Thank you Prince Philip!

For giving us something else to talk about.

The radio and TV is full of this story.

Is he too old to drive?

«1345678

Comments

  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Perhaps too old to remember that "Stop, look and listen" before pulling out of a driveway onto a main road applies to royalty as well as to commoners.
  • finelinefineline Purgatory Host
    Surely he doesn't even need to drive - don't they have chauffeurs to do it for them? He's probably not even done much driving, so when he does, he's not too familiar with how it works. I doubt he'll be driving after this.
  • PuzzlerPuzzler Shipmate
    The local authority had already planned a meeting this morning to discuss putting a speed limit on this road. It seems that this junction is a well know trouble spot.
  • passerpasser Shipmate
    Possibly after seventy years in his role, during which his manners and idiosyncrasies have been generally humoured, he has got to that stage in his life where he simply assumes that what he wants happens, and has become more oblivious to his surroundings. My late father-in-law would pursue his plans without paying too much attention to those of others. This would include things like crossing the road, dressing appropriately for the weather or location, and so on. If the Duke wanted to drive out of somewhere and cross the carriageway, maybe he wasn't too bothered about checking for other road users.

    Anyway, I'm sure his doctor has been happily declaring him fit to drive every three years since he was seventy, as happens to the rest of us.
  • finelinefineline Purgatory Host
    It's impossible to say if it's age-related. People age differently, and some people are never fit to drive regardless of age. And of course, people have accidents at all ages too, for all sorts of reasons.
  • It's also impossible to say who was at fault because there's no information on what actually happened.
  • fineline wrote: »
    Surely he doesn't even need to drive - don't they have chauffeurs to do it for them? He's probably not even done much driving, so when he does, he's not too familiar with how it works. I doubt he'll be driving after this.

    Prince Philip and HMQ both prefer to drive themselves if at all possible - something to do with being able to be alone if on the estate perhaps.

    Prince Philip has always done a lot of driving - in London he has had a Black Cab for years so he could drive himself around without being spotted.

    Newspapers are now reporting he said he was dazzled - perhaps another case of Brits being unprepared to wear sunnies in the winter?

    Should he continue to drive himself? Why not, this is his first reported accident in ??? And if most of his driving is on private roads it matters to no one anyway.
    Puzzler wrote: »
    The local authority had already planned a meeting this morning to discuss putting a speed limit on this road. It seems that this junction is a well know trouble spot.

    I can vouch for that: it is more or less the exact same spot where one of my Goddaughters got swiped by a people carrier - estimated speed of people carrier at time of collision over 70mph. Notorious locally for excessive speed, particularly with the volume of tractors and other slow-moving vehicles.
  • #CrashNotAccident
    Being that I'm involved in in community advocacy re safe transportion, unless it is truly an act of God. Traffic crashes are fixable problems, caused by dangerous streets and unsafe drivers. They are not accidents.

    Did this elderly man have a driving and medical exam as should apply to all older adult drivers?
  • finelinefineline Purgatory Host
    fineline wrote: »
    Surely he doesn't even need to drive - don't they have chauffeurs to do it for them? He's probably not even done much driving, so when he does, he's not too familiar with how it works. I doubt he'll be driving after this.

    Prince Philip and HMQ both prefer to drive themselves if at all possible - something to do with being able to be alone if on the estate perhaps.

    Prince Philip has always done a lot of driving - in London he has had a Black Cab for years so he could drive himself around without being spotted.

    Ah, okay, I didn't know that. I was imagining if I had an opportunity for a chauffeur, I wouldn't want to drive. But I don't drive anyway. I have never been able to learn, and I don't want to. I would be a dangerous driver, because of visual processing difficulties. It is hard for me to imagine someone choosing to drive when a chauffeur can do it for them. But being able to get around London incognito makes sense - though surely a chauffeur could still drive the black cab?

    When I said I doubted he'd drive after this, I meant by his own choice, because the reports said he was very shaken up, and I imagined it would be quite traumatic for him, especially at his age - harder to bounce back in one's 90's, even if you're Prince Philip.

  • What meaning would you give to "accident", then? As a professional investigator of such things (though not on the roads), I am used to defining them as sudden unintended and undesired events which result in damage and/or personal injury. They usually have a number of causal factors, which are generally fixable, but not by playing around with words.

