A driver who left the scene after deliberately driving into a cyclist and knocking him off his bike in Richmond Park has been fined just £625 and given five penalty points.
Jon Weale, 29, from Kingston, Surrey was driving his Jaguar X-type on Sawyer’s Hill in the park on July 27 last year, when he drew alongside a cyclist, Lavender Hill Magistrates’ Court heard.
According to Tom Ambrose in the Richmond & Twickenham Times, Weale’s passenger shouted abuse at the cyclist about who had right of way. Weale sounded his horn and the rider responded by swearing.
Weale then drove at the cyclist, knocked him off his bike, and drove away.
He pleaded not guilty to charges of driving without due care and attention and failing to stop.
The court fined Weale £100 for careless driving but did not endorse his licence. He was fined a further £250 and ordered to pay £250 costs and a victim surcharge of £25.
For the failing to stop offence he was given five penalty points.
75 thoughts on “Driver fined £625 & given five points for attacking cyclist with car”
attacking with a car is at
attacking with a car is at least as deadly as a knife or gun, so cant see why this isn’t attempted murder, or GBH at least?
If he would have got out his car and hit the bloke with a baseball bat he’d have got a lot worst for doing identical damage. Crazy Laws, and a PATHETIC justice system we have in this country.
Waste of taxpayers money beyond belief.
pmr wrote:attacking with a
I’ve often thought that if someone knocks me off I’m just going to get up and deck them, I’d get more satisfaction from that than seeing them get some pathetic fine
Not even surprised anymore,
Not even surprised anymore, pleaded not guilty and still got barely a slap on the wrist. If the cyclist had punched the driver through the window he’d have probably got a custodial, but drive your car at someone and it’s a £100 fine. He got more for leaving the scene than for actually driving his car deliberately at the cyclist.
Hang on, how is driving a car
Hang on, how is driving a car at a cyclist “careless”? It’s a deliberate act!
And this idiot wasn’t given a ban. Brilliant. As you were.
This is basically assault
This is basically assault
Did he really not even get
Did he really not even get any points on his licence? If so that’s unbelievable. He shouldn’t even have a licence at this point, nor any prospect of getting one in the foreseeable future.
Chuck wrote:Did he really not
They didn’t give him any points for deliberately driving a large car at another human being with the intent to kill or injure them.
He was given 5 points for failing to stop at the scene.
Quote:Iam a self motivated
The mind boggles.
Another punishment issued by
Another punishment issued by Judge F*ckwit. This makes me furious.
38 degrees might be interested to get this going as a campaign to change the law.
Loss of license and jail time, its gbh with a car.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/unduly_lenient_sentences/
I would suggest giving it a shot, but it will fail. The courts simply don’t give a shit. The fact that attempted murder is treated at a magistrates level about sums it up.
I guess going round slashing tyres as self defence would get gaol time though!!
Good job I don’t live near
Good job I don’t live near Barnfield Ave, Kingston, or I’d be tempted to commit a crime late one night.
racyrich wrote:Good job I
And certainly not near 78, with an X-type estate outside on Google street view.
https://www.facebook.com/jon.
https://www.facebook.com/jon.weale?fref=ts
http://www.jjw-personal-training.co.uk/about-me/
A personal trainer. To be avoided I would suggest
Huw Watkins
I don’t now how to get a DOS attack working and I hope no one else reading this does either.
Hit them in the wallet it’s the only thing people like this understand.
Huw are you sure you have the
Huw are you sure you have the right man there we don’t want this to get nasty !
He’s gone to court and be found guilty and will have to pay his dues. Even if you think those dues aren’t good enough, there is no need for cyber vigilantism.
Lets count backwards to 10 in are heads and take the higher road and not act like a lot of angry petrol heads do. :H
Rupert wrote:Huw are you sure
It’s him
He makes his living from helping others to get fitter. Rather odd then that he harbours such vitriol for cyclists
Huw Watkins wrote:Rupert
Even if it is, an internet jihad is hardly going to make the cycling community look better.
