The wives of two cyclists who lost their lives in 2020 are suing the driver who struck them from behind and ran them over for more than £200,000 in damages, after his two-year prison sentence was suspended by the judge despite pleading guilty in court.

Andy Coles, 56, and Damien Natale, 52, were enjoying a sunny summer evening ride on their bikes on the A40 near High Wycombe when they were both ran over by Clifford Rennie, a company director by profession, driving his VW Golf.

In the aftermath of the crash, Coles was thrown over a crash barrier and down a hill, and his mangled bicycle was wedged into a tree. Natale's body was found more than 50 metres away from the scene of collision, in the opposite carriageway.

In October 2021, Rennie, of Wallingford, Oxfordshire, pleaded guilty to two counts of causing death by careless driving at High Wycombe Magistrates' Court. However, a month later, his two-year sentence was suspended by the judge, leaving him only banned from driving for five years, needing to pass an extended retest and pay £475 in prosecution costs.

Now, widow Tracey Natale and Mr Coles' partner Helen Atherton are suing Mr Rennie in the High Court following the tragedy, Daily Mail (link is external) reports.

Mrs Natale said she felt like she was serving a life sentence and Ms Atherton told the court that she had lost her world, and that the fatal date was seared in her memory as "beyond tragedy, beyond awful, beyond anything I can imagine".

Coles and Natale had run event company Allez Sportives, organising sports challenges and holidays around the world, and raised thousands of pounds for charities.

Natale's son, Brady, told the court in 2021: "In that moment you didn't look, you took our family's small bit of calm. You took our family's stability, you took a loving husband, you took a dedicated father, you took a caring son, you took an excited grandfather."

The family members expressed their frustration that Rennie had not been charged with manslaughter and the delays in the case reaching court.

Rennie initially replied 'no comment' in a police interview, but later gave a prepared statement expressing his heartfelt sympathy to the cyclists' families.

Rennie, who claimed he was a cyclist himself, could not explain why he had not seen the two men. In a letter to the Judge, the defendant repeated his apologies and 'sorrow' for what had happened.

Another motorist saw the appalling scene unfold and told Oxford Crown Court he saw Rennie holding his head in his hands, saying: "There’s two of them."

At the packed hearing in November, Judge Michael Gledhill QC gave his reasons for suspending Rennie's sentence as that he was not driving at an excessive speed, wasn't under the influence of alcohol or drugs and hadn't been distracted by anything "as far as he knows".

Judge Gledhill said: "He simply hadn’t seen them. It may have well been that along that road where there are trees on either side of the road and in other places no trees leaving shade and bright sunlight that in those shadows and bright light he simply missed them.

"He should have seen them. Other people had overtaken the two men without any problem at all. They were able to see them and they were able to overtake them safely.

"Mr Coles and Mr Natale were riding perfectly properly. They were not riding abreast of each other, blocking one of the two carriageways of that road. One was slightly ahead of the other, leaving plenty of room to pass and there was no reason at all that Mr Rennie should not have seen them and this accident should not have taken place."

He added: "There was no such offence as causing death by careless driving and that would have been even worse from your point of view, when the maximum sentence would have been counted in terms of pounds rather than in terms of imprisonment.

"But Parliament recognised that there are rare cases when people die as a result of drivers’ careless driving [and] these new offences were brought into being.

"Both parties in this case agree the offence falls not the highest bracket of offending for causing death by careless driving, namely that the defendant’s driving fell not far short of dangerous driving. But it wasn’t dangerous driving, so it is not far short of dangerous driving.

"Just as Mr Coles and Mr Natale went out for a perfectly normal evening ride this defendant left work that night simply to drive home and spend that evening at home of a pleasant summer’s night. He did not go out to kill anybody. His driving was not dangerous, his inattention that lead to the deaths of these two men was to be counted in seconds. The consequences to him are nothing – nothing – like the consequences to these poor men, their families and friends. But they are serious consequences."

He concluded: "[I am] dealing with a man whose life has not been destroyed as the lives of Mr Coles and Mr Natale, but it has been completely altered negatively probably for the rest of his life.

"Do I suspend the sentence? Although it will disappoint many, I think I have been able to explain why I am going to suspend the sentence. He will have this hanging over his head for the rest of his life."

