Cyclists' widows to sue driver who walked out of court free after running both over and killing them instantly

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?

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

"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!

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.

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.

.

"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.

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'...

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.

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?

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.

"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?

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.

In the accident,

No, it was a collision.  Media guidelines?

It would be interesting to know which masonic lodge the judge and company director belong to.

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?

Quote:

"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."

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.