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.”

76 thoughts on “Suspended sentence for careless driver who killed two cyclists”
Didn’t even try for a
Didn’t even try for a momentary lapse…
Is there any activity other than driving you can perform where your actions being below the necessary standard are solely to blame for the death of two people and it is not considered worthy of actual time served without any demonstrable mitigation, especially when it is known that sub-standard performance can result in death and serious injury – it is entirely foreseeable?
However, from experience, I always accept the “I just didn’t see them” excuse because the brain is a fickle instrument and if you don’t use it, it has a habit of letting you down. If you do not consciously look for obstructions in the road, your eyes will tend to show you what you think should be there rather than what is. What is wrong is that the courts seem to think that it is acceptable to drive in such a manner.
Absolutely, driving (like
Absolutely, driving (like other things) has become a series of assumptions and predictions. I’ve been in a couple accidents in my car and both times it was “I thought you were turning” and “I thought that lane went straight on” – irrespective of indicators and road markings being clear indicators to the contrary; people now just drive and don’t focus on what is actually around them.
I live near a road where its a 50, reducing to a 30, and its astounding how many people drive the whole stretch at 40. There’s 8 signs in the space of 1.4km that tell you the speed, and they miss all of them – because they’re not looking, they’re not taking in information, they’re predetermined how they’re going to drive that road (and since there’s a Tesco at one end of it, likely thinking more about their shopping list)…
I object to the last quote “I
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
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
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.
ktache wrote:
But banning someone from driving is the biggest disruption you can cause to their life… right?
mdavidford wrote:
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
I guess i should have put the <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags around that…
The sarcasm was not lost on
No, the sarcasm was not lost on me, but even so.
Sriracha wrote:
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
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
For an even larger number of people being hit at speed by 2 tonnes of metal can also be quite disruptive.
JLasTSR wrote:
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.
Rendel Harris wrote:
— Rendel HarrisThanks for extending my vocabulary.
eburtthebike wrote:
.
Latin via Old French
Latin via Old French (condigne) in fact, condignus, con completely or altogther, dignus suitable, fitting.
Er… thanks?
Er… thanks?
I was replying to your post
I was replying to your post which you’ve now deleted.
Oh, OK – to be honest, I can
Oh, OK – to be honest, I can’t remember exactly what I wrote. It was a lame attempt at a joke that made sense to me as I was writing it, but not so much a few minutes later when I read it back – hence why I zapped it. I wasn’t actually asking for a definition.
I don’t disagree with any of
I don’t disagree with any of what you have written but I was responding to somebody implying losing your licence is no real disruption to someone’s life. It most certainly is a punishment. It may not have been an appropriate punishment, in this case the sentencing seems mild. However the fact remains for many losing their licence ruins their lives.
Since we no longer do an eye for an eye justice there will never be a sense of justice having fully prevailed for many people. Justice has always been subjective at times it has been so severe it was probably more punishment than the crime warranted. Currently many people would say that the punishments are largely less punitive than the crimes warrant. Again the impact of a crime on a family varies some cope better than others. The impact of the punishment likewise has different effects on families and individuals. If I killed somebody however I did it I am sure my remorse would weigh heavier than any punishment.
I didn’t imply it was no real
I didn’t imply it was no real disruption. I implied that it wasn’t the most disruptive thing that could happen to somebody – that it’s so disruptive as to make life untenable, or be some sort of cruel and unusual punishment, which is the impression that’s so often given by ‘hardship’ pleas, and seems to be accepted by a large proportion of the public.
Of course a ban restricts your license to carry out certain activities using a motor vehicle. But it’s a restriction that people can adapt to, and shouldn’t be seen as a punishment – rather it’s a consequence of your not being responsible enough to be in charge of a vehicle, just the same as if you’d never managed to pass your test in the first place.