However, a police crash investigator had previously told the court that Rennie should have been able to see the cyclists.

https://road.cc/content/news/cyclists-widows-sue-driver-who-ran-them-over-301815

il0ran | 2901 posts | 22 hours ago
2 likes

Every time this case comes up I'm utterly puzzled as to how the judge/jury reached their decision. The facts as far as I can determine are:

The two cyclists were heading north-westbound on the A40 from Piddington towards their homes in Haddenham.
The driver hit them from behind
There's mention of the brow of the hill in a witness statement
The uphill section of the A40 from Piddington is about a mile long and pretty much straight
It was 6.40pm in the evening in June so low sun is unlikely to be a factor (and not mentioned in mitigation, as it usually would be)
If the cyclists were heading home as reported it's likely that they were due to head off the A40 at Beacon's Bottom which is beyond the top of the hill. That means that they weren't stationary and turning right.
The driver is from Wallingford and was also heading home. That means he was likely using the A40 to cross the M40 at Stokenchurch and go via Christmas Common.
That hill is probably around 6% for half a mile or so at the bottom. The cyclists were unlikely to be sprinting up it.
One of the cyclists was "thrown over the barrier and down a bank. There's a low non-armco barrier on the steep section of the climb which is preceded by a straight stretch of road. No barrier at the top of the hill so it sounds like he hit them on the lower, steeper slopes.
It's a 60mph limit.

If all the above is true I just can't work out how he didn't see them for hundreds of yards

The route he was taking home is one of those you'd do in a powerful car of a nice summer's evening - I know this because I used to do a loop from Reading to High Wycombe to Wallingford and back which used that stretch of road when my interests were performance cars rather than bikes. It's not a direct route to Wallingford but used as a bit of a rat run to avoid the M40, or if you fancy a bit of an A-road blat. Whilst he may have had a clean driving record I'd imagine that's more to do with not being caught. You don't buy a Golf R to sit in traffic and obey the speed limit (300bhp, 0-60 in around 5 seconds is seriously quick by anyone's standards).

On 13/06/2023 09:07 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> il0ran | 2901 posts | 22 hours ago
> 2 likes
>
>
> Every time this case comes up I'm utterly puzzled as to how the judge/jury reached their decision. The facts as far as I can determine are:
>
> The two cyclists were heading north-westbound on the A40 from Piddington towards their homes in Haddenham.
> The driver hit them from behind
> There's mention of the brow of the hill in a witness statement
> The uphill section of the A40 from Piddington is about a mile long and pretty much straight
> It was 6.40pm in the evening in June so low sun is unlikely to be a factor (and not mentioned in mitigation, as it usually would be)
> If the cyclists were heading home as reported it's likely that they were due to head off the A40 at Beacon's Bottom which is beyond the top of the hill. That means that they weren't stationary and turning right.
> The driver is from Wallingford and was also heading home. That means he was likely using the A40 to cross the M40 at Stokenchurch and go via Christmas Common.
> That hill is probably around 6% for half a mile or so at the bottom. The cyclists were unlikely to be sprinting up it.
> One of the cyclists was "thrown over the barrier and down a bank. There's a low non-armco barrier on the steep section of the climb which is preceded by a straight stretch of road. No barrier at the top of the hill so it sounds like he hit them on the lower, steeper slopes.
> It's a 60mph limit.
>
> If all the above is true I just can't work out how he didn't see them for hundreds of yards
>
> The route he was taking home is one of those you'd do in a powerful car of a nice summer's evening - I know this because I used to do a loop from Reading to High Wycombe to Wallingford and back which used that stretch of road when my interests were performance cars rather than bikes. It's not a direct route to Wallingford but used as a bit of a rat run to avoid the M40, or if you fancy a bit of an A-road blat. Whilst he may have had a clean driving record I'd imagine that's more to do with not being caught. You don't buy a Golf R to sit in traffic and obey the speed limit (300bhp, 0-60 in around 5 seconds is seriously quick by anyone's standards).

But...

.... the judge and the jury had the tremendous disadvantage of having
heard all the evidence and cross-examination.

So how could they possibly be right when any old chav-cyclist (even one
with a menial sweeping-up job) could tell them that they were wrong?

The judiciary and their leniency towards those causing traffic "accidents" is not the central issue but just a symptom of a much greater issue - the normalisation of inept, incompetent, inattentive and generally sub-standard driving - along with the normalisation of current car designs to include far too much power, speed, weight and other dangerous factors that are not needed for their supposed primary purpose of getting from A to B.

The fundamental cause of these situations of unaddressed murder and maiming is the car and the way that it's designed and marketed. Cars are made to be used as they are used - dangerously - which pays little attention to the safety of humans near them, despite all the supposed safety aids (which may actually be encouraging risk compensation effects that make drivers even more careless with their speed and lack of attention).

One way to stop these car crimes would be to stop the access to such cars, meaning no issue of having to write endless laws about their use which are semi-ignored by an overworked and over-sympathetic legal system. If you can't buy a gun you can't shoot people, "accidently" or deliberately. Ditto the car and "accidents".

On-line and home working take away a huge portion of the "I need my car" argument. And modern societies can be organised without a zillion cars anyway.. I recall such a place from the time of my early youth in the 1950s, when cars were few and far between.

