A Surrey driver who grew impatient with a cyclist and caused her to crash has been handed a 14-month suspended sentence. Ralph Keemer, 59, told police he knew that triathlete Laura Fidler had fallen from her bike but didn’t stop, saying it was “karma”.
Surrey Live reports that on August 5, 2018, Fidler was riding along Bridge Road in Chertsey, avoiding potholes on her nearside, when Keemer came up behind.
The driver became impatient and honked his horn several times. He then pulled alongside Fidler, verbally abused her and then steered towards her, braking sharply as his front wheel hit the kerb.
Forced to brake hard, Fidler went over her handlebars and landed on her head and shoulder. She suffered injuries that police described as “GBH level”.
PC Marin Garvanonic, who investigated the crash, said: “The incident resulted in the victim having to have surgery on her shoulder, despite which [it] will never return to its pre-injury condition. As a semi-professional triathlete, this has been absolutely devastating for her.
“Keemer admitted in interview that he knew his actions caused the accident, even though there was no contact between his car and the bike. The officers who interviewed him were also stunned when he further admitted that he knew the cyclist had fallen from her bike but despite that, still did not stop.
“He also said several times that what had happened to her was ‘karma’ and showed no remorse or compassion.
“The case also serves as a timely reminder to motorists to give cyclists as much room as they would when overtaking a car when passing them.”
Keemer had earlier pleaded guilty to causing serious injury by dangerous driving, failing to stop at the scene of a collision, failing to report a collision and driving a vehicle without an MOT.
As well as the prison sentence, which was suspended for two years, he received six points on his licence and was banned from driving for 30 months, after which he must pass an enhanced driving test.
45 thoughts on “Suspended sentence for impatient driver who knew he’d caused cyclist’s crash but said it was ‘karma’”
‘Impatient driver’ who caused
‘Impatient driver’ who caused ‘an incident’
Compared to Charlie the ‘callous thug’ who ‘ploughed into’…
alansmurphy wrote:
Compare and contrast the sentencing, too… Alliston got eighteen months and no ‘suspended’ malarkey.
brooksby wrote:
Alliston also blamed his victim, who died, so that’s not _entirely_ down to drivers being systematically treated more leniently than the far smaller number of cyclists causing death or serious injury.
armb wrote:
But on the other, other hand, Alliston was at least trying to not hit his victim (unlike this Mr Keemer)
brooksby wrote:
He wasn’t deliberately trying to hit her, but the judge said “On your own evidence by this stage you weren’t even trying to slow or stop. You expected her to get out of your way.”
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/18/cyclist-charlie-alliston-jailed-for-18-months-over-death-of-pedestrian
(On the other hand also says “an apparent lack of remorse shown by Alliston was a “coping strategy” derived from the loss of his father”, so maybe it’s not as simple as him just being a bit of a dick, which this driver does appear to be.)
armb wrote:
And the judge was patently lying. She ignored the fact that Alliston braked from circa 18mph to as low as 10mph which was stated even by the prosecution, the judge ignored that he swerved away from the deceased who stepped back into Alliston’s path as he was trying to avoid her, hence why he thought it was her fault. The shouts, well how are they any different to the use of a horn, which are advised to be used in exactly this situation, to warn others of your presence?
he slowed to barely jogging speed, he steered away, he gave two wrnings and still she managed to move back into him, he did not steer into her, this is pretty clear!
In any other walk of life, particularly if Alliston had been in a motorvehicle or pedestrian the deceased would have been at the very least partially at fault. We also have the false evidence put forward by the MET re the brakes totally ignoring reaction/thinking time, used a totally different bike with disc brakes and knew when to brake, there’s a huge, huge difference.
Alliston was done up like a kipper and the charges should have been construction and use, just like the driver who killed four cyclists nr Rhyll, were the bent police lied about the speed, lied about the fact he wasn’t using excessive speed, lied about the fact it wasn’t dangerous to be doing nealry 60mph on a bend on ice.