    In the UK drivers over 70 self-certify their continued medical fitness. There is no requirement for any driving exam once the initial test has been passed, unless by order of a court. The wisdom of this policy is questionable, but any change to it would now be subject to challenge under equality legislation.
  • I know that road and it is fast. I've bumped into him on walks, and he seems to like being alone, not surprising. I've noticed recently that some farm-tracks have big private signs, where we used to walk, Wolferton for anyone who knows the area.
  • finelinefineline Purgatory Host
    #CrashNotAccident
    Being that I'm involved in in community advocacy re safe transportion, unless it is truly an act of God. Traffic crashes are fixable problems, caused by dangerous streets and unsafe drivers. They are not accidents.

    Interesting. The kinds of thing that get classified as acts of God (tsunamis, hurricanes and such) normally aren't classed as accidents. They are 'natural disasters.' And things that are classed as accidents normally are preventable - accidents around the home, for instance. Accident in my experience normally simply means it was unplanned and unforeseen, rather than it wasn't preventable.

  • On the road incidents are usually down to someone getting it wrong. Therefore crash is the appropriate word and not accident.

    It is not publically known what happened in this one. Possibly the Duke pulled out of a driveway when he should have seen a car coming towards him. His fault therefore crash. Possibly the car came round a blind bend too fast to be able to stop in time. That driver's fault therefore crash. Possibly the other car was out of position. That driver's fault therefore crash. Possibly the Duke didn't steer well enough as he came out of the driveway. His fault therefore crash. Possibly one of the cars suffered a malfunction. If it was already known to be dodgy then that driver's fault therefore crash. If it was something completely out of the blue nobody's fault therefore accident. Possibly one of the drivers had a medical attack of some kind. If this was a pre-existing condition that was known about and possibly could cause the attack then the driver should not have been driving. Their fault therefore crash. If it was the first time it happened and there had been no previous indicators then not their fault therefore accident. If the car's passenger suddenly said "Oh look, it's the Duke of Edinburgh" and the driver looked over rather than concentrate on what they were doing then it was their fault therefore crash.

    No doubt there are many more possibilities but very rarely is any road incident actually nobody's fault. Therefore they are not accidents.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited January 18
    Well, we must all be devoutly thankful to Almighty God (as I'm sure we all are) that HRH was not seriously hurt, but also thankful that he provided a welcome diversion from the seemingly-unending saga of political misery that has otherwise been 'news' for the past weeks....

    Doubtless our esteemed SW (sorry, PM) is also devoutly thankful for having the spotlight removed from her.

    (Seriously, I'm glad the old feller escaped relatively unscathed. Hopefully, he'll take things even more easily from now on.)
  • BTW, I just checked the news item, and I see that another car was involved.

    TBTG, no serious injuries were sustained, though the driver and passenger in the other car received (respectively) cuts and a broken wrist (OUCH!!). A baby in the car was uninjured, again TBTG.
  • Puzzler wrote: »
    The local authority had already planned a meeting this morning to discuss putting a speed limit on this road. It seems that this junction is a well know trouble spot.

    If it was that well known he - as a driver coming onto a main road - should have taken more care. A charge of driving without due care etc may be in order: it would normally be.
  • finelinefineline Purgatory Host
    My point was that most things in life described as accidents involve people getting something wrong - the person didn't deliberately set out to make it happen, but they did get something wrong in some way, and so it could have been prevented. I was thinking of accidents around the home, which are incredibly common and mostly preventable.

    Eg. I once scalded my leg by putting a mug of freshly boiled water with lemon in it on an uneven surface, and then knocking it over with my elbow. I did it wrong. I was tired and clumsy and not paying attention. I should have ensured I put it on an even surface, and I should have been more careful with my elbows. But it was an accident, because I didn't intend it to happen. If someone had thrown it at me in spite, that wouldn't be an accident. This is how I am familiar with the term accident being used. If we take it out of this kind of usage, I am not sure how it can be used. Just as a euphemism for incontinence, maybe.
  • ExclamationMarkExclamationMark Shipmate
    edited January 18
    Newspapers are now reporting he said he was dazzled - perhaps another case of Brits being unprepared to wear sunnies in the winter
    Not mitigating circumstances in law. Suggests he's trying to substitute "excuse" for "more care needed"

    [edited to fix coding - fineline]

  • ExclamationMarkExclamationMark Shipmate
    edited January 18
    I can vouch for that: it is more or less the exact same spot where one of my Goddaughters got swiped by a people carrier - estimated speed of people carrier at time of collision over 70mph. Notorious locally for excessive speed, particularly with the volume of tractors and other slow-moving vehicles.