The things are an evil blight and always have been, with a thousand ill effects compensated little by their very few advantages.

And there are much safer alternatives for personal and mass transportation - including much slower, lighter and safer car designs that force drivers to pay attention.

But it wasn’t dangerous driving,

Two people dead, but it wasn't dangerous. The law is an ass. Still waiting for the comprehensive review of road law.

Judge Gledhill said: "He simply hadn’t seen them.

No "simply" about it: he wasn't paying attention and two people died, but it isn't dangerous.

It may have well been that along that road where there are trees on either side of the road and in other places no trees leaving shade and bright sunlight that in those shadows and bright light he simply missed them.

"It may well have been........" Don't they know? Judges are supposed to judge on the facts, not suppositions, and the police investigator said "Rennie should have been able to see the cyclists". Was the judge paid by the defence or is he in the same lodge?

If these ladies would like to start a crowdfunder for their legal costs, count me in for a few quid.

It's not the first time this sort of thing has happened: A motorist never stopped at a pedestrian crossing, hit an elderly man, and killed him - the judge let her off because as he said "she was only doing 18 mph". It appears that killing cyclists and pedestrians with a car is considered to be a very minor offence by the judiciary.

This article could form the definition of hyperbole.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> The judiciary and their leniency towards those causing traffic
> "accidents" is not the central issue but just a symptom of a much greater
> issue - the normalisation of inept, incompetent, inattentive and
> generally sub-standard driving - along with the normalisation of current
> car designs to include far too much power, speed, weight and other
> dangerous factors that are not needed for their supposed primary purpose
> of getting from A to B.
>
> The fundamental cause of these situations of unaddressed murder and
> maiming is the car and the way that it's designed and marketed. Cars are
> made to be used as they are used - dangerously - which pays little
> attention to the safety of humans near them, despite all the supposed
> safety aids (which may actually be encouraging risk compensation effects
> that make drivers even more careless with their speed and lack of attention).
>
> One way to stop these car crimes would be to stop the access to such
> cars, meaning no issue of having to write endless laws about their use
> which are semi-ignored by an overworked and over-sympathetic legal
> system. If you can't buy a gun you can't shoot people, "accidently" or
> deliberately. Ditto the car and "accidents".
>
> On-line and home working take away a huge portion of the "I need my car"
> argument. And modern societies can be organised without a zillion cars
> anyway. I recall such a place from the time of my early youth in the
> 1950s, when cars were few and far between.
>
> The things are an evil blight and always have been, with a thousand ill
> effects compensated little by their very few advantages.
>
> And there are much safer alternatives for personal and mass
> transportation - including much slower, lighter and safer car designs
> that force drivers to pay attention.
>

--
Spike

It is interesting to note that the judge in the Auriol Grey case was
applauded by cyclists for his case handling and sentence, but in the case
which is commented below, the judge involved heard all the evidence, and
applied the law just as the previous judge did, and is now being castigated
by cyclists because of that.

Does anyone fail to see the double standards of cyclists operating here?

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> But it wasn’t dangerous driving,
>
> Two people dead, but it wasn't dangerous. The law is an ass. Still
> waiting for the comprehensive review of road law.
>
> Judge Gledhill said: "He simply hadn’t seen them.
>
> No "simply" about it: he wasn't paying attention and two people died, but
> it isn't dangerous.
>
> It may have well been that along that road where there are trees on
> either side of the road and in other places no trees leaving shade and
> bright sunlight that in those shadows and bright light he simply missed them.
>
> "It may well have been........" Don't they know? Judges are supposed to
> judge on the facts, not suppositions, and the police investigator said
> "Rennie should have been able to see the cyclists". Was the judge paid
> by the defence or is he in the same lodge?
>
> If these ladies would like to start a crowdfunder for their legal costs,
> count me in for a few quid.
>
>
>

--
Spike

Peowpeowpeowlasers | 708 posts | 3 days ago
24 likes

If the driver does not "know" why he didn't see the two people cycling, then his licence to drive should be permanently revoked until he can explain this.

Perhaps he's telling the truth and was not distracted. In which case, perhaps he has an undiagnosed medical condition. In which case, it might happen again.

Why the fuck is he still allowed to drive?

This is what gets me. If you crash because you weren't paying attention you should have been and should be punished. If you have no idea what you did wrong when you kill two people then you are dangerous and shouldn't be on the roads.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Peowpeowpeowlasers | 708 posts | 3 days ago
> 24 likes
>
>
> If the driver does not "know" why he didn't see the two people cycling,
> then his licence to drive should be permanently revoked until he can explain this.
>
> Perhaps he's telling the truth and was not distracted. In which case,
> perhaps he has an undiagnosed medical condition. In which case, it might happen again.
>
> Why the fuck is he still allowed to drive?
>
> This is what gets me. If you crash because you weren't paying attention
> you should have been and should be punished. If you have no idea what you
> did wrong when you kill two people then you are dangerous and shouldn't be on the roads.