JLasTSR wrote:
“Punishment” / “ruins lives” – you express a very common viewpoint. And it’s one that needs to change if we’re to mitigate the many negatives of our current driving culture. Consider – Bob wants to get a speedboat and use it on a particular stretch of water. He doesn’t have to get a boat – indeed it involves an investment of his time and money. He does this because he derives some benefits from this activity.
On this particular stretch of water he needs a licence to operate his boat. (There is no general requirement in all UK waters but there are in specific places). The requirements are that you have taken a course showing you can properly and safely operate the boat. Reasonable, right?
Bob’s then seen speeding through the marina splashing people and collides with a kayaker. Bob’s licence is withdrawn, because he has shown he cannot competently and safely operate his craft. Seems pretty simple and logical – he was granted the ability to do something under certain conditions, and he didn’t keep to them.
Is this a cruel punishment? Maybe he used the boat to get across the river to visit his mum? Now he’ll need to drive, or get a taxi – maybe it will take him over an hour? Maybe it will put a dent in his social life now he can’t take people out at the weekend? Maybe he’s starting to look less attractive to his girlfriend? Maybe he had started operating a boat-trip business? Won’t you think of his children?
Frankly I have no interest in “but it will cause me hardship”. There are alternatives. Maybe not so attractive – so what? If you managed to get a car you have some resources – you’ll just have to spend them differently. It’s not a war on the motorist – there is ample evidence that we are under-enforcing and penalising dangerous and indeed illegal driving. It’s really quite hard to lose your licence. I fail to see why anyone’s selfishness / human fallibility in a motor vehicle trumps everyone else’s rights to safe passage in a public space. Or why we need to subsidise drivers damaging the infrastructure and clogging up the NHS.
For who? So that’s the way you’re made, that’s judged a good thing in most places. However though our system takes remorse into account in sentencing it doesn’t generally have the approach of “you said you’re sorry, so let that be the end of the matter”. With reason. As evidenced from your “punishment / ruin life” comments, we’re not rational beings, we’re human beings and we tend to see this as “no punishment” and get angry…
There are several aspects to
There are several aspects to sentancing
1) rehabilitation – now it may be that someone with sufficient remorse will amend their future behaviour and achieve this desired outcome.
2) punishment – again it’s possible that someones own consience will punish them more than 12 months in prison.
3) deterance – there is an element in sentancing that is there to act as a deterant against unacceptable behaviours. I would like to see the data but I suspect suspended sentances are far more common for motoring offences than for any other crimes, despite the fact the the consequences of dangerous driving on those affected can be so much greater than most other crimes that are likely to affect them. As such there is very little deterant, people don’t consider road crime as real crime and the justice system reinforces this all the time. Is it any surprise then that people are relaxed about breaking these laws?
4) protection – in the wort cases criminal that will not stop are at least prevented from reoffending while they are inside.
Should sentancing be about vengeance? making the victim or relatives of the victim feel someone has been adequately punished?
wycombewheeler wrote:
My point was that – remorse or not – if someone has shown themselves not capable of safely performing a voluntary activity in a public space * which they require a licence for then there should be no qualms about de-licencing them. “Hardship” being irrelevant, it’s just like e.g. restricting people discharging firearms – the potential seriousness of the consequences to everyone else outweigh the benefit to that one person / their friends / family. The potential danger being why we licence in the first place – and incidentally one reason why we don’t require bicycle or jogging licences.
The amount of time they’re barred and what if anything they need to do to get re-licenced is then something that things like remorse could possibly have a bearing on. It should never be zero however. I think this would work better as a “top-up” e.g. if the person continues to say “I’ll kill them once I get back in my car” that should suggest we lengthen the ban, rather than “I got my lawyer to (likely write and) read out some statement saying sorry therefore I get the ban reduced by half”.
On to your points. Certainly 4 can be required but we almost never impose “for ever” punishments in the UK. So I’m therefore all for 1 on pragmatic grounds, given this person will be at large / able to do what they did before. Our problem is that our systems don’t seem to have that as the primary goal or at least aren’t doing this effectively. 3 is part of what “keeps honest people honest” but for certain types of offense or certain individuals it may have much less effect. It also depends on there being a reasonable chance of being convicted – and the punishment actually being a sufficient deterrent!