SteppenHerring wrote:Huw
Even if it is, an internet jihad is hardly going to make the cycling community look better.— Rupert
Cyclists on a cycling forum complaining that a sentence is too lenient is an internet jihad? WTF?
SteppenHerring wrote:
Even if
Hardly jihad
Actions have consequences and if he’s hit it in the pocket a little, then what’s wrong with that?
Huw Watkins
His twitter and fb pages have been taken down which would suggest it’s him, otherwise surely you’d leave them up with a denial ?
Hopefully it’ll cost him some clients and some more cash, knob
colinth wrote:Huw Watkins
His twitter and fb pages have been taken down which would suggest it’s him, otherwise surely you’d leave them up with a denial ?
Hopefully it’ll cost him some clients and some more cash, knob— SteppenHerring
I checked as soon as I saw this and the FB link still works.
OldRidgeback wrote:colinth
His twitter and fb pages have been taken down which would suggest it’s him, otherwise surely you’d leave them up with a denial ?
Hopefully it’ll cost him some clients and some more cash, knob— Huw Watkins
I checked as soon as I saw this and the FB link still works.— SteppenHerring
This is what I get:
This content is currently unavailable
This content is currently unavailable
The page you requested cannot be displayed at the moment. It may be temporarily unavailable, the link you clicked on may have expired, or you may not have permission to view this page.
Sign up for Facebook
SteppenHerring wrote:
Even if
Its interesting that “jihad” has such negative connotations in the West, whilst the Christian equivalent, “crusade” is much more positive.
Huw Watkins wrote:Rupert
Road rage or ‘roid rage?
Either way he’s got anger management issues.
That’s the right attitude but
That’s the right attitude but it’s hard to resist the desire to get back at this guy, he could have killed that rider and should be made a huge example of. Utter t##t.
Rupert wrote:Huw are you sure
[[[[[ You are talking horsecrap. And what’s “backwards to ten”? Are you drunk?
Huw Watkins
If this is the person concerned then yes, he is perhaps someone to be avoided. But is this really him? Are you absolutely sure? And by posting these details on the Internet, are you not risking some sort of rough justice being meted out to him? I don’t think the sentence he received was appropriate, but nor do I believe in mob rule or vigilante action.
OldRidgeback wrote:Huw
If this is the person concerned then yes, he is perhaps someone to be avoided. But is this really him? Are you absolutely sure? And by posting these details on the Internet, are you not risking some sort of rough justice being meted out to him? I don’t think the sentence he received was appropriate, but nor do I believe in mob rule or vigilante action.— Huw WatkinsI couldn’t condone mob rule but naming and shaming might make people think twice in future. I’d like to think that some drivers may have learnt from the Emma Way incident.
If some rough justice is applied then won’t the miscreants will get similarly thorough treatment from the law as this jackass ‘personal trainer’?
A long ban followed by having
A long ban followed by having to re-test surely? X(
Disgraceful. The
Disgraceful. The judge/magistrates is/are incompetent and should be removed. Astonishing the driver didn’t get points on their license for driving a Jag. Unbelievable.
If any case needs a review to
If any case needs a review to uphold confidence in the Judiciary this is it.
The sooner we revoke the
The sooner we revoke the special offences that apply only to those driving motor vehicles, the better.
Causing death by xxx driving should for every example be charged as manslaughter, unless intent can be proven, when the charge should be murder.
Using a car as a weapon should be charges as any other case of common assault – I wonder if this might be one worth pursuing, as the offender has not been charged with assault and it would appear to have all the required conditions to bring such a charge?
Worth remembering that those (few) cyclists who have killed pedestrians don’t have these magic get-out options – they get charged with manslaughter (and also assault if they deliberately ride into someone)
It’s bad enough that this was
It’s bad enough that this was only charged as DWDC in the first place, but the lack of endorsement for it – considering he pleaded not guilty – is utterly mind-boggling.
A complete clusterfuck from start to finish from those who are supposed to deliver ‘justice’.
I wonder if this is the same
I wonder if this is the same pr*ck who was deliberately swerving into the path of cyclists attempting to overtake him?
