- 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
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
statue-justice-old-bailey-licensed-cc-2.0-flickr-ronnie-macdonaldSuspended sentence for careless driver who killed two cyclists
A driver who crashed into two cyclists, killing both, has walked away with a two-year suspended sentence having pleaded guilty to two counts of causing death by careless driving. Clifford Rennie, 61, hit Andy Coles and Damien Natale as they rode along the A40 between Studley Green and Piddington.
Both riders died at the scene of the high-speed collision. Mr Coles was thrown over a crash barrier and down a hill, his heavily-damaged bicycle found in a tree, while Mr Natale was hit into the other carriageway and found 58 metres from the point of impact.
A police crash investigator concluded that although the evening was sunny, and overhanging trees had created patches of shade on the road, Rennie should have seen the cyclists.
A witness driving another vehicle saw the company director's car swerve and hit the victims at the crest of the hill. He reported seeing Rennie holding his head in his hands after the incident, saying "there's two of them".
After an extended police investigation the driver was charged in July this year with causing their deaths, 13 months after the incident. Rennie pleaded guilty to both charges at High Wycombe Magistrates' Court last month and yesterday was handed his sentence.
> Driver admits killing two cyclists in A40 crash through careless driving
Rennie answered no comment to questions in police interviews and provided a prepared statement in his second interview, in which he offered "heartfelt sympathy" to the families of the cyclists, and said as a cyclist himself, he could not explain why he had not seen the two men.
He was sentenced to two years in prison, suspended for two years, disqualified from driving for five years and ordered to pay £475 in costs. Rennie will need to take an extended re-test at the end of the five years.
Tracey Natale, the wife of Mr Natale, said she felt like she was serving a life sentence, while Mr Coles' partner Helen Atherton said in her victim personal statement that the incident was "beyond tragedy, beyond awful, beyond anything I can imagine."
Mr Natale's son Brady said: "You took our family’s stability, you took a loving husband, you took a dedicated father, you took a caring son, you took any excited grandfather."
Judge Michael Gledhill QC told the victims' families: "No words of mine are going to bring these men back. Nobody could be anything but deeply moved at hearing the impact and the effect of their loved ones’ deaths. The consequences for them, their families and friends of the deceased is truly appalling.
"Some or all of the people I have just heard from feel their lives have been destroyed. But I hope that these proceedings, now that they are about to come to an end will bring some degree of closure.
"If I could make it better for everybody concerned I would. I regret to say I can’t. I can only express my deep condolences and sympathy for each and every one of you."
Senior Investigating Officer Sergeant Darren Brown of the Serious Collision Investigation Unit said: "This was an absolute tragedy that needn’t have happened. Due to the manner of Mr Rennie’s driving on that early summer’s afternoon last year, two men, who were simply out for a cycle ride, did not return home to their loved ones.
"We were able to prove that the careless nature of Mr Rennie’s driving was the causative factor in the deaths of Andy and Damien, and given the evidence put to him, Mr Rennie pleaded guilty to both offences. This, at least, spared the family and friends of Andy and Damien the further ordeal of a trial.
"Whatever the reason for Mr Rennie’s careless driving that evening, it is abundantly clear that neither Andy nor Damien contributed in any way to this incident.
"This tragic case underlines the fact that motorists need to be fully aware of their surroundings and be aware of other, more vulnerable road users, especially when driving within national speed limits.
“I know that no sentence would have served as any solace to Andy and Damien’s family and friends, but I would like to pay tribute to them all. They have showed tremendous resolve and patience while this case was being investigated, and on behalf of Thames Valley Police, I would like to extend my condolences to everyone affected by this tragedy."
Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.
Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.
Latest Comments
- TheBillder 1 sec ago
My new double glazed wooden framed sash windows are £1600 plus vat per (quite large) window. House built in 1904. The cost includes fitting and...
- galibiervelo 15 min 41 sec ago
We promote #bikefriday You dont need it - go for a spin. Nice bikes and kit are lovely, but not as noice as a dawn spin this friday morning with a...
- David9694 18 min 53 sec ago
Council acting like ‘the Sheriff of Nottingham’ with parking charges...
- David9694 23 min 1 sec ago
Man taken to hospital after vehicle crashes into pub...
- David9694 32 min 47 sec ago
Car flips in Millennium Way, Sheerness, near former Aldi supermarket that reopens as Home Bargains this weekend...