As for remorse, that skank Helen Measures blamed her victim whom she killed and got off completely scot-free.
Either apply the law the same or don’t, you can’t pick and choose depending on which mode of transport you use and because there is an ‘image’ of a group/person, facts of the case are it. That Alliston apparently didn’t show remorse was even a lie, he said he was sorry she had died but he believed he was not at fault, another brake on the front wouldn’t have made any/enough of a difference and he was extremely unlucky that the other person died from such a low speed impact.
We are pond scum and the law/facts don’t really matter, the system can make it whatever they want to be, IMHO the system (or rather those within it) acts unlawfully in most cases involving people on bikes at both ends of the stick. There’s clear discrimination/bias and not applying the law the same for all, basically they pervert the course of justice on the one hand and then attack those (on bikes) simply because of the general feeling towards people riding bikes, it’s fucking outrageous!
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
I normally hate long screeds and don’t read them, but every word here is worth reading.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
…….it’s fucking outrageous!
— BehindTheBikeshedsI’m actually agreeing 100% with BTBS !
armb wrote:
You could argue that he had a point… the woman walked in to the road without looking. Also, I believe he only initially publically blamed the woman until he was made aware of the fact she had died.
30 month driving ban – I
30 month driving ban – I reckon he was lucky with that result.
Failing to stop should be a lifetime ban as there’s no need for people like that to be on the road. It’s not like we’re lacking motorists and traffic is it?
Having admitted it under oath
Having admitted it under oath etc, surely he is wide open to being pursued in the civil courts, make the shitarse pay!
lolol wrote:
Naturally, but his third party insurers will be footing the bill for that, one way or another.
Arjimlad wrote:
His insurers could use the fact that the car wasn’t MOT’ed as a get out though
usedtobefaster wrote:
I don’t think that would prevent a third-party claim against the insurers, though they could try to recoup their costs from the idiot driver. If a lack of MOT invalidates the insurance, then surely the driver should be prosecuted for driving without insurance.
Arjimlad wrote:
I’d suggest the lack of MOT will void the insurance policy… the chap was driving an unroadworthy vehicle.
If not, the admission that it was a deliberate act may also give the insurers a get out of pay-out free card.
Any civil case will be going for the chaps personal account, which means that it would;
a) be less likely to be successful
b) any compensation awarded will be less
c) any compensation awarded will be paid back in sums of money so small that they are likely to make no positive difference to the victim
d) that the payment schedule would be skewed in favour of the guilty party so it does not impair the quality of their life.
However, I would absolutely encourage the victim to get stuck in, points need to be made / won here.
No MOT, vehicle should never
No MOT, vehicle should never have been on the road.
So no remorse, verbal abuse
So no remorse, verbal abuse (isn’t that an offense in itself, potentially?) hit-and-run, causing what I guess can be called ‘life changing injuries’, and apparently deliberately using their vehicle as a weapon in order to intimidate and threaten….oh and no MOT. Seems a very light sentence to me.
I am not convinced the punishment would have beenthe same if it had involved, say, causing a motorist to crash and suffer serious injuries, by deliberately dropping bricks off a motorway bridge.
Nice guy. Karma would mean
Nice guy. Karma would mean he would spend eternity upside down in a burning car in a ditch, with endless streams of cyclists riding past…
PRSboy wrote:
Well hopefully the local newspaper will publish his address and someone can help assist with this albeit not eternal..
PRSboy wrote:
I for one would stop and piss on him, but only if I knew it wouldn’t put the fire out.
One look at this fuckwit’s
One look at this fuckwit’s Facebook profile should tell you all you need to know. Gammon central. If you get curious and Google your name and this post comes up Ralph, you’re a cunt.