This happened to me (along with others) in Richmond Park a couple of years ago. The driver was in a convertible Jag behind another car. He kept doing it until there were at least 20 of us behind him. He finally overtook the car in front of him and tore off, one of the cyclists gave chase. I really hope he caught up with him.
Hold on not banned from
Hold on not banned from driving for at least a year?
No enforced anger management classes of the driver ?
No prison sentence ?
Not even community service ?
If I deliberately attack someone with a knife on the pavement because they are walking too slowly in front of me, but don’t manage to puncture them with the knife but they still get pushed the to ground. Would I get off as lightly. I think I should don’t you. ……. or maybe not.
He has been given 5 penalty points for DELIBERATELY knocking someone off their bike with his car. Surely Deliberately driving into someone should be a ban ?
Can anybody explain why he wasn’t banned ? I don’t get it.
Rupert wrote:Hold on not
It’s not even that good. He was given 5 points for failing to stop after an accident. He wasn’t given any for knocking him off!
notfastenough wrote:Rupert
It’s not even that good. He was given 5 points for failing to stop after an accident. He wasn’t given any for knocking him off!— Rupert
Because the CPS (see my post) only charged the driver with Careless Driving. The court can only sentence in line with that offence. The proper charge should be dangerous driving. You can get a ban for Careless at the extreme end and with loads of aggravating factors and harm. You should defintely be getting points. My guess is that the court viewed the swearing (cyclist at motorist) in a dim light and went easy on the driver.
It may also have been part of the reason why the CPS went for careless as it could look like a bit of six of one. I don’t agree with that.
Genuine advice is don’t swear or make rude gestures (even under provocation ) and get a helmet/bar cam.
Had this driver not driven off he probably would not have been charged. It would just have been one road users word against another as to who said what and did what.
That’s the offence that the magistrates focused on.
Wrong but that’s my guess on the CPS charge and magistrates view. ie six of one/ half a dozen of the other, aggressive cyclist ends up on their arse and agressive motorist drives off. Do him for driving off the rest is a murky mess to sort out wothout video or witnesses.
Wear a camera. No argument.
Just a few legal
Just a few legal points.
Attempted murder requires an intention to kill. GBH requires serious bodily harm to caused. If there were no injuries, the highest level of charge would be common assault though technically an attempted GBH could be charged. However, it is difficult to prove that intent. Because someone deliberately knocks someone of their bike it doesn’t necessary show an intention to cause serious injury or death. As we know from bitter experience, people including car drivers do not necessary think through the consequences of their actions and to prov such serious offences as GBH it would need to be shown beyond reasonable doubt what their intention was.
Points would be given on one offence only. Fail to stop carries 5-10. Due care carries 3-9.
Jerm wrote:Just a few legal
Really? You honestly believe that someone with enough intelligence to feed themselves cannot understand that driving a tonne of metal into an unprotected human will hurt them?
Jerm wrote:Just a few legal
Anyone who uses their vehicle a a means to scare or harm a vulnerable road user fully knows what they are doing. I had some guy do it to me the other year and if I hadn’t have been quick on my brakes I was toast. I’ve also experienced it when out walking and crossing a side street when a motorist has accelerated their car at me to make me run out of the way. A GBH charge is what is needed in this instance.
Jerm wrote:Just a few legal
Anyone who uses their vehicle a a means to scare or harm a vulnerable road user fully knows what they are doing. I had some guy do it to me the other year and if I hadn’t have been quick on my brakes I was toast. I’ve also experienced it when out walking and crossing a side street when a motorist has accelerated their car at me to make me run out of the way. A GBH charge is what is needed in this instance.
Why wasn’t he done for
Why wasn’t he done for assault?
The reluctance of the CPS to
The reluctance of the CPS to level appriopriately serious charges has often been lamented on here, but given that this was dealt with at magistrates, who prosecutes? Is it still the _Crown_ Prosecution Service, or is that just for cases that go to a Crown Court?
