A driver has admitted causing the death by careless driving of two cyclists on the A40 in Buckinghamshire last year. He will be sentenced at a later date, but a lawyer acting for the families of the victims says the case highlights the need to reconsider the maximum penalties for the offence.
Cyclists Damien Natale, aged 52, and Andrew Coles, 56, were returning home to Haddenham from a training ride on 1 June last year when they were hit from behind by Clifford Rennie, aged 60.
Paramedics rushed to the scene of the crash on Wycombe Road at Studley Green but were unable to save the cyclists’ lives.
Rennie, of Wallingford, Oxfordshire, was eventually charged in July this year and yesterday pleaded guilty at Wycombe Magistrates’ Court to two counts of causing death by careless driving.
The two cyclists’ families were represented by Matthew Claxson of the law firm Moore Barlow, reports the Bucks Free Press.
Speaking after the hearing, he said: “Carelessness on the roads can have tragic consequences.
“For Damien and Andy’s families they will forever have to live with the impact of losing a loved one.
“The verdict of today’s plea hearing means both families can start to rebuild their lives after the trauma they’ve faced over the last 12 months.
“Both families have found it hard to come to terms with the distinct difference between the charge of careless driving over dangerous driving.
“Both instances can result in a fatality, yet the severity of the punishment remains significantly dissimilar.
“This case acts as a timely reminder that the sentencing for death by careless driving should be revisited,” he added.
Causing death by careless driving carries a maximum jail term of five years, and Rennie, who has been handed an interim driving ban, is due to be sentenced at crown court at a later date following the compilation of pre-sentence reports.
Under sentencing guidelines, a guilty plea is seen as a mitigating factor, resulting in a reduction of the sentence handed down.
As far as aggravating factors are concerned, however, cases where there are multiple victims are seen as “indicating a more than usually serious degree of harm” and would generally result in a longer sentence than if there were a solitary victim.
19 thoughts on “Driver admits killing two cyclists in A40 crash through careless driving”
The sentencing guidelines don
The sentencing guidelines don’t need to be revisited, the whole charge of ‘Death by Careless Driving’ needs to be scrapped. It’s ridiculous that causing the death of a fellow human being should ever be classed as ‘careless’ and sentenced as such. It’s obvious that anyone who kills someone whilst driving would look at the sentencing differences between Death by careless and Death by dangerous driving and plead guilty to the former. Plus, I suspect in most cases the prosecution would accept this plea and think of it as a good result.
I realise that Death by Dangerous driving may be harder to prove, and if the sentencing was less lenient for DbCD then you’d get fewer guilty pleas, but as it stands it’s an absolute insult to the victims and their loved ones.
The definition also needs to
The definition also needs to be changed. Instead of driving that falls “below the standard of a competent driver”, as per the current definition of careless driving, it needs to be “driving that falls below the standard of the DVLA driving test for that class of vehicle”.
I can’t think of another walk of life where the standard for being granted a license for a piece of machine or an activity is higher on the day of examination than for the day-to-day usage. I’ve worked with dangerous machines that are heavily regulated – the standard for being allowed to use one is the same on the day of the licensing application as every day it is used.
the little onion wrote:
Amen. Law’s a fudge mostly because it’s trying to “do something” but the charging process takes account of realities of conviction. Currently the opinons of almost all in any court aren’t in favour of much punishment if any. So we’re left dancing around the concept that society has of driving eg. it’s normal, it’s everyone’s “right”, that stopping someone from driving is an extreme measure, that “accidents will happen” so people don’t want to apply a higher standard to others than they think applies to them.
My version of “how to fix that” (once I run the place) would be:
a) more effective enforcement – especially taking action on poor driving before things get to fatal injuries. wtjs of this parish would head up the public camera reporting scheme.
b) regular driving licence retests – call them refreshers if you will. Seen lots of suggestions here as to the most effective ways to do this (e.g. maybe more frequent for both the young and the old?)
c) infra again – creating a virtuous circle e.g. you reduce the potential for and severity of accidents, that (really the “subjective safety”) and convenience encourage more people to cycle, that gives them a wider perspective and because incidents are now less frequent and cyclists are no longer “the other” this should mean that bad driving / death on the roads is considered more seriously when in court.
d) And finally if things do get to court more emphasis on “removing the licence”.