Zebulebu wrote:
Wow! I did take a peek and he really is the epitome of gammon. Full of pro-military, anti-islamic, jingoistic, xenophobic crap. I do hope not being able to drive for a few years is extremely inconvenient for him and he has to ride a bike, and then meets his alter ego in a car.
burtthebike wrote:
Wow! I did take a peek and he really is the epitome of gammon. Full of pro-military, anti-islamic, jingoistic, xenophobic crap. I do hope not being able to drive for a few years is extremely inconvenient for him and he has to ride a bike, and then meets his alter ego in a car.— Zebulebu
I did suspect he might fit a certain stereotype, but didn’t see any pictures of him. Frankly, for me, that all gives it an element of ‘hate crime’. I suspect his hostile attitude that lead to the victim being badly injured, has a connection to his general culture and politics.
I doubt he’ll ride a bike. I think it’s more likely he’ll just drive while banned. If he doesn’t let not having an MOT stop him, why will he worry about a licence?
Zebulebu wrote:
If it’s the same profile I saw….
The irony of him posting a motorcycle safety awareness campaign featuring all the same dangers cyclists face.
OK, so he’s avoided prison,
OK, so he’s avoided prison, and got a temporary driving ban and some points… Not acceptable.
He should have had actual prison time (not bl00dy suspended sentence!), he should have a lifetime driving ban, and he probably needs psychiatric assistance too.
If he had behaved like this in any other something (field?) of life then he’d be branded an utter sociopath, and locked away for the safety of the rest of society. But on the road? Behind the wheel of a car? Hey-ho: “impatient”…
Driven along that road many
Driven along that road many times, plenty of room apart from going over the bridge.
Why isn’t he in jail ?
hirsute wrote:
Deleted:replied to the wrong thread. Sorry
yet again another disgrace
yet again another disgrace that he’s not in prision, what the fuck is the judge playing at, it’s GBH assault ffs plus he’s driven off.
I hope this cunt dies a long and painful death, hopefully sometime in the next 12 months, we don’t need shithouses like this stealing the oxygen from the rest of us any longer, maybe someone from the family of the victim will ensure he gets karma to knock on his door!
Police: “The case also serves
Police: “The case also serves as a timely reminder to motorists to give cyclists as much room as they would when overtaking a car when passing them.”
Judge: “Sorry, what? You heard the driver, it was karma.”
Why is using vehicle as a weapon considered to be less serious than a knife or a gun?
I’m sure the next election will be fought on the real issues, like when the government is going to carry out the thorough review of road law that it promised a generation ago*.
* May be an element of hyperbole, but not much.
burtthebike wrote:
Exactly. The driver knew that he should give cyclists as much room as he would when overtaking a car, but has made it quite clear that he chose not to (so that he could act as an avenging angel of justice or something…).
Yes that’s what I don’t get.
Yes that’s what I don’t get.
To my mind, the driving offence and the intent to cause harm should be dealt with separately, regardless of whether its with a car, iron bar, or knife.
Shock news!
Shock news!
Sunday Times to print full apology and a retraction for making cyclists out to be less than human and fair game for anyone who can’t hate people because of their colour, sex or religion any more.
I would like to see a change
I would like to see a change in the law that includes a lifetime driving ban. There appears to be some cultural ideology that we have an inalienable right to drive a car. Why is that? Imagine how a potential lifetime ban would change drivers behaviour. I am a car driver and cyclist.
meursault wrote:
For me, this is probably the single biggest thing that could be done to change driver behaviour. If there were no exceptions, things would change.
I’ve also said before that another option would be to take people licences not for any fixed term, but until such a time they can pass an advanced driving test. In theory, if there is a mis-carriage of justice, or someone needs to drive for whatever reason, they can get their licence back quickly and, assuming they are competent, easily. However, I am sure that many of our problem drivers are those that scraped through their test in the first place.
Finally, why not utilise the driver tech used by insurers as a way of punishment / monitoring of convicted motorists. Your sentence is a lifetime driving ban suspended, on the basis of three years close driver monitoring… change your behaviour or lose it forever.
To understand this, cf what I
To understand this, cf what I wrote on ‘Anti-cycling agenda’ fifteen minutes or so ago.