Much the same could be said about cyclists, some 1 in 6 of those killed
dying in an SVA.

--
Spike

Avatar
wtjs | 2874 posts | 3 days ago
13 likes
A well-known and established technique for getting away with killing cyclists has once again proved effective: if you've been drinking, get home quickly and swallow a few more- you don't need to worry about leaving the scene of a collision because of the ScotFilth Dodge: just say you don't remember the incident. Then apologise, express regret and sympathy for the bereaved, say you'll have to 'live with this for the rest of your life, thereby claiming victim status, and you're home free.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Avatar
> wtjs | 2874 posts | 3 days ago
> 13 likes
> A well-known and established technique for getting away with killing
> cyclists has once again proved effective: if you've been drinking, get
> home quickly and swallow a few more- you don't need to worry about
> leaving the scene of a collision because of the ScotFilth Dodge: just say
> you don't remember the incident. Then apologise, express regret and
> sympathy for the bereaved, say you'll have to 'live with this for the
> rest of your life, thereby claiming victim status, and you're home free.

It sounds very much like drivers are imitating cyclist behaviour.

--
Spike

On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 11:28:56 AM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> Avatar
> wtjs | 2874 posts | 3 days ago
> 13 likes
> A well-known and established technique for getting away with killing cyclists has once again proved effective: if you've been drinking, get home quickly and swallow a few more- you don't need to worry about leaving the scene of a collision because of the ScotFilth Dodge: just say you don't remember the incident. Then apologise, express regret and sympathy for the bereaved, say you'll have to 'live with this for the rest of your life, thereby claiming victim status, and you're home free.

There was a recent case where a pissed up motorbiker fell over at a burger joint at 0300h - he could not use that stunt.

On 14/06/2023 06:22 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> But it wasn’t dangerous driving,
>
> Two people dead, but it wasn't dangerous. The law is an ass. Still waiting for the comprehensive review of road law.
>
> Judge Gledhill said: "He simply hadn’t seen them.
>
> No "simply" about it: he wasn't paying attention and two people died, but it isn't dangerous.
>
> It may have well been that along that road where there are trees on either side of the road and in other places no trees leaving shade and bright sunlight that in those shadows and bright light he simply missed them.
>
> "It may well have been........" Don't they know? Judges are supposed to judge on the facts, not suppositions, and the police investigator said "Rennie should have been able to see the cyclists". Was the judge paid by the defence or is he in the same lodge?
>
> If these ladies would like to start a crowdfunder for their legal costs, count me in for a few quid.

....out of your "£600,000" pension pot? :-)

On 14/06/2023 06:24 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> It's not the first time this sort of thing has happened: A motorist never stopped at a pedestrian crossing, hit an elderly man, and killed him - the judge let her off because as he said "she was only doing 18 mph". It appears that killing cyclists and pedestrians with a car is considered to be a very minor offence by the judiciary.

Why do you feel the need to tell such blatant lies, liar?

On 14/06/2023 08:23 am, Spike wrote:
>
> It is interesting to note that the judge in the Auriol Grey case was
> applauded by cyclists for his case handling and sentence, but in the case
> which is commented below, the judge involved heard all the evidence, and
> applied the law just as the previous judge did, and is now being castigated
> by cyclists because of that.
>
> Does anyone fail to see the double standards of cyclists operating here?

Er... no.
And he won't send any money, either, whether out of his "£600,000"
pension pot or any other source.

> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But it wasn’t dangerous driving,
>>
>> Two people dead, but it wasn't dangerous. The law is an ass. Still
>> waiting for the comprehensive review of road law.
>>
>> Judge Gledhill said: "He simply hadn’t seen them.
>>
>> No "simply" about it: he wasn't paying attention and two people died, but
>> it isn't dangerous.
>>
>> It may have well been that along that road where there are trees on
>> either side of the road and in other places no trees leaving shade and
>> bright sunlight that in those shadows and bright light he simply missed them.
>>
>> "It may well have been........" Don't they know? Judges are supposed to
>> judge on the facts, not suppositions, and the police investigator said
>> "Rennie should have been able to see the cyclists". Was the judge paid
>> by the defence or is he in the same lodge?
>>
>> If these ladies would like to start a crowdfunder for their legal costs,
>> count me in for a few quid.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Judge Gledhill needs to be removed from the bench for being delusional: "He (the driver) will have this hanging over his head for the rest of his life?"

No he won't. The human ability to rationalise these sorts of incidents is unlimited. It is likely the driver has already found some way to convince himself it wasn't his fault, starting most likely with the thought that cyclists shouldn't be on the road in the first place.