A New Malden woman has been found guilty of attempted grievous bodily harm after a jury ruled that she deliberately tried to drive her Audi Q7 4x4 into an autistic cyclist with whom she had been arguing. Witnesses described seeing the victim roll over the bonnet of the car before it smashed through the window of a hair salon.
The Surrey Comet reports that Natalie Pyne got out of her car and had an argument with cyclist Simon Edgley after an alleged near miss between the two. Anna Best, who had been waiting at a junction next to the salon, said that Edgeley “was kicking the car in quite a comical manner” and that a teenage boy in the Audi shouted at him. It is said that there were at least four children in the car.
After Edgley started to cycle off, Best said Pyne reversed before driving towards him and into the Park Salon in Park Road.
Another witness, Louisa Morris, who had been in her parents’ house opposite at the time of the crash, said she remembered hearing loud revs of an engine and then tyres squealing. "The cyclist was hit by the front of the car and pushed off his bike. He rolled over the bonnet coming off the side."
Pyne claimed her 4x4 malfunctioned before she clipped Edgley and went through the bay window of the salon, causing more than £25,000 worth of damage. In a statement taken by police after the accident and read out by prosecutor James Lofthouse, Pyne said she had been having problems with the car and felt threatened by Edgley’s behaviour.
However, traffic officer PC Peter Traylor said he could find “no fault” with the car, saying: “I tried lots of different scenarios to try and [get the car] to do what the lady had told us it had done. The car's fail safe system would not let me do it.”
Lofthouse said: “What happened was road rage. [Pyne] intended to cause Mr Edgley very serious harm. She was reckless.”
Pyne was found guilty of attempted grievous bodily harm, dangerous driving and damaging property to the value of more than £5,000 and will be sentenced on November 6 at Kingston Crown Court.
Jon Fray of the Kingston Cycling Campaign commented:
"I am not experienced in law but I suppose the police picked the charge of attempted GBH because they thought that is the one that would stick. I have some sympathy for people who think it should have been a harsher [charge.]
“All I know is it could have been a lot worse for the cyclist involved. It is not all cyclists versus motorists on the road and thankfully these incidents happen very rarely."
Add new comment
52 comments
If she is of previous good character then I doubt she will go to prison with children that depend on her. She will get a suspended sentence perhaps.
Don't misinterpret what I'm stating; I believe she should go to prison for what she has done, and she might well indeed get locked up, but I'm not so sure she will.
I think the judge should send out a clear message. We will see. Hope I'm wrong.
I can see why she might escape custody, although I think her kids would be better off away from such a vicious thug I know there's a reluctance to take them into care. I more hope she gets a serious driving ban, partly to remind people that driving is neither a right, nor actually vital to anyone.
Insurance will be the tricky thing. With a history of attempted GBH whist behind the wheel of a car, deliberately driving at a cyclist, hitting him and also demolishing a hair salon in the process, I hazard a guess, she won't even get insurance, or if she does it will have meant she has told some serious lies which will make here insurance null and void another criminal offence. Or she just drives without insurance ………………
I reckon 3 years mimimum prison sentence and a 25 year driving ban would be about right and full reparation costs of the hair salon, loss of profit and other consequential losses and £10k compensation for the cyclist victim to actually be paid by her. This would not prevent any further claims against her in any civil action by either of the victims she has hurt or caused damage to their property.
With 4 kids I doubt she'll get a driving ban or a custodial sentence.
I can see why maybe no jail time, but the idea of no driving ban seems, frankly, obscene. If her kids suffer that's her problem and fault. She should have considered them before attempting to demolish a cyclist, a van and a house.
Give her a license restricted to a Reliant Robin for the rest of her days.
She should have been tried for attempted murder.
Not if they didn't think she intended to kill him...
I note that in another story this week that when a police officer was killed by a car driving at them that was a murder charge. But when you drive a car at a cyclist that is not attempted muder.
"She is a serious danger to the public and should not be allowed to drive."
4x4's are a serious danger to the public and should not be allowed on the roads.
The British public are stupid enough to believe the bicycle is the demon on the road without a passing comment to oversized urban tractors.
I own 3 4x4 vehicles, one of which weighing 3 tons It's a poor driver not the vehicle which makes it dangerous, like any vehicle used
An Audi Q7 driver who's a dangerous psychopath, who'd have thought it
I wonder if she'll get a custodial sentence ?
Needless to say the sentencing won't reflect it though, suspended sentence anyone?
Knowing our Justice system she will get hit harder for damaging the Hair Salon than for trying to kill the cyclist.
Suspended sentence? Hanging??
I'm got the distinct feeling i've encountered this driver myself, pulled out into my path without looking.
Of course it could have been another white Audi Q7 full of kids with a woman driving it. Unfortunately they're not entirely rare doing the Kings Rd/Queens Rd rat run around Kingston.
Needless to say, it's assault with a vehicle and the victim was very lucky. That could so easily have resulted in a death, and the sentencing should reflect that.
Lifetime driving ban is what I'd like to see.
Sadly I've no faith in bans of any length. Do you think the sort of people who use a vehicle as a weapon are the sort to be put off driving illegally? Not that I can offer a better solution.
She is a serious danger to the public and should not be allowed to drive.
She should ensure that she enjoys Halloween and Bonfire Night. She's not going to see them for a while.
Z
[[[[[ Don'tbe too sure of that!
Pages