Thank you Prince Philip!

245678

Comments

  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    3. No invariable but in the majority of cases.

    [Citation needed]
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    Athrawes wrote: »
    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.
    The other car is widely reported to have been a Kia, but I’ve not seen what model.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Dead Horses Host
    The main road has a 60mph speed limit so the Kia may have been travelling quite legitimately at that sort of speed. If it were the sole cause of the flipping, given the relative weight differences of the two cars, it seems very likely that the collision occurred while the Kia was traveling fast. I understand there has been some concern about what speed limit should apply to the road.

    I think there is also a proper concern about the competence of elderly drivers. The current process is largely based on self assessment, which bothers me. I'm 76 now, and my personal stance is to get annual medical checkups. Plus listening to my wife! Self assessment strikes me as dodgy given that various competencies (eyesight, perception, reaction speed) will generally change gradually as a result of advancing years.

    Monitoring via re-testing would probably represent a significant additional cost. In the Australian system, who pays for the re-test?
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    3. No invariable but in the majority of cases.

    [Citation needed]
    Police Traffic Inspector
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited January 19
    When I was 16 I used to get a lift home from church with an elderly couple.

    It was awful. He’d stop in the middle of busy four lane roundabouts to check he was taking the correct turning.

    I felt very unsafe. His wife would say (when folk hooted at him, which they did - a lot!) “Take no notice Horace, you have as much right to be on the road as they do.”

    Arrrrggghhhhh! 😤🤬😵
  • Yet old people are safer drivers than young males, aren't they? Of course, that's not saying a lot.
  • AthrawesAthrawes Shipmate
    I’m not saying older people should drive, but that it is very hard to lose that independence. I think 98 is too old, but it is understandable that he would want to keep driving.

    My mum (in her 70’s) has diabetes. She has to have yearly checks with a doctor and optometrist to maintain her licence. And she doesn’t drive in traffic. I think that regular checks once over the age of, say, 60 would be good, as would a yearly test over, say, the age of 75. But removing independence from the elderly is always problematic. And drivers would really have to pay for the tests, which could also be a problem.

    Thank you, BroJames, for the correction. I was typing very early this morning from memory of a brief news report the night before. My spelling suffered, too!
  • I heard something on radio yesterday evening about the number of UK drivers over the age of 90 and those over 100. I think alertness and reaction time are most important (apart from eyesight of course) and I wonder if Prince Philip thought he had taken a good look but then had been slow to move. I have been out with a friend this morning; she is mid-eighties and an excellent driver, so actual number of years one has lived should not be the deciding factor.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    fineline wrote: »
    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.

    My father was 96 when he blacked out and rolled his car. It was age related. I think it is Florida that has special requirements for elderly drivers to prove that they are able to drive.

    I remember one time, in California, when I was getting a California license, the man ahead of me was elderly. He failed the vision test. He was insulted that he could not drive home that day. He thought driving was a right. No it is a privilege even for royalty, in my book.


  • A colleague I used to work with was involved in a similar crash, an elderly driver pulled their car out of a side road onto a main road without checking it was clear to do so, right infront of my colleage who was travelling on the main road. He was riding a motorbike and was killed instantly.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    I can’t imagine being the police officer who had to breathalyse him! 😵

    I imagine that this constable will have drinks bought for him for some time to come.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited January 19
    Him?

    Has the officer given interviews?
  • Quite so. We have female police officers of the female gender in Ukland (as I expect they do in Canadia).
    :wink:

    Ahem.

    I was interested to find out, through experience, how thorough the DVLA is (are?) in this country in checking up on one's fitness to drive.
    I had to give up my licence late in 2015 (due to epileptic fits caused by a brain tumour), but I re-applied in late summer 2017, having been free of fits by that time.

    Quite a few letters/emails later, the DVLA renewed my licence, but ONLY for 3 years, renewal thenceforth being subject to satisfactory medical reports. With all of which, of course, I have no quarrel (but it was nice not to have to keep waiting at the village bus stop in the rain!)
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    Gath fach wrote: »
    A colleague I used to work with was involved in a similar crash, an elderly driver pulled their car out of a side road onto a main road without checking it was clear to do so, right infront of my colleage who was travelling on the main road. He was riding a motorbike and was killed instantly.
    It happened to me once when I was still young. A young man driving a Morris Minor* pulled out in front of me, leaving me nowhere to go. I struck the car just behind the front wheel, flew over the bonnet of the car and landed flat on my back in the road, narrowly missing a pedestrian island with bollard. I was shaken, but basically uninjured.

    When I landed I was winded so I was a bit slow to get up, and the driver was very shocked because he’d seen me fly across his bonnet and thought he’d killed me (as he well might have done).

    Later I discovered two massive bruises on my inner thighs with matching dents in the petrol tank. The front forks of the bike were irreparably bent and it was a write off. We were all very lucky - especially me. It was on Denmark Hill in London just opposite King’s College Hospital. There was an ambulance on the scene within seconds and the paramedics (quite rightly) took some persuading that they were not needed. IIRC the police weren’t called, and there was no prosecution.

    His insurers paid for a replacement motor bike.

    (*Even then it was by that time a ‘classic car’)
  • 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)
    We are not designed to drive cars. We miss to much. It is more a testament to road design* and vehicle design (and chance) that there are not more fatalities. As we age, those factors that work against us get worse. I wonder if we didn't have such a significant block of older voters if we;d have better checks on aged driving?