- RoubaixCube 1 hour 2 min ago
Ive been using the same £2-3 dish brush I bought from wilko, tesco or pound land for as long as I can remember. I dont understand why anyone would...
- S.E. 2 hours 37 min ago
I'm thinking CX tyres...
- kingleo 2 hours 48 min ago
Crossing the road is the big danger for pedestrians, not the cycle path.
- Hirsute 4 hours 7 min ago
More of an oblique reference to a cyclist being taken out when in the cycle lane in the same scenario. Of course the cyclist pretty much gets the...
Add new comment
76 comments
So all I have to do in order to commit murder, is get the victim on a bike, and make it look like I was 'careless'? Costs less than £500 - surprised the drug dealing trade hasn't become involved in more cycling 'accidents'...
How on earth the guy doesn't have to serve at least 5yr jail time (actual time - so an 8-10yr sentence) I just don't understand.
Hope the police checked his mobile
Does sound likley and they had no evidence right?
Probably on his burner mistress-phone so it 'dissappeared' and popo never searched for it down the side of the seat... he presented his Mrs/Work phone which he had not been using and police decided no phone use.
If this bloke is caught driving within the suspended sentence period would that be enough to trigger the prison sentence?
Supposedly, yes...
In theory, yes - in practice the prison sentence, if it exists, is pathetic anyway.
One would have thought that this bloke being caught having killed 2 people through willful negligence would have triggered a prison sentence.....
I was pondering this careless)/dangerous driving distinction, and it dawned that there was an easy fix to update the law to more fit what many of us view as a flaw demonstrated by the result here.
A KSI by car (or bike for that matter) should be de facto a criminal offence regardless of the test for carelessness, on the basis that there are so few scenarios where an accident could be entirely blameless. Then the sentencing is a matter for sentencing guidelines. The interesting side effect is if the default could be a jail sentence. Those who are "unaware" of how the situation arose would not be able to offer mitigation (though to be fair that could be applied now - a reasonably careful driver would be aware of how a situation developed even if they were unable to avoid it so why should the starting point of sentencing not be prison if the defendant is unable to offer a reasonable mitigating explanation?). Those who offer mitigation could have their excuses tested. (There are trials simply for sentencing).
You then can have another offence of a KSI by careless driving, where the burden of proof is that as today, and that simply attracts a higher sentence, for example certain jail time. Dangerous driving simply becomes an aggregating factor in sentencing.
I'd happily write to my MP to propose it. Obviously there would be pushback from some motorists, but you'd have a pretty hard time arguing that killing someone with a car is blameless, even when you consider the stepping off pavement without looking scenario - modern thinking is that you should be alert for the possibility of accidents with vulnerable people so the law should be brought in line (and it's exactly a point in the debate on self-driving cars that they are weaker than humans because they can't anticipate that possibility).
Thoughts?
I like your line of thinking but I really doubt that trying to go from the present situation to "if you hit someone, that's criminal" will get anywhere. The common idea that "accidents happen" and the high legal bar to imputing blame without some pretty compelling evidence will put paid to that.
I suspect that politically (e.g. in terms of culture, not party politics per se) the only way to get improvements here is:
There's a very easy way to legally define careless/dangerous driving. If you're driving in accordance with the highway code, then it's careless, if you're not driving in accordance with the highway code, then it's dangerous.
You would think that, however the highway code states something along the lines of drive to the conditions and reduce speed if neccesary. He couldn't see up the road very well as the light coming through the bushes "obscured" two cyclists and he hit them at 60mph or so. So was he following the highway code then?
I would say he wasn't in accordance with the highway code.
At the very least he should have reduced his speed due to poor visibility, not carried on at 60. To me that would make it dangerous driving. If the guy had reduced his speed to say 40 and still hit the 2 cyclists you could say it was careless, because he hadn't reduced his speed enough to avoid the collision.
If a person is following the Highway Code to the letter, then I very much doubt they could be considered to be driving carelessly, and I doubt this incident would have occured. Indeed, if every road user followed the Highway Code to the letter, I suspect very, very few collisions would occur in general.
I think a more pertinent argument is that it being "careless" when in control of a motor vehicle is inherently dangerous.
Being careless when doing 60mph definitely strays deep into Dangerous.
Howver the CPS deciding that accelerating away from traffic lights in a car that could be at 50mph by the time it hit the pedestrian still crossing the other side of the junction (30mph is the speed limit) is only careless driving, what hope is there.
