- 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
- Nick T 4 sec ago
Come again chief? The Tarmac in size 56 has a 73.5 degree HTA, the Addict in the same size comes in at 73.4 degrees. In terms of bike fit that's...
- TheBillder 1 hour 41 min 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 1 hour 57 min 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 2 hours 51 sec ago
Council acting like ‘the Sheriff of Nottingham’ with parking charges...
- David9694 2 hours 4 min ago
Man taken to hospital after vehicle crashes into pub...
- David9694 2 hours 14 min ago
Car flips in Millennium Way, Sheerness, near former Aldi supermarket that reopens as Home Bargains this weekend...
- RoubaixCube 2 hours 44 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. 4 hours 19 min ago
I'm thinking CX tyres...
- kingleo 4 hours 30 min ago
Crossing the road is the big danger for pedestrians, not the cycle path.
Add new comment
76 comments
It's not zero because of the risk of a freak occurrence or the actions of someone else could cause the danger as in the case of the little girl running out but in this case it was acknowledged that the cyclists did nothing wrong and there was no freak natural event.
That is a problem with perception that i think extends throughout modern society as, ultimately, everybody in the justice chain is a motorist.
It comes down to the perception that a speed limit is both a limit and a target which offers an instant, quantifiable defence against dangerous or careless driving.
The reality is that society has allowed something that should be a judgement made every day on every road based on the conditions to be replaced with "you do the speed limit" and when incidents happen, people ask of the cyclist "were they wearing a helmet" and of the driver "were they speeding" with the more recent and welcome addition of "were they using their phone". When the answer to those is yes, yes and no then "accidents happen", which as any cyclist will tell you is bullshit given the behaviour and judgement displayed by many drivers against what we would see as 'reasonable care'.
no, it should be the case if the consequences are sufficiently extreme even if the probablility is low. driving along rural roads at 100 might have a low risk of harm, if the road is very rarely used, but it's obvious to anyone that the action is dangerous.
The difference between careless and dangerous is unfortunately defined as the difference between below the standard of a reasonably careful driver and far below a reasonably careful driver.
The test is so subjective and vague that the CPS aren't prepared to risk losing a conviction based on that wording. The consequence is they get the easy conviction but then the sentencing guidelines tend towards the "ah well, these things happen" end of the scale.
It really needs legal reform as it is such a well known problem.
The worst example we had locally was a driver killed a young boy on a bike and they could not even prosecute for the impact as they could not say how it happened, but they prosecuted for careless driving as he continued down the road with his vision obscured by the body and he collided with the tree h effectively the collision with the cyclist was not prosecuted! TBF the driver mediately handed their licence in and didn't argue the case, but apparently genuinely did not know where the cyclist appeared from (it could have been a tragic case of a young boy cycling across his bonnet from the pavement).
Kills 2 people, the investigation shows no fault by the victims, driver has no explanation for why he failed to see them and it's only careless.
How many did he have to kill for it to be dangerous?
Who did he have to kill for it to be dangerous?
A police officer. In which case no stone would have been left unturned in order to obtain the right conviction.
OT, but calling someone a 'company director' means practically nothing nowadays, when it's been made so easy to incorporate a limited company and become a company director...
Yes, I used to be one for the company I set up. I was the CEO, the manager, the workforce, and chief bottle washer. I was only much good at the last one.
Seriously? For taking 2 lives?
The families should get some money together and pay someone to have his ability to see and his ability to walk taken away from him.
That would be justice. Leaving him in a living nightmare.
The legal system in regard to road laws is broken. It is manifestly obvious that actions which result in death are dangerous, not just careless, and any just system would recognise that and charge people who kill accordingly. The use of "no comment" was clearly adopted to avoid responsibility, and the inability of the CPS to charge with anything more than causing death by careless driving is unjust and is a scandal.
As others have pointed out, kill someone with anything other than a car, and you will almost certainly receive a prison sentence.
Sentencing guidelines here https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/cau...
Never mind, roll on the final report of the review of road laws.........
Driving a high performance Golf R that can do 0-60mph in 4.7secs. It stinks they could only pin careless driving on him, it really does seem likely that excessive speed was an issue.
