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.”

























50 thoughts on “Cyclists’ widows to sue driver who walked out of court free after running both over and killing them instantly”
Judge Gledhill needs to be
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.
WHAT??!!
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!!
HoldingOn wrote:
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
I found two past directorships from which a person with the same name resigned back in 2018. Nothing current.
Just wondering how many
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
“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…
So much wrong with this. On
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?
A well-known and established
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.
All that article and it doesn
All that article and it doesn’t actually say under what grounds they are suing.
The details of the claim are
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-accident-claims/
Quote:
So the judge believes that had they been riding abreast of each other and “blocking one of the two carriageways of that road” they would not have been “riding perfectly properly”? Fuck’s sake.
Rendel Harris wrote:
So the judge believes that had they been riding abreast of each other and “blocking one of the two carriageways of that road” they would not have been “riding perfectly properly”? Fuck’s sake.
Shocking isn’t it. However, playing devil’s advocate, it’s rule 66 of the highway code that says “You can ride two abreast and it can be safer to do so”. However, rule 66 starts with “You should […]” and is therefore, as we all know having been told by you a few times now “purely advisory”. So in reality, there isn’t anything that says that cyclists can ride 2 abreast, and the judge is 100% correct to consider that riding 2 abreast is unacceptable because it’s only allowed (encouraged even!) by a rule in the highway code which is “purely advisory”.
It’s great to know that all these rules are “purely advisory”. It just makes me wonder why we bother having them at all.
Don’t do this chap. You are
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.
Rendel Harris wrote:
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.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
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.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
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.— ShutTheFrontDawes
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
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.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
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.— ShutTheFrontDawes
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.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
So the judge believes that had they been riding abreast of each other and “blocking one of the two carriageways of that road” they would not have been “riding perfectly properly”? Fuck’s sake.
— Rendel Harris Shocking isn’t it. However, playing devil’s advocate, it’s rule 66 of the highway code that says “You can ride two abreast and it can be safer to do so”. However, rule 66 starts with “You should […]” and is therefore, as we all know having been told by you a few times now “purely advisory”. So in reality, there isn’t anything that says that cyclists can ride 2 abreast, and the judge is 100% correct to consider that riding 2 abreast is unacceptable because it’s only allowed (encouraged even!) by a rule in the highway code which is “purely advisory”. It’s great to know that all these rules are “purely advisory”. It just makes me wonder why we bother having them at all.
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
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.
Rendel Harris wrote:
So the judge believes that had they been riding abreast of each other and “blocking one of the two carriageways of that road” they would not have been “riding perfectly properly”? Fuck’s sake.
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:
jh2727 wrote:
“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=plain
If the driver does not “know”
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
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.
It would be interesting to
It would be interesting to know which masonic lodge the judge and company director belong to.
In the accident,
In the accident,
No, it was a collision. Media guidelines?
But it wasn’t dangerous
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.
I’m in for the crowdfunding
I’m in for the crowdfunding too. A win of significant damages that is not covered by his insurance will do a lot for road safety, sending a loud message to these morons who routinely speed and have no regard for others on the road, especially those that are unlikely to kill them in a collision.
Muddy Ford wrote:
why would the damages not be covered by the insurance?
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 offense by the judiciary.
Time and again we can
Time and again we can reliably infer that the judiciary are the problem. The judicial system is institutionally pro-motoring and vulnerable road users dont recieve appropriate justice from their service. This is the area that must change as currently the judges involved are protecting motorists and not protecting more vulnerable road users. I would like see Bikeability Level 3 for all judges before them being involved in any case considering cycling. This would be good CPD, allows for better understanding and could lead to more streamlined wigs?
ymm 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, incompetant, 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.
Cugel wrote:
I think it’s a cultural issue as other countries don’t tend to have the same level of entitlement around driving (and conversely the U.S. is arguably worse than the U.K.). I think the best answer is to step up traffic policing as there’s a strong link between dangerous driving and other criminality, so it will assist with tackling other crimes too. They should fully employ all the traffic cameras they have access to (including public submissions) and declare a full on “War on the Motorist”. Once drivers get used to the increased chance of getting caught, they’ll pay attention to the rules.