The final insult to the families and all cyclists everywhere:
"....and said as a cyclist himself....."
Don't be so cynical: why, I'm sure he rode a bicycle once, back in the seventies...
The final insult to the families and all cyclists everywhere:"....and said as a cyclist himself....."
I may have mentioned this already, but this one was recently perpetrated on me after a Wyre Council big Transit executed a very close pass on me on the dreaded Blackpool-Garstang road. The response by Wyre Council was much better than that from Lancashire Constabulary (which was, of course, none at all) but still included:
I must stress, he was very upset about your report and would like to apologise if he caused you any distress. He has held a licence for over 40 years and is also a keen cyclist. With the evidence you have provided, I intend to carry out a Driving Assessment of the Driver. Your incident report and the driving assessment will be kept on record for the next 12 months.
The dead giveaways here are the non-apology apology and the obviously untrue 'keen cyclist'. I recently received a completely unrelated communication from a respectable Wyre Council worker referring to some greenwashing/ box-ticking pretend initiative:
On another subject though, Wyre Council have plans for the future with regards to encouraging and supporting cyclists out in our communities, with equipment/training/events etc. They were asking for volunteers across the borough who may want to get involved and I thought of your good self.
I can't in all conscience encourage new cyclists onto Lancashire roads afflicted by the twin hazards of totally cyclist-hostile Lancashire Constabulary and totally useless PCC Snowden.
I don't get why you are making submissions if you are assuming any outcome from it is a lie? Why bother?
He's pushing and poking them to do their jobs correctly. With all the brush-offs he's been given, I'm not surprised that he doesn't believe Lancs police.
I'm not surprised that he doesn't believe Lancs police
I don't, but that's not the issue here as LC did their usual 'no response whatsoever'. Those comments are from Wyre Council and of course it's a lie about him being a keen cyclist which is why we rightly mock this routine fiction. The get-out is that to these people, if you have ever ridden a bike you're a keen cyclist. The council letter also included 'he thought he had given you sufficient space'. That's a lie as well- when you get a mega-transit and a cyclist into the same lane on a fairly narrow A road, you know you haven't given anything like reasonable safe clearance- the driver was just used to getting away with it as he has done for decades and is doubtless rather aggrieved that a cyclist is cheating with a headcam instead of just taking it like a man.
"Judge Michael Gledhill QC told the victims' families: "No words of mine are going to bring these men back."
...But I am going to insult their memories and spit in your face by not even jailing this terrible driver for a day. Oh, and he'll be back on the roads in a few years, free to kill again.
A suspended sentence is no sentence at all! This twat killed 2 innocent people and walked away scott free from court. How is that justice? How can their families live with that?
Disgusted. Again.
WTAF. No wonder people take the law into their own hands.
If you do something that kills somebody that is ipso facto dangerous, isn't it?
How many people do you have to kill before your driving is considered dangerous? Two obviously isn't enough. What is the number? What is so special about driving?
I don't think it's that simple. I think the concept of danger is associated with the probability that the action will result in harm. To be dangerous the probability needs to be relatively high, and a reasonable person could be expected to understand that the risk was high.
For example, driving along a residential road within the speed limit, just like all the drivers in front of and behind you. A child runs out in front of you and the outcome is the worst. The results were fatal, but does that make your driving dangerous?
The probability of killing someone whilst driving down the street sensibly is mercifully very low, but not zero. Just because it happens does not qualify the driving as dangerous.
Tell that to Charlie Alliston.
Charlie should have had a front brake, riding without was demonstrateably illegal.
And he should have kept quiet, perhaps allowing his legal representative to say the word remorse and sympathy, which seems all it takes to avoid prison.
It's just legal fudge. We have these two charges because juries wouldn't convict for things like manslaughter. We then have a totally vague definition for what the offenses are. Asking people to compare the standard to that of "a competent driver" is at best is going to be their vision of their own driving - and who knows what that's like? It also turns out that juries tend not to convict anyway and that the sentences aren't particularly impressive unless you've really gone to town on socially unacceptable behaviour (drink + drugs + disqualified + serial offender + not stopping still doesn't get you full points...). So the CPS are reluctant to push these because losing cases isn't good for them.
That's why we need a signed statement by everyone accepting a driving license that, in the unlikely event of them killing someone while driving, they accept that they will lose their freedom. Sure, there would be some good people who made an honest mistake sitting in jail, but overall it would increase justice and might encourage more responsible driving.
Pages