That’s right – law last. Because at that point it’s too late for someone. Yes, we should sort out the law (and the police) – if only because humans are very sensitive to percieved “unfairness”. But I’d much rather have fewer injuries than more court cases or longer sentences.
chrisonatrike wrote:
The law was basically written to protect drivers when they do something wrong, not to protect the victims. The law needs completely rewriting from the point of view of the vulnerable, not the powerful. As I may have mentioned before, the review of road laws, announced all those years ago, has to report soon, doesn’t it?
the little onion wrote:
If only we had sufficient driving examiners for all driving offences to be tried by a jury of examiners.
Hmm… examiners, may be OK.
Hmm… examiners, may be OK. But not driving instructors. This one, this morning, outside my flat. Yes, it’s in a quiet side street and he’s just trying to be helpful to his student by parking right outside. But it’s also a “Home zone” which is why all the yellow lines (not that that means much). Not what I’d call a good example for a learner. He was waiting there a good 10 minutes. The camera didn’t pick up his logo – protecting the guilty!
Don’t talk to me about
Don’t talk to me about instructors.
Was close passed this week uphill going 10 mph by a learner with no oncoming traffic.
What was the instructor doing ? Playing on their phone ?
Report it … he will soon
Report it … he will soon lose customers of his learner gets points/fine/warning letter
Velo-drone wrote:
Hmm… I’d hope so but I’m not certain. A quick Google shows there is law on mobile phone usage (6 points) but Govt. guidance is mostly around not providing service or harrassment / inappropriate (sexual) behaviour. If not registered you can report them. I don’t know what happens about poor driving on their watch – presumably a defence would be “the learner did this before I could step in”. The illegal parking is contentious as you might imagine.
chrisonatrike wrote:
thats why I didn’t say instructers, the shit driving I’ve seen from people in lessons, I wonder how they pass? Instructors just hope they don’t meet cyclists in the test?
wycombewheeler wrote:
Just bring in an examiner as an expert witness to state what effect that type of driving would have on a test result (e.g. instant fail).
Part of the problem with
Part of the problem with proscuting any driving offences.
Prosecution: -“The accused drove over the speed limit, the wrong way around the roundabout, swerved onto the wrong lane and ran down and seriously injured a father and killed the son”.
Defence: -“My client is very remorseful for the moment of carelessness. As he was driving along the sun got in his eyes. He realised he should have stopped, but didn’t have time to before the careless actions occurred.”
Jury member (Nic’s?) thoughts: – Hmmm, I’ve driven when I couldn’t see properly due to sun. And mini roundabouts are not a problematic for anyone when driven over wrongly. I know I’m a safe and careful driver. But I don’t want to think I’m dangerous at all so it just seems careless at most. “Not guilty on death and serious injury by Dangerous driving you honour”
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
remember a jury will have 9 drivers, 4 of them will likely be below average. you need bare minimum 10 people to convict and sometimes the judge doesn’t accept majority verdict. So you need half of the substandard drivers to consider the actions to be significantly worse than what they would do. (after all everyone thinks they are a good driver)
One survey found that 98% of
One survey found that 98% of American drivers thought that they were better than average,
Interestingly only 65% of swedish drivers thought the same
We’re all doomed!
I would think a proper
I would think a proper classification would be ‘involuntary manslaughter’ – it’s not ‘murder’ or ‘voluntary manslaughter’ unless the individual intended to kill or cause really serious harm but is not guilty of ‘murder’ due to provocation or mental incapacity. I suppose some would see cycling as ‘provocation’ but let’s not go there…
Taken from the sentencing guidelines:
The maximum sentence a judge can impose for manslaughter is imprisonment for life. The judge may impose other sentences, including a prison sentence to be served immediately, suspended imprisonment or a community sentence.
This seems to give some scope for taking circumstances into account when judgement is made. There real concern is whether a jury of ‘law-abiding motorists’ would ever convict a fellow normally ‘law-abiding motorist’. TBH, for motoring offences, I would dispense with a normal jury & use three independent ‘experts’ who weigh up the evidence, listen to any mitigating circumstances & advise the judge on the outcome. It would take away the ‘there but for the grace of God go I’ that I suspect many motorists on juries think about when considering the outcome of a motoring case.
Sevenfold wrote:
gross negligence manslaughter?
Came here to see this. I’m in
Came here to see this. I’m in full agreement.
What kind of legal system would allow and actually entertain the counterargument of: “No, i was driving carelessly, not dangerously, when I killed them.”
Jenova20 wrote:
“Your lordship my client rejects the baseless allegation that he stole the sheep. That there is no substance to this slander is easily proved. In truth, at the time of the offense he was in jail for stealing goats.”
How can 140 deaths in the last year be acceptable!?
Target Zero is overdue, and for the reasons well expressed in this sad topic is the only acceptable outcome.
#RoadToZero