John Radford - driver admits roadrage killing

[jefmcg]

As it is, the minimum he is likely to be sentenced to is 6 years

That's not what the linked article says. The judge says that if it went to trial, and he was found guilty, 6 years would have been the starting point. On that basis, the accused pleaded guilty. This says to me that the sentence will be shorter than 6 years. But still - I'd guess - more than just a year or two.

 

[TwickenhamCyclist]

Ive cycled with John many a time and if John was confrontational then he would had have a reasonable justification, His life was put in danger!

That brings it home... sorry for the loss of your friend...

 

[jefmcg]

Wonder if John would still be alive today if he hadn't had words with the driver?

Well, maybe, but so what? There were a thousand decisions in his life that put him on that road at the same moment as his killer. If any one of them had been different, then maybe he'd still be alive today. Or maybe he would have died of something else since or before.

To ride safely on roads with drivers who think you shouldn't be there, you have to be assertive - sometimes bloody minded. That assertiveness can lead to some verbal interactions on the road. With assertiveness, you may find yourself on the wrong side of someone homicidal. Without it, he might have been knocked over years early while clinging to the edge of the road, or he might have been forced from cycling altogether by aggressive drivers.

And meek people get murdered too.

John had been riding LEL, but had to drop out due to hot foot. One of the many things that put him in the path of his killer. If he'd been able to resolve that problem, he'd have still been riding LEL at the time. As someone who dropped out of the same ride a little later, I feel a little kinship with John. RIP

 

[glenn forger]

The lesson that everyone else should learnt from this is to pack in being confrontational, the shouting and the hand gestures. Because I bet Mr Radford and his family wish he had just shrugged it off. It could happen to you.

Who says that Radford was confrontational, had shouted or used hand gestures? The evidence is that Radford cycled away to the other side of the road. He removed himself from the scene. Gledhill followed him and drove into him and killed him. Radford was killed by a thug, please don't lie about his death.

 

[PeteXXX]

What worries me is just how close to this sad end we all are as we ride!

 

[Sillyoldman]

There can never be any justification for Gledhills actions.

 

[Tin Pot]

There can never be any justification for Gledhills actions.

Indeed, and worse IMO it was murder and he should have been tried for it. If I lose my rag and kill someone with an axe, it wouldn't be dangerous-axe-wielding.

 

[steveindenmark]

There can never be any justification for Gledhills actions.

You are totally correct. But you can never tell what someone is going to do if you upset them. They can just flip.

They charged Gledhill for the right offence in my opinion. He could not be charged with murder because you have to prove he intended to kill him. Not that his actions were likely to kill him. That is a difficult thing to do in these circumstances and I doubt if he would pleas guilty to murder as he has done to the lesser offence. I dont think he intended to kill him. Knock him or or frighten him, probably. But things went terribly wrong.

If he had been charged and found guilty of murder there is still no guarantee that he would be doing a longer prison time than what he will get anyway.

 

[Profpointy]

You are totally correct. But you can never tell what someone is going to do if you upset them. They can just flip.

They charged Gledhill for the right offence in my opinion. He could not be charged with murder because you have to prove he intended to kill him. Not that his actions were likely to kill him. That is a difficult thing to do in these circumstances and I doubt if he would pleas guilty to murder as he has done to the lesser offence. I dont think he intended to kill him. Knock him or or frighten him, probably. But things went terribly wrong.

If he had been charged and found guilty of murder there is still no guarantee that he would be doing a longer prison time than what he will get anyway.

if I understand correctly intent to cause (serious?) injury is suffient for murder (and obviously death of victim) unlike attempted murder which requires intend to kill, which is a harder thing to prove.

Deliberately knocking someone off, much akin to stabbing someone - and logically hard to claim didn't mean to injure

 

[steveindenmark]

if I understand correctly intent to cause (serious?) injury is suffient for murder (and obviously death of victim) unlike attempted murder which requires intend to kill, which is a harder thing to prove.