2 now – this is really where we get into cultural terrain and human psychology. “Desert” and justice / fairness – that’s really one for the tea room.
* I don’t think losing your licence even stops you driving – can you not do this on private land anyway (e.g. same as you don’t require a licence to do so in the first place)?
chrisonatrike wrote:
Indeed, might as well let people appeal against failing their drving test, arguing hardship.
True of any conviction and
True of any conviction and sentence.
The bloke should be under some sort of house arrest or tagging – say 6-6.
“You do not have to say
“You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”
Any self respecting lawyer would advise you to keep schtum. There’s nothing you can say to the police immediately that you can’t say a few hours later with a solicitor there to advise you.
So did “not mentioning when
So did “not mentioning when questioned” harm his defence, or was there nothing in the police line of questioning that he later relied upon?
Sriracha wrote:
considering he pleaded guilty, not really an issue, it is for the lawyer to introduce mitigation to convince the magistrates that killing someone by driving recklessly does not warrant a prison sentance.
That clause in the caution is essentially to prevent introducing an alibi at trial, after making no mneiton of it during questioning. So as to prevent the charged finding someone prepared to say they were elsewhere.
FrankH wrote:
It wasn’t upon arrest, it was throughout. He’s refused to answer any questions whatsoever, and only issued a professionally-prepared statement. Coward.
Should be a lifetime driving
Should be a lifetime driving ban – what’s the benefit in letting him ever control a motorised vehicle again?
The latest god awful, soft
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.
I don’t have fundamental
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
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.
At the very least I’d like to
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?
Driving a high performance
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
The legal system in regard to
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/causing-death-by-careless-or-inconsiderate-driving/
Never mind, roll on the final report of the review of road laws………
Seriously? For taking 2 lives
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.
OT, but calling someone a
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…
brooksby wrote:
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.
Kills 2 people, the
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?
hirsute wrote:
A police officer. In which case no stone would have been left unturned in order to obtain the right conviction.
If you do something that
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?
FrankH wrote:
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
Tell that to Charlie Alliston.
Charlie should have had a
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.
Sriracha wrote:
If you do something that kills somebody that is ipso facto dangerous, isn’t it?— Sriracha I don’t think it’s that simple…— FrankH
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
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.
It’s not zero because of the
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.
Sriracha wrote:
If you do something that kills somebody that is ipso facto dangerous, isn’t it?— Sriracha 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.— FrankH
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.
Sriracha wrote:
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’.
The difference between
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).
WTAF. No wonder people take
WTAF. No wonder people take the law into their own hands.
A suspended sentence is no
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.
“Judge Michael Gledhill QC
“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.
The final insult to the
The final insult to the families and all cyclists everywhere:
“….and said as a cyclist himself…..”
eburtthebike wrote:
Don’t be so cynical: why, I’m sure he rode a bicycle once, back in the seventies…
The final insult to the
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.
wtjs wrote:
I don’t get why you are making submissions if you are assuming any outcome from it is a lie? Why bother?
Secret_squirrel wrote:
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
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.
I was pondering this careless
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?
IanMSpencer wrote:
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
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
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?
No, he wasn’t.
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
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
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.
If this bloke is caught
If this bloke is caught driving within the suspended sentence period would that be enough to trigger the prison sentence?
Supposedly, yes…
Supposedly, yes…
Rua_taniwha wrote:
In theory, yes – in practice the prison sentence, if it exists, is pathetic anyway.
Rua_taniwha wrote:
One would have thought that this bloke being caught having killed 2 people through willful negligence would have triggered a prison sentence…..
Hope the police checked his
Hope the police checked his mobile
Does sound likley and they
Does sound likley and they had no evidence right?
Probably on his burner
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.
So all I have to do in order
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.