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?
The radio and TV is full of this story.
Is he too old to drive?
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
[edited to fix coding - fineline]
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.
This could be the case in this situation, for all I know, or am I being too charitable?
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!
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.
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?
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.
Quite so - but spare a thought for the other dead bodies potentially involved in such a scenario...
AFF
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.
Yes he can. Ownership is no defence against negligence.
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
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.
But it isn't possible to know this until at least a BRIEF investigation shows this to be true.
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.
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.
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.
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....
Once in a while, seems like it might have been on purpose.
(Not accusing P of doing anything purposely.)
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.
No, less so IME.
I've had to deal with certain consequences of unfit elderly drivers at first hand