Deliberately knocking someone off, much akin to stabbing someone - and logically hard to claim didn't mean to injure

Yes it is very difficult and I am sure these are the considerations the police and prosecution had to deal with. In the end they have to come up with the offences with the best chance of conviction. In my opinion, they were succesful in doing that.

 

[steveindenmark]

Or to put that another way, took the easier option.

No they took the option they had the better chance of getting a conviction for. They thought that would never get a murder conviction on this and a manslaughter charge could have ended up with a lesser sentence.

If they had charged him with murder and he got off you would be moaning. They charged him with something he was likely to plead guilty to and he has and will be going to prison.

 

[sidevalve]

To ride safely on roads with drivers who think you shouldn't be there, you have to be assertive - sometimes bloody minded.

Change the word 'ride' to 'drive' and you have just given a perfect excuse for every bull headed driver out there.

That's what I said, they took the easier option.

If you choose to prefer the guilty getting off scot free then go right ahead but here in the real world murder is a difficult thing to prove in almost every case. It involves, as said above, proof of intention to kill not injure not frighten not maim not cripple but KILL. Such a thing would in this case be impossible and the case would simply have collapsed. If you wish to blame all drivers for everything [as many seem to do] then imagine the case of a cyclist taking a shortcut along a footpath and accidentally hitting and killing an elderly man. Clearly a criminal [he was on the footpath - breaking the law] and hit an innocent pedestrian by your reasoning it should be murder.

 

[Profpointy]

Change the word 'ride' to 'drive' and you have just given a perfect excuse for every bull headed driver out there.

If you choose to prefer the guilty getting off scot free then go right ahead but here in the real world murder is a difficult thing to prove in almost every case. It involves, as said above, proof of intention to kill not injure not frighten not maim not cripple but KILL. Such a thing would in this case be impossible and the case would simply have collapsed. If you wish to blame all drivers for everything [as many seem to do] then imagine the case of a cyclist taking a shortcut along a footpath and accidentally hitting and killing an elderly man. Clearly a criminal [he was on the footpath - breaking the law] and hit an innocent pedestrian by your reasoning it should be murder.

conflating various different things there. Having to assertive, maybe even agressive on cycle is necessary just to stay safe. That's not the same as cycling like a twat, not is it the same as agressive driving in a car which risks others' lives.

And accidently knocking down the example old man whilst cycling (badly) is not the same as deliberately knocking down a cyclist in a car - the difference is the intent to kill or injure and the hugely greater likelihood of injury or death resulting.

You probably know both these things

 

[Pale Rider]

Change the word 'ride' to 'drive' and you have just given a perfect excuse for every bull headed driver out there.

If you choose to prefer the guilty getting off scot free then go right ahead but here in the real world murder is a difficult thing to prove in almost every case. It involves, as said above, proof of intention to kill not injure not frighten not maim not cripple but KILL. Such a thing would in this case be impossible and the case would simply have collapsed. If you wish to blame all drivers for everything [as many seem to do] then imagine the case of a cyclist taking a shortcut along a footpath and accidentally hitting and killing an elderly man. Clearly a criminal [he was on the footpath - breaking the law] and hit an innocent pedestrian by your reasoning it should be murder.

Just to be clear, attempted murder is the charge which needs proof of intention to kill.

Murder can be proved by the intention to cause really serious harm and, of course, the subsequent death of the victim.

@sidevalve's point still stands, the intended harm must be really serious, a slow speed mowing down of a cyclist would not be enough.

Many on here may think it should be enough, which is an argument for a reform in the law, but the law has been applied correctly in this case.

The recent 'love triangle' murder trial of Cohnor Coleman turned on this point.

Coleman killed his victim by battering him about the head many times, but the jury still acquitted him of murder.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-34616177

 

[jefmcg]

Change the word 'ride' to 'drive' and you have just given a perfect excuse for every bull headed driver out there.

I said "assertive" not "aggressive".