Dear Lord, is the Judge on an
Dear Lord, is the Judge on an hallucinogen?
If it’s dappled sunlight, you slow down because visibility is reduced.
The speed limit is not the arbiter of a safe speed.
What a prat.
“Both parties in this case
“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.”
I couldn’t make sense of this or the other part above with reference to “measured in pounds”. Is it a typo or misquote?
Perfect example to give to
Perfect example to give to all the people complaining about ‘rediculously low speed limits’…
The council has a legal obligation to make reasonable efforts to ensure roads are safe; The court has basically said it isn’t unreasonable not to see people at the speed limit; So now the council has to figure out how it prevents reoccurance – they can’t simply declare it exceptionally bad driving that is unavoidable because of the court decision…
Result – 20mph limit as the only way they can ‘prevent it’…
qwerty360 wrote:
There is another way.
Ban motorised vehicles from using that road if they are unable to be driven without endangering others. Maybe that’s the only way that people will realise that some judges are not fit for purpose if multiple roads become unusable for cars/lorries due to stupid court decisions.
“It may have well been that
“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.”
I take it the defence didn’t present a video or photographs of the road from a driver’s perspective in similar conditions. And why would they, with a judge like this.
I wouldnt be surprised to
.
Disgusting comments from the
Disgusting comments from the judge. If two people are killed instantly in a crash, then the speed was excessive, the driving was dangerous. The driver being under the speed limit and not on drugs doesn’t change that fact.
We need serious changes to the judiciary of this country. Judges consistently fail to hand down approrpriate sentances.
If Vision Zero is ever going
If Vision Zero is ever going to mean anything, it’s going to need proper engagement from multiple agencies, including council Highways teams, but also the police, the judiciary and the Coroner’s service.
I’m not clear any of that is happening.
Honestly I despair. Multiple
Honestly I despair. Multiple other drivers managed to pass these cyclists with no issues. The road is wide with good sight lines. I have never felt it was a dangerous road to cycle along.
No one introduced any evidence that the cyclists were hard to see, so the judge speculated on his own, accepting the drivers “I didn’t see them, but I wasn’t distracted honestly” AS others have said, if the dappled shade was that bad, then the driver should slow down.
The judge also implies that had they been cycling two abreast that would not have been proper cycling and they would have been at fault. Ironically that might have kep them alive.
Inattention measured in seconds? at least 10 seconds, potentially 30 or even 60. There is no part of the A40 between Wycombe and Stokenchurch with a visible distance as low as 200m, which would be 8 seconds of not looking where he was going.
And there were no tyre marks
And there were no tyre marks that indicated braking or swerving? As in, even after getting very close he didn’t see them, and after hitting one rider he didn’t change course? I guess there is no investigation, as it’s accepted as ‘an accident’.
“One was slightly ahead of
“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.”
You have to question this as well – How far, one bike length, 10. It would make the ability to hit both of them more of an issue (speed).
And the ‘leaving plenty of room to pass’ again makes it sound like the cyclists are an inconvenience, an obstacle that must be passed quilckly and without consideration!
alansmurphy wrote:
Isn’t that how many motorists consider cyclists?
Absolutely, but you’d hope
Absolutely, but you’d hope that people from the judicial system didn’t feed the beast!
All speed limits are advisory
All speed limits are advisory to the road user dependent on conditions, not a target to attained at any cost or used as an excuse for lack of observation or concentration.
I’ve driven that road
I’ve driven that road regularly. It’s a long straight with broken line hatchings in the centre. Wide enough to try to overtake into oncoming traffic, in fact that was pretty common when I was driving in the area twenty years ago. Because it’s a hill and long and straight and wide there’s a tendency for drivers to speed. I’m sure Mr Rennie wasn’t doing this in his high performance (250bhp, 0-60 in 5s) ego fluffer/virility enhancement device. Even if he was and even if there was patchy light and shade that day how the hell does someone fail to see a pair of cyclists on a straight road?
Every time this case comes up
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:
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).
I’d be suing the judge too.
I’d be suing the judge too.
In summary of events he’s decided he’s psychic while giving Rennie a chance of a fresh start.
Do they both go to the same freemasons lodge?