In any other domain of British life, someone who caused this level of injury through recklessness, and who then showed so little remorse or concern for the victim, would be looking at an immediate custodial.
But cars are different. The state considers them essential for the creation of and maintenance of wealth and prosperity, and the people consider them as essential for ‘freedom of movement’.
It’s cultural.
This will not change in my lifetime, no matter how many public campaigns, no matter how many petitions and no matter how many ‘die ins’ in front of City Hall.
Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
All agreed.
However, one small part of the current culture which should be possible to change is the approach of the CPS.
The CPS decided to charge him with: “causing serious injury by dangerous driving, failing to stop at the scene of a collision, failing to report a collision and driving a vehicle without an MOT“.
This is despite evidence of pre-meditation (honking horn, verbal abuse), that he deliberately steered towards the kerb, that he caused a GBH level of injuries and that his subsequent comments re Karma again reinforced the evidence that his actions were deliberate.
Dangerous Driving replaced the old offence of Reckless driving. That is how I think most people see it – it’s not about causing something deliberately. Yes, they may have been deliberately driving like a dick, they may have realised the chance of a crash or other incident was very high, but they didn’t deliberately set out to actually crash or injure someone else.
Whilst you could argue (Devil’s advocate/defence lawyer) that he only meant to scare not to actually injure, he was still (at best) reckless as to the possible consequences of his actions. On my very rusty understanding of criminal law, would usually be seen as sufficient as far as intent is concerned. I don’t think it could be difficult to prove that he must have appreciated that his actions had the possibility of causing these sorts of injuries.
So, why* was this not charged as an intentional attack i.e. GBH?
I would be genuinely interested in a comparison between sentencing for equivalent offences such as GBH, as opposed to sentences handed out for causing serious injuries by dangerous driving. For a start, I doubt a sentence for GBH would have been suspended.
*rhetorical question – it’s because the CPS think dangerous driving will be easier to prove and/or have a cultural blind spot that anything done whilst driving must be viewed as a driving offence.
TedBarnes wrote:
For the same reason that the CPS routinely decides not to prosecute armed officers who kill suspects, even when the latter are unarmed. And that is because no jury would convict.
In death by dangerous driving cases, it’s the ‘there but for the grace of God go I’ syndrome. We all drive, and we all drive like self-entitled twats.
And so, who among us is going to send someone to prison when all he did was maim a cyclist for life, for god’s sake?
It’s the ‘them and us’ effect. Look at all the people protesting about a soldier being held accountable for shooting an unarmed Irish Catholic or two. Fuck the Catholics, they shouldn’t even be in Britain, m8! And as for them brown skins out in Afghaniland, eh? Free Marine A, awight! Fuckin’ liberty, innit?
Sorry, did you say something?
It would be a shame if
It would be a shame if someone would document his potential illegal driving over the next 30 months, especially in the next 2 years, which the court may view rather badly. Karma ?
ktache wrote:
Now to me, that truly is karma in action. Could this be something the cycling community took charge of… lets see if this chap is playing ball or not?
I’ve requested a sentence
I’ve requested a sentence review.
Feel free to do the same.
https://www.gov.uk/ask-crown-court-sentence-review
atgni wrote:
Thanks for that, it was very simple to add another request.
janusz0 wrote:
It says something about only certain crimes being eligible, like rape, murder etc.
Ah, well. Can’t hurt. Just e-mailed them.
Legs, the troops on Bloody
Legs, the troops on Bloody Sunday shot innocent British lads, not Irish.
BTBS would that be Killer Driver Helen Measures?
ktache wrote:
Of course. My mistake……
That’s OK Legs, easy mistake
That’s OK Legs, easy mistake to make, what with some of the hysteria surrounding going after “our troops” you’d think they had only been killing evil brown foreigners rather than innocent white british citizens, who pray to exactly the same god. Oh and ensuring that the terrorist groups had an incredible recruiter which prolonged the troubles and made them far, far worse.