    Very hard to estimate speeds.... but thank goodness she didn't get swiped

    Pretty much most roads are notorious for speeds … I live in a city and that's true of the road outside my front gate.

    ISTM that we should refrain from trying to "explain" or find excuses for this event (note not an accident), esp as we wouldn't apply the same forensic criteria to anyone else.
  • PuzzlerPuzzler Shipmate
    I think we all know of junctions where, when you pull out, you know there is a risk of being struck by a car coming too fast to stop. Sometimes the distance you can see is not great, so you just have to venture forth at some point and hope and pray.
    This could be the case in this situation, for all I know, or am I being too charitable?
  • fineline wrote: »
    My point was that most things in life described as accidents involve people getting something wrong - the person didn't deliberately set out to make it happen, but they did get something wrong in some way, and so it could have been prevented. I was thinking of accidents around the home, which are incredibly common and mostly preventable.

    Eg. I once scalded my leg by putting a mug of freshly boiled water with lemon in it on an uneven surface, and then knocking it over with my elbow. I did it wrong. I was tired and clumsy and not paying attention. I should have ensured I put it on an even surface, and I should have been more careful with my elbows. But it was an accident, because I didn't intend it to happen. If someone had thrown it at me in spite, that wouldn't be an accident. This is how I am familiar with the term accident being used. If we take it out of this kind of usage, I am not sure how it can be used. Just as a euphemism for incontinence, maybe.

    I quite agree- my post was in response to @NOprophet_NØprofit , not you.
  • finelinefineline Purgatory Host
    Signaller wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    My point was that most things in life described as accidents involve people getting something wrong - the person didn't deliberately set out to make it happen, but they did get something wrong in some way, and so it could have been prevented. I was thinking of accidents around the home, which are incredibly common and mostly preventable.

    Eg. I once scalded my leg by putting a mug of freshly boiled water with lemon in it on an uneven surface, and then knocking it over with my elbow. I did it wrong. I was tired and clumsy and not paying attention. I should have ensured I put it on an even surface, and I should have been more careful with my elbows. But it was an accident, because I didn't intend it to happen. If someone had thrown it at me in spite, that wouldn't be an accident. This is how I am familiar with the term accident being used. If we take it out of this kind of usage, I am not sure how it can be used. Just as a euphemism for incontinence, maybe.

    I quite agree- my post was in response to @NOprophet_NØprofit , not you.

    I was responding to the Rogue - sorry, should have quoted. Wasn't expecting so many posts to happen in between!

  • Puzzler wrote: »
    I think we all know of junctions where, when you pull out, you know there is a risk of being struck by a car coming too fast to stop. Sometimes the distance you can see is not great, so you just have to venture forth at some point and hope and pray.
    This could be the case in this situation, for all I know, or am I being too charitable?

    No, you could be right, but it's up to the insurance companies/police (?) to sort out, as is usually the case.

    I wonder if HRH might lose his NCD? Don't suppose it'll bother him at this late stage.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Being married to one of the richest women in the worls might take some of the sting out of that as well.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    I can’t imagine being the police officer who had to breathalyse him! 😵
  • finelinefineline Purgatory Host
    Something rather unique to put on their CV!
  • Boogie wrote: »
    I can’t imagine being the police officer who had to breathalyse him! 😵
    Boogie wrote: »
    I can’t imagine being the police officer who had to breathalyse him! 😵

    Oh I can! Just think of the caution …. how nice to see the Police supervising the arrival of his new car. Perhaps if I ring they'll do the same for me?
  • If "The Crown" is to be believed, the Duke of Edinburgh is a stubborn man, and I believe he would say something to the effect, "You will rip the steering wheel from my cold, dead hands, over my dead body."
  • BroJamesBroJames Shipmate
    I imagine when something like this happens to a member of the royal family (or, say, the PM) all hell breaks loose security-wise with police all over the place until the royal or other personage is safely off the scene.