I ask because there is surely a clearly inappropriate charge here – prosecuting someone on due care and attention for a deliberate malicious act is just not accurate?
notfastenough wrote:The
I’m not a lawyer but as I understand it (from a similar case I was the victim in) cases like these go to the magistrate’s court first and if they think it’s too serious for them to hear, they send it to the Crown Court. Trouble with that is you’ve dragged all the witnesses out of work to hang around a court all day just to hear 5 minutes of the victim telling their side of the story and the case adjourned to Crown Court*.
Sometimes it seems more pragmatic to just dole out the harshest punishments available to magistrates.
* That’s what happened in my case. Eventually he pleaded guilty to Careless Driving, got banned, fined, put on a curfew and given a suspended sentence. Everything short of custody basically.
The MP for Richmond Park is
The MP for Richmond Park is Zac Goldsmith, a campaigner on environmental issues, apparently! Given the Conservative’s nervousness at the moment, I’d suggest it’s a good time to demand Mr Goldsmith looks into this further and takes positive action. If you are a constituent, please visit https://www.writetothem.com/
Not surprisingly, Mr Goldsmith is pretty active on Twitter so bringing the case to his attention via that channel is an option everyone can undertake.
Tweets by ZacGoldsmith
Just another case of lazy
Just another case of lazy public sector CPS lawyers who get paid the same either way so they take the easy option. There’s just no incentive for them to blot their copy book of easy wins on low grade charges by pushing for the proper charges and penalties.
Privatise the lazy buggers. Make the victim in cases like this the joint client and give them a say (legally guided) in the charge to be brought. I’d be spitting bullets if I was deliberately rammed with a car and the CPS said it was “careless driving”. That is the wrong charge. The lazy, split the difference, no need to get excited, knock off at 5 charge.
Makes you want to puke.
i see this as a victory for
i see this as a victory for cyclists, we can now punch people through windscreens and claim we were careless in our indicating….what could go wrong…
On a serious note, it just shows the the law is outdated and is very much in need of a overhaul.
The judge has a limit on what sentences he can appose so its not his fault.
FFS
~X( FFS
Lack of witnesses willing to
Lack of witnesses willing to testify and turn up at court could have been an issue, hence the half hearted prosecution.
In the hit and run case I testified at, the guy got a year ban – max end of spectrum.
All I’d observe is that justice is failing when people feel the need to take it into their own hands. Time to bring it to Goldsmith’s attention as stated above
If you look what the motorist
If you look what the motorist was charged with, this never got to the CPS for a prosecution decision, so they dont really deserve any criticism. This time.
This is down to the police officer who did the initial investigation and a traffic process case builder, who is likely to be a civilian employee/retired police officer who doesn’t really care too much.
As a car driver as well as a
As a car driver as well as a cyclist, the law should be clear just how much force I can use to knock a cyclist off his bike that is annoying me.
Equally so, it should also be clear what the consequences will be if I am ever knocked off my bike in the afore mentioned manner, if I so choose to knock the head off of the car driver. Clearly the law is no deterrent in this matter.
As a car driver as well as a
As a car driver as well as a cyclist, the law should be clear just how much force I can use to knock a cyclist off his bike that is annoying me.
Equally so, it should also be clear what the consequences will be if I am ever knocked off my bike in the afore mentioned manner, if I so choose to knock the head off of the car driver. Clearly the law is no deterrent in this matter.
I can only hope the cyclist
I can only hope the cyclist takes a civil case. This is exactly the sort of case where a driver’s insurance company should first pay out (because they are there to compensate third parties such as a cyclist awarded damages) and then take the driver to court to recoup their costs (because the driver should ultimately be fully liable for harm he wilfully inflicted, it makes no sense for drivers to be able to insure themselves against their own malicious acts.)
bambergbike wrote:I can only
As it happens it’s beneficial he wasn’t charged with assault, GBH or whatever. Motor insurance will not pay damages to the intended victim of such illegal acts. You can’t insure against the intended consequences of breaking the law.
If any damage to a cyclist is a consequence of careless driving then the insurance will pay out as a 3rd party liability.
