- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
High Wycombe Magistrates Court (Google Maps)Cyclists' widows to sue driver who walked out of court free after running both over and killing them instantly
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.
> Driver in court on charges of killing two cyclists in Buckinghamshire
Now, widow Tracey Natale and Mr Coles' partner Helen Atherton are suing Mr Rennie in the High Court following the tragedy, Daily Mail 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.
> Lorry driver who caused cyclist’s death following “perilous overtaking manoeuvre” spared jail
Senior investigating officer Sergeant Darren Brown, of Thames Valley Police's 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.
"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."
Adwitiya joined road.cc in 2023 as a news writer after graduating with a masters in journalism from Cardiff University. His dissertation focused on active travel, which soon threw him into the deep end of covering everything related to the two-wheeled tool, and now cycling is as big a part of his life as guitars and football. He has previously covered local and national politics for Voice Wales, and also likes to writes about science, tech and the environment, if he can find the time. Living right next to the Taff trail in the Welsh capital, you can find him trying to tackle the brutal climbs in the valleys.
Latest Comments
- Zazz53 1 sec ago
Changed to SRAM AXS (Force and Rival) about 5 years ago. When it works it is great but I have had 2 rear mechs, one front mech and a spider power...
- Ride On 41 min 39 sec ago
Anything over £3k should have "expensive' as one of the cons. Just ridiculous prices.
- Ride On 1 hour 8 min ago
I find that about news in general... it is all very believable until they report on something you actually know about, then it is obviously poorly...
- David9694 1 hour 40 min ago
I think he's a good example of why the parkcos have become so widespread among landowners operating car parks. I don't much care for the way in...
- richliv 1 hour 50 min ago
I thought I would read that DT article before commenting. It wasn't as rabid as expected and apart from the obvious inaccuracies on KOM speeds ...
- mattw 7 hours 22 min ago
I think, along with others judging by the comments, that the cycling group have the wrong end of this - in that the travel conditions are similat...
- john_smith 7 hours 57 min ago
Actually, yes. Hundreds of thousands.
- chrisonabike 9 hours 44 min ago
Meanwhile, in the Netherlands......
- andystow 15 hours 4 min ago
I quite like the look of the tee, it would make it really hard to tell whether or not I had just come from a paintball fight.
Add new comment
50 comments
Don't do this chap. You are very welcome to continue your strange obsession with attacking me, because it doesn't bother me in the slightest, but trying to weaponise this utterly tragic event for the purposes of your petty online feud is totally inappropriate. I haven't quoted you as I don't think your comment should be repeated; hopefully on reflection you will delete your comment out of respect for the dead and their families.
2 people dead and you're the one using it to continue your agenda that the content of the highway code applies to them, but not to us, and I'm the one that's disrespectful. Jog on.
Incredibly unhinged and scummy thing to say. It is quite clearly legal/allowed.
Two people died as a result of a driver not properly observing what was in front of them. I suggest you reflect on that and have a think about your comments.
As for the Judge, proved in their own words that they are unfit for the job.
It doesn't matter. The highway code is "purely advisory" in any case. It doesn't really matter what we do.
I wonder what the widows would think of Rendel's pick-and-choose "purely advisory" stance. It's similar to the pick-and-choose stance that drivers seem to take. The one that results in countless road deaths each year. But heaven forbid that anyone should bring that up on an article about needless road deaths. That would be beyond the pale wouldn't it.
You're not only making an utter embarrassment of yourself now through your ignorance, which is par for the course, but showing a total lack of respect for the riders and their families with your attempts to use this tragic miscarriage of justice as an excuse to attack me as part of your petty, sad obsession. Please stop it and, if you have any decency and self respect, delete your comments. This is neither the time nor the place for your nonsense.
What STFD (who really should STFU in this case out of common decency) was doing was trying to get back at me for pointing out, quite correctly, on another thread that the advice to wear a helmet in the Highway Code is a "should" not a "must' and so advisory. I don't think he genuinely believes what he wrote above (could anybody genuinely be that stupid?), he's just desperately, and inappropriately, trying to take revenge for the many times I, and many, many others, have pointed out how wrong he is about many aspects of cycling, road law and common sense. It's quite pathetic but he seems to get something out of it.
I'm not sure I follow. Cyclists have a right to use public carriageways. There is no explicit law that says cyclists cannot ride two- or three- or more abreast. Doing so is therefore perfectly "acceptable" in law. Unless given the circumstances it can be considered careless, inconsiderate or dangerous (the interpretation of which may be informed by the advice in the Highway Code).
Very curious what the statistics are for cyclists being hit while riding two-abreast are.
I suspect they would reveal that you are significantly safer as you are easier to see.
I should make it clear I'm not trying to blame the victims for not riding two-abreast.
I'm confused as to why the judge is talking about "carriageways". I don't know exactly where the collision occurred, reports say "A40 near Studley Green" - looking on Google maps, I don't see any dual carriageway sections of the A40 near there. Either:
“carriageway” means a way constituting or comprised in a highway, being a way (other than a cycle track) over which the public have a right of way for the passage of vehicles;
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/329/1991-02-01?view...
All that article and it doesn't actually say under what grounds they are suing.
The details of the claim are probably not public (unlike the criminal case - hence that gets much more of the article) but this page gives a generic overview of what the families/estates may be able to claim for: https://the-compensation-experts.co.uk/compensation-available-fatal-acci...
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.
So much wrong with this. On top of all the obvious stuff, the comment from the judge that the people on bikes: "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.".
It seems he thinks that cycling two abreast is wrong?
Also how can he say the driving wasn't dangerous when two people were killed? How many have to die before it is judged as being dangerous?
Just wondering how many people you have to accidently kill before it becomes dangerous?
My thoughts are of course with the family, friends and colleagues of Andy and Damien.
Good luck with the legal action.
If you can't come up with a reason why you didn't see the people you killed why should you ever be allowed to operate a motor vehicle ever again?
"Innocently kill" (from Ashley Neal) isn't it? There is the possibility that "the driver couldn't do anything to stop this" - and the common assumption seems to be that unless you have done something wildly illegal that it was one of those tragic accidents.
Also still hoping to see some action on the Road Safety Investigation Branch, so we maybe don't keep having isolated, one off, unpreventable accidents over and over...
WHAT??!!
Five years of being chauffeured and then he is back behind the wheel?
How can that be right?
and £475? The cyclists in a pedestrian area had to pay more than that!!
The article says "a company director by profession" - but I can't find any directorships past or present. He was a company secretary, with an occupation of "engineer" listed. Probably just as well he doesn't currently hold a directorship, as it would probably make it very easy for him to appeal the ban (though, at this point, I wouldn't be surprised if this still happens).
I found two past directorships from which a person with the same name resigned back in 2018. Nothing current.
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 rationalize 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.
Pages