    A staged road accident would be a text-book prelude to some kind of mischief.

    Obviously in hindsight this wasn’t a staged accident, but I can’t see security officers taking any chances on that. Secure everything first, then work out what happened.
  • If "The Crown" is to be believed, the Duke of Edinburgh is a stubborn man, and I believe he would say something to the effect, "You will rip the steering wheel from my cold, dead hands, over my dead body."

    Quite so - but spare a thought for the other dead bodies potentially involved in such a scenario...
    :grimace:

  • Failure to yield the right-of-way. Can he even be charged? After all, his wife owns the road.

    AFF
  • If "The Crown" is to be believed, the Duke of Edinburgh is a stubborn man, and I believe he would say something to the effect, "You will rip the steering wheel from my cold, dead hands, over my dead body."

    Quite so - but spare a thought for the other dead bodies potentially involved in such a scenario...
    :grimace:

    Spare a thought for a young mum and her 8 month old child. While some have claimed answered prayer for an injured Philip the real miracle is that the weighty tank of a land rover didn't squash a much smaller family car and kill someone. Keep him off the road until proved competent. Me? I'm waiting for the charge sheet.
  • Failure to yield the right-of-way. Can he even be charged? After all, his wife owns the road.

    AFF

    Yes he can. Ownership is no defence against negligence.
  • If "The Crown" is to be believed, the Duke of Edinburgh is a stubborn man, and I believe he would say something to the effect, "You will rip the steering wheel from my cold, dead hands, over my dead body."
    It's hardly a conciliatory approach is it? Self delusion on competency?

  • BroJames wrote: »
    I imagine when something like this happens to a member of the royal family (or, say, the PM) all hell breaks loose security-wise with police all over the place until the royal or other personage is safely off the scene.

    A staged road accident would be a text-book prelude to some kind of mischief.

    Obviously in hindsight this wasn’t a staged accident, but I can’t see security officers taking any chances on that. Secure everything first, then work out what happened.

    Not staged so in a case like this he should be treated exactly in the same way as any other. At least they breathalysed him but the CPS report will make very interesting reading on negligence and liability
  • BroJamesBroJames Shipmate
    A very elderly man of my acquaintance here, in circumstances where a careless driving prosecution might have ensued was in fact not prosecuted because he gave up his licence. Another local character nearly as elderly used to be followed from his place of work by the police in order to make sure he got safely home. He really shouldn’t have been on the road.

    Neither had any particular prominence, clout or wealth to suggest they had any particular pull with the police. Criminal charges don’t invariably follow an accident when one or other (or even both) of the drivers is at fault.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate

    Not staged so in a case like this he should be treated exactly in the same way as any other. At least they breathalysed him but the CPS report will make very interesting reading on negligence and liability

    But it isn't possible to know this until at least a BRIEF investigation shows this to be true.

  • My issue with the lack of acceptance of road traffic accidents (yes I’ve come across the argument before), is they assume that it is reasonable and possible to expect humans to perform a complex monitored task perfectly and continuously. We know this is not possible. (I’m thinking specifically about the issue of driving with out due care and attention, as opposed to reckless or whilst drunk etc)

    Who gets prosecuted is therefore not down to intention or conduct, but rather more often, chance. 25000 people may have pulled out of that junction with exact same level of care and attention - but perhaps only two of them end up crashing.

    Asking people to do impossible things, and then prosecuting them at random when they don’t will not change behaviour.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited January 18
    I shudder to think what the story would have been if the other people in the accident had been killed.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    Neither had any particular prominence, clout or wealth to suggest they had any particular pull with the police. Criminal charges don’t invariably follow an accident when one or other (or even both) of the drivers is at fault.

    I know plenty of people who have crashed their car, or been crashed into, and as far as I know none of these have resulted in criminal charges. I assume the party at fault has to do something exceptionally stupid before the CPS get involved.

