never be enough to turn the clock back.

I hope that this case receives wider publicity , to highlight the vulnerability of cyclists and the consequences of a car driver trying to teach someone a lesson by driving aggressively. The witnesses also should be thanked for their help in the case. Although the forensic evidence was pretty conclusive , without the witnesses he could have got away with careless driving.


Re: John Radford
« Reply #194 on: October 24, 2014, 10:58:13 am »
Just read this. From what I've read it was a sustained verbal assault, including slowing the car down, then according to a witness a swerve toward the cyclist. It reads to me like attempted murder. A driver so infuriated by being delayed for a second or two that he slows down to prolong the altercation. And he's acting like this with his father in the car. Just horrible, thuggish behaviour.

Justin(e)

  • On my way out of here
Re: John Radford
« Reply #195 on: October 24, 2014, 11:43:59 am »
Thank you pizzicatooff for being our ambassador in the court room.

Also thanks for your fair and accurate reporting.

JamesBradbury

  • The before-ride picture is even worse
    • James Thinks
Re: John Radford
« Reply #196 on: October 24, 2014, 11:44:55 am »
Very sad to read.

I hope, as others have said, that this sends a message that it is not ok to intimidate or injure other road users, even in the case where the outcome is, by good fortune, less severe. However, I think we need more than just well-publicised cases like this, perhaps a cycling section of the driving test? I imagine the CTC have some good ideas.

caerau

  • SR x 3 - PBP fail but 1090 km - hey - not too bad
Re: John Radford
« Reply #197 on: October 24, 2014, 11:44:58 am »
As feline said above though - for some reason, using a car like that is viewed (legally) less seriously than using a baseball bat or a gun for similar purposes.


It did seem to me also that a charge of attempted murder was not inappropriate.  The CPS will go with what they think they can get a conviction on - in this case it is still a very serious offence he's been convicted of.


[edit] sorry that was a reply to spindrift
It's a reverse Elvis thing.

hellymedic

  • Just do it!
Re: John Radford
« Reply #198 on: November 02, 2014, 06:24:35 pm »
Martyn Bolt has Facebooked the news that John has been sent home for palliative care as he was effectively making no progress.

Quote
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

This is horribly sad and my thoughts are with his family.

Re: John Radford
« Reply #199 on: November 02, 2014, 07:08:01 pm »
So sad   :'(

Thoughts to John and all his family.
Does not play well with others