You can still sue of course for damages following an assault, but rely on him having some assets.
I reckon this Jag driver has
I reckon this Jag driver has friends in high places. Just saying.
Pint of single cream down the
Pint of single cream down the air vents along the windscreen of that jag please.
So thats the Jon Weale of
So thats the Jon Weale of BARNFIELD AVENUE, Kingston then is it. (as reported in all the local press).
Wont be hard to find the jag
When I was learning to drive
When I was learning to drive a car my instructor said to me “the first thing you have to realise is that you are in charge of a lethal weapon so you have to be responsible.” It goes without saying that deliberately aiming a car at a cyclist, however much you feel you are provoked, is the height of irresponsibility and should be punished as such. A fitting punishment would be a one year driving ban at least so that this clown would have to use a bike and then he’d realise the error of his ways (maybe).
Old news.
Old news.
That is only 2points more and
That is only 2points more and the same fine I got for pleading guilty to speeding 76 in a 50 on an empty dual carriage way.
This deserves letters to the home secratary to appeal the sentence, and an investigation as to why this was notcharged as dangerous driving.
Deliberatley hit someone with
Deliberatley hit someone with a hammer – attempted murder.
Deliberatley hit someone with a car – just careless!
Absurd! X(
For once, what a shame the
For once, what a shame the Police didn’t have a car parked up at the foot of Sawyer Hill.
Using a gun to kill someone
Using a gun to kill someone is just plain stupid…. use your car to run them over. The senile old bastards in court will let you off with finger wagging, probably for getting caught!
Surely you already knew that!?! :/
A Polish national called
A Polish national called Wlodzimierz Umaniec, also known as Vladimir Umanets, attacked a painting, an inanimate object, in 2012 to promote his artistic movement, Yellowism…
… and spent 18 months in prison.
I’m sure I read that in some
I’m sure I read that in some countries they have classified motor vehicles a deadly weapons, therefore, a wilful assault with one, as opposed to just being a shit driver, becomes an assault with a deadly weapon.
I think the law needs to catch up with this now.
I’ve never understood why a
I’ve never understood why a car is treated differently from a hammer or a cricket bat or anything else you might attack someone with. Accidentally kill someone with a hammer or by throwing a fire extinguisher off a building and it’s manslaughter – no question. Why can’t we treat all objects the same?
Sad that the 5 points was
Sad that the 5 points was imposed for “not stopping” – have always assumed that this offence is considered serious by the police and courts because it is intended to protect drivers from financial loss not because of any reasons of concern about injuries – a law intended to protect property is the only effective one in a case of intended physical harm.
Considering the driver pleaded not guilty seems very odd that no points were given for the careless driving charge as sentencing guidelines indicate 3 points minimum.
8points might make the driver think about his driving behaviour.
As to the cyclist swearing at the driver (or his passenger) I’m pretty sure that in assault case this wouldn’t be considered – am thinking of some high profile cases involving footballers being wound up at nightclubs and then lashing out – the prior verbal abuse isn’t accepted as a legitimate reason for a violent response.
Magistrate sentences in line with societies expectations shocker 🙁
edit not defending the sentence there should be some sort of “wreckless endangerment” charge – the driver intended harm and if that isn’t dangerous driving the law needs changing
My missus once applied to be
My missus once applied to be a magistrate… she failed.
Apparently her rigidly unforgiving views on drink driving were not in line with those of the magistrates
to quote: “…I think we’ve all just had one more than we really should one time or another…”
I have no faith in our magistrate system whatsoever… best course of action in these incidents is make a note of the registration number, locate the drivers address, get your car, drive to the persons address and then ‘accidentally’ run the blighter down… whats the worst that can happen?
OK, so we’ve all come to the
OK, so we’ve all come to the agreement that the driver is a first class tw@t and the law is useless, so what are we all going to do about it?