    It's also worth pointing out that Princess Anne has had multiple convictions for motoring offences, so I don't think it's prima facie true that the royals get special treatment.
  • finelinefineline Purgatory Host
    I suspect if it were a regular 97-year-old, people (as in the general public) would be a lot more forgiving. Of course, if it were a regular 97-year-old, it wouldn't even make local news.
  • AthrawesAthrawes Shipmate
    From what I understand, The Duke of Edinborough gave up his pilot's licence many years before he had to, because he was worried that something might happen, so stubborn he might be, but stupid he is not.

    Driving yourself is an act of independence. An elderly friend of mine went down hill very quickly when he was forced to give up driving himself (he hadn't had an accident, but his doctor said he was too old), so I can understand why someone elderly, who is surrounded by people wanting to control what he does/do it for him, might want to be able to do things for himself.

    As for the accident itself, if this is a notorious black spot, maybe it would be sensible, as well as charitable, to wait until we find out what actually happened befor apportioning blame and passing judgement.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    He'd have been lucky to still have had his licence here. Compulsory medical testing clicks in at 75 (from memory biennial at first then annual) and at a slightly later age there are annual driving tests. Only needed if you drive on public roads of course.
  • fineline wrote: »
    I suspect if it were a regular 97-year-old, people (as in the general public) would be a lot more forgiving. Of course, if it were a regular 97-year-old, it wouldn't even make local news.

    Not necessarily quite true. I live in the same part of the world (albeit, in my case, in Norfolk's only red splodge), and our local paper seems to be taking great satisfaction in chronicling the attempts of traffic to free us from the scourge of overpopulation, so a 97-year-old involved in an accident would almost certainly form part of that chronicle, albeit as a near miss. Funny the lens that local papers put on the world....
  • There are occasional US news stories of elder drivers who get confused or lose control of the car, and wind up driving into pedestrians--sometimes, into crowds.

    Once in a while, seems like it might have been on purpose. :(

    (Not accusing P of doing anything purposely.)
  • john holdingjohn holding Ecclesiantics Host, Mystery Worshipper Host
    As the royal landrover, as seen in pictures, is the own that got hit amidships and rolled onto its side, it would seem that it is most likely that the other car hit it and rolled it over. That doesn't say anything about whose fault it might be, but his was the car that got hit by another -- he hit no-one.
  • AthrawesAthrawes Shipmate
    That a much heavier (possibly reinforced?) Land Rover was flipped by a much smaller and lighter car ( a micra, I think) suggests there was a fair bit of speed involved, as well. I'm just grateful no one was seriously hurt, as it could have ended very badly.
  • BroJames wrote: »

    1. A very elderly man of my acquaintance here, in circumstances where a careless driving prosecution might have ensued was in fact not prosecuted because he gave up his licence.

    2. Another local character nearly as elderly used to be followed from his place of work by the police in order to make sure he got safely home. He really shouldn’t have been on the road.

    3. Criminal charges don’t invariably follow an accident when one or other (or even both) of the drivers is at fault.


    1. It seems a very easy way to get out of liability to me. It shouldn't be an either/or if there is danger but both/and (ie remove licence/prosecute)
    2. They have the time to do that? For every trip? I think they are negligent in a) wasting time better spent elsewhere and b) not exercising the power they have to prevent danger. Instead of committing time to escort a one off prosecution to remove from the road is best done. Who's to say that an escort will prevent a accident? It all stretches the boundaries of belief and credibility?
    3. No invariable but in the majority of cases. Philip drove from a minor to a major road. Generally that is case proven.
  • As the royal landrover, as seen in pictures, is the own that got hit amidships and rolled onto its side, it would seem that it is most likely that the other car hit it and rolled it over. That doesn't say anything about whose fault it might be, but his was the car that got hit by another -- he hit no-one.
    The law makes no distinction - in fact what you say supports the strong possibility that he pulled out in front of another car, misjudging speed and distance.

  • fineline wrote: »
    I suspect if it were a regular 97-year-old, people (as in the general public) would be a lot more forgiving. Of course, if it were a regular 97-year-old, it wouldn't even make local news.

    No, less so IME.
    I've had to deal with certain consequences of unfit elderly drivers at first hand
Sign In or Register to comment.