£475 is peanuts to a company director who sold out to a large firm https://www.owler.com/company/kfs-solutions
At the very least I'd like to know what measures are taken to enforce the sentence. If a person is sentenced to prison time, escape is fairly difficult, and immediately obvious. When they are sentenced to a driving ban, evidence shows that "escape" is trivially easy and widespread. This brings the justice system into disrepute. What assurance does society have that this person (and others) actually will serve the sentence?
I don't have fundamental issue with drivers getting suspended sentences, as it is for the families of victims to decide whether they feel a sentence truly gives closure or not.
However, I also fail to see how someone who has proved that they cannot be trusted to drive safely around other road users should be allowed to drive again after as little as 5 years. I don't even know whether lifetime bans are a thing in UK law, I have never seen one given out, but if they are then drivers who kill someone due to their own carelessness/incompetence should never be allowed behind the wheel again.
Problem is ... it is way too easy for someone to drive while suspended without being caught until they do something else wrong.
We need a better way to deal with the problem.
A better way, would be to put them in jail - that way they definitely can't be driving around, and will have plenty time to consider how they might behave upon release (i.e. not just drive whilst suspended).
Being prevented from registering a vehicle/buying a car without having a valid licence, and that car being de-registered as soon as your licence is revoked, and monitored using motorway cameras, would seem sensible. Yes a car can be used by family members, but if you're banned, the car would have to change possession too. Still ways around it, but make it enough hassle and it'll cut down the frequency.
The latest god awful, soft touch judge, totally out of touch with reality. What an utterly awful sentence to hand down, with weasly words of condolence.
One wonders whether the judge and Mr Rennie are members of the same lodge.
Should be a lifetime driving ban - what's the benefit in letting him ever control a motorised vehicle again?
I object to the last quote “I know that no sentence would have served as any solace to Andy and Damien’s family....'. I'd argue that a proper prison sentence may provide some additional solace. Furthermore, a real prison sentence would get an irresponsible arsehole off the road and make it a little bit safer for everybody else.
What bloody speed was he doing to throw a cyclist 58 metres? 2 years suspended a joke, £475 costs a joke, so how many favours did he have to call in to get off so lightly. Scandalous.
The road in question is 60mph and uphill when the cyclists was hit. So hitting something doing 8-10mph whilst doing 60 would cause those distances. Personally having that road as 60 is a mistake, especially as there seems to be a footpath on the one side.
A year's worth of ankle tagged curfew would have been a start.
It would have demonstrated to others his criminality and might have caused some disruption to his continuing normal life.
A much longer ban too.
The "no commenting" to the police shows a deep lack of remorse and stinks.
But banning someone from driving is the biggest disruption you can cause to their life... right?
Well, no. Being prevented from driving might be some disruption, but without frequent random checks being made banning them does not prevent them driving.
I guess i should have put the <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags around that...
No, the sarcasm was not lost on me, but even so.
One side effect of being banned is that they're likely to be less aggressive and take more care with their driving, as any driving incident could lead to them being found out.
For a large number of people driving is vital to their lifestyle remove that right to drive and they lose their job, house and wife/ husband. So taking a licence away can cause a very major disruption. Not saying it is for everybody but for some it can ruin their lives.
For an even larger number of people being hit at speed by 2 tonnes of metal can also be quite disruptive.
Cry me a river I'm afraid - being caught embezzelling funds would have the same effect, do we say people shouldn't receive condign punishment for that because it will mess their lives up? That's part of the problem, that as a society we don't really regard road crime as crime despite the fact that it costs hundreds of lives and many thousands more are changed forever. It's pretty easy not to lose your licence in this country, don't speed, use your 'phone at the wheel or drive under the influence and you're pretty much safe. Anyone who does, well as the old saying has it, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. We must ditch this notion that driving is some sacred right that can only be removed in the most extreme cirumstances.
Thanks for extending my vocabulary.
.
Latin via Old French (condigne) in fact, condignus, con completely or altogther, dignus suitable, fitting.
Pages