Ah, yes… Sweet FA! =D>
Stay safe out there. 😉
Sustransoftie wrote:OK, so
I was a member of LCC and am a member of CTC, 38 Degrees and Avaaz also cover cycling and I chip in and actively support these, I’ve signed umpteen petitions and have attended a large protest ride around parliament and will probably attend other protest rides. I’ve contacted various politicians.
These things are really easy to do these days, if you can come on to a forum like this and complain then you can fill a text box and email your MP. If you can spend £150 on a bike helmet that does naff all then you can throw a few quid in the direction of those campaigning to improve cyclists lot.
WriteToThem(your mp)
38 Degrees | people. power. change.
Avaaz – The World in Action
CTC : The national cycling charity
London Cycling Campaign
38 Degrees and Avaaz have millions of members, that carries weight.
kie7077 wrote:38 Degrees and
Really? Be honest now, what has changed thanks to online petitions? Sod all. The likes of CTC and BC have lots of paying real-world members yet they still struggle to be heard! In my experience MPs, councillors and sometimes even the police are not interested in cyclists’ experiences.
One real change I sense nowadays is that more and more people have had enough of the abuse and deliberate or negligent dangerous driving. So what can they do when no-one listens?
Simon E wrote:kie7077
Avaaz isn’t cycling oriented but it does have 36 million members worldwide and I get the impression they have made a big difference on a lot of occasions. 38 Degrees is UK based and has 850,000 members and again, I think their campaigns are effective, kind of hard to ignore 100,000 people writing to you about something.
I think if cyclists keep on about the issues, things will change, it makes financial sense for politicians to do something about cycling for multiple reasons. Petitions may be at the less useful end of the scale, contacting your MP is better, contacting a cabinet minister makes more sense, there are also organisations like TFL etc to lobby.
If you think nothing will get done and so do nothing, well that’s a self-fulfilling prophecy right there. If CTC and LCC are not working then they need more members and they perhaps need to be more effective at getting their members involved.
The law has dealt with him.
The law has dealt with him. If you don’t like how it did it, then change the law by taking some time to agitate for tougher sentences for this sort of behaviour.
This sort of internet bullying is similar behaviour* to a person riding a cyclist off the road with a car – and I presume no one here would like that.
*Yeah – before you start nit-picking and go whining on about lethality and so on, it’s still bullying. The weapon used is different, not the attitude of the person wielding it.
jmaccelari wrote:The law has
The CTC has spent a lot of time and effort asking for better sentencing, with no visible result whatever, so at some point proper anger is almost inevutable.
And no, I don’t think naming some murderous tosser on the internet is anything at all similar to driving a car at someone. Pointing out that a car is a lethal weapon is hardly ‘whining’.
Its seems to me that the
Its seems to me that the Establishment has it in for cyclists, whom they probably view as some do-gooder activists.
The effort put in by the State to stopping cyclists riding on pavements, ignoring stop signs and red lights, or discouraging them from thinking they have any rights on the road is staggering.
Any driver who deliberately collides with a pedestrian, cyclist or any other road user ought to be charged with dangerous driving at the very least. If anyone is injured because of the offence then the perpetrators ought to be charged with anything from malicious wounding, to attempted murder. The range of offences is huge and there is no satisfactory reason why the CPS should not make the effort in prosecute to the fullest extent because there is no doubt, it is in the public interest.
Finally, anyone who leaves the scene of an accident is, by definition, aggravating any offence they may have committed. The driver may have been drunk, or otherwise intoxicated. He may have been involved in some other illegal activity. He maybe even thought he was above the law. So he evades the authorities to avoid more serious trouble. Apart from cowardice and deceit, why would someone leave the scene of an accident? Whatever really motivated the offender to leave is irrelevant, we cannot believe him whatever he says, but leave he did and for that he should have been jailed.
If I was at the CPS I would have pushed to have the offence heard at Crown Court, as I understand the Magistrates Court cannot sentence to more than 2 years in prison per offence and given the seriousness surely a higher sentence should have been sought. Considering he pleaded not guilty I would have given him at least 3 years in prison, banned him from driving for 10 years and ordered him to re-sit his test. And I’m rather a liberal when it comes to punishment.