  • Yet old people are safer drivers than young males, aren't they? Of course, that's not saying a lot.
    But that is a rubbish argument. It is fallacious logic and is a smokescreen to hide that ageing affects the skill needed to drive safely.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    Maybe, but it appears that older drivers are a lower risk group than young men.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    It is more a testament to road design*
    Meant to add

    *Generally speaking, as this incident demonstrates.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    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.

    My father was 96 when he blacked out and rolled his car. It was age related. I think it is Florida that has special requirements for elderly drivers to prove that they are able to drive.

    I remember one time, in California, when I was getting a California license, the man ahead of me was elderly. He failed the vision test. He was insulted that he could not drive home that day. He thought driving was a right. No it is a privilege even for royalty, in my book.

    To clarify, I meant it is impossible for us, simply having heard about something on the news, with not a lot of extra info, to know if Prince Philip's accident was age-related. Not that it is never possible to tell if any accident is age-related, or even that it isn't possible for people who look into this particular case to know. Just that we can't at this moment know whether Prince Philip's accident was age-related.

  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    Boogie wrote: »
    When I was 16 I used to get a lift home from church with an elderly couple.

    It was awful. He’d stop in the middle of busy four lane roundabouts to check he was taking the correct turning.

    I used to stop at roundabouts when I was learning to drive - as a young adult. It's one reason why I was too dangerous to learn to drive. Certain dangerous driving behaviours aren't necessarily an indication of age. I've felt unsafe in cars driven by people of a variety of ages.

  • Well, yes. Our Madam Sacristan is an AWFUL driver - far too fast, far too close to the car in front, constantly braking sharply, crashing the gears etc. etc.

    She's only in her 50s.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Ha. Until I took this option off the composition table, a favorite topic of my junior college writers was "My First Accident." At least half of any given section of the class had such stories to tell (and not a few could write follow-ups about "My Second Accident").

    These are folks generally between 18 and 25 years of age. Made me want to check their schedules before driving anywhere on campus.
  • Oy. There are bad practitioners of anything in every age group. That is irrelevant to the question of ageing and driving.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    Him?

    Has the officer given interviews?

    A slip for them; having just edited a text on the use of non-binary pronouns, and having last Sunday entertained for tea among my guests a municipal constable, a star of our local women's roller derby team, I have no excuse.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Oy. There are bad practitioners of anything in every age group. That is irrelevant to the question of ageing and driving.

    But then we don't know yet whether the question of ageing and driving is relevant to this situation.
  • fineline wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Oy. There are bad practitioners of anything in every age group. That is irrelevant to the question of ageing and driving.

    But then we don't know yet whether the question of ageing and driving is relevant to this situation.
    It is possible it isn’t. However the comments about young people driving, to which I was responding, aren’t at all relevant and won’t be whether or not age is a factor in this accident.
  • Are royal family personnel, titled people of various kinds, immune from prosecution? Does the crown prosecutor prosecute the crown? Might this old fellow's wife pardon him? Is it done in advance?
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    I think only the Queen herself is immune from prosecution (and Government departments acting in her name which claim Crown immunity)
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    ...However the comments about young people driving, to which I was responding, aren’t at all relevant and won’t be whether or not age is a factor in this accident.
    They may not be relevant to the case of the Duke, but they are certainly relevant to a more general discussion of age-related accidents, which this thread has become.

    Teenagers are at highest risk of dying in crashes, followed by those over 65. According to the linked article, "People between the ages of 15 and 24 and over 75 are the groups most likely affected by car accidents."





  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Oy. There are bad practitioners of anything in every age group. That is irrelevant to the question of ageing and driving.

    But then we don't know yet whether the question of ageing and driving is relevant to this situation.
    It is possible it isn’t. However the comments about young people driving, to which I was responding, aren’t at all relevant and won’t be whether or not age is a factor in this accident.

    It's possible. We simply can't know at this point. I made a comment about young people driving because Boogie made a comment about being driven by an elderly couple who drove in a dangerous way, as if being elderly was automatically connected with that particular way of driving. It is easy to make sweeping comments and stereotypes about elderly drivers, and my point was that a driving error made while elderly may not be caused by being elderly. I think that is a relevant point, even if you don't. Kind of like how, if there was a conversation relating violence to being mentally ill, it would be appropriate to point out that many people who are not mentally ill are violent, and many people who are mentally ill are not violent.

  • BroJames wrote: »
    I think only the Queen herself is immune from prosecution (and Government departments acting in her name which claim Crown immunity)

    That is a nonsense in and of itself which needs to be changed asap
  • SparrowSparrow Shipmate
    According to the media here, he has not only had a replacement car delivered but is already driving it on public roads and without a seat belt.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Sparrow wrote: »
    According to the media here, he has not only had a replacement car delivered but is already driving it on public roads and without a seat belt.

    And police have ‘spoken to him’ about it.


  • ... As would be the action taken for any other person similarly discovered: it is standard procedure for people discovered on a public road not wearing a seat belt to be "spoken to" - prosecution usually only follows if the person involved is in an accident at a time when they're not wearing a seat belt or if they are cited for another traffic offence.

    The Sandringham estate is on both sides of the main A149 road and so it is possible that a driver - royal or otherwise - who chooses not to wear a seat belt on a private estate road forgets to stop to put it on while they cross the public highway.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited January 20
    What a crazy decision ‘tho - just after a major accident!

    Maybe he’s got a death wish? 🙄
  • balaambalaam Shipmate
    The wording on local BBC news this morning was that Prince Philip has been seen driving without a seat belt and that "the driver has been spoken to."

    So they name him as driving but do not name him as having been spoken to. What is this?
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    It’s a conflation if news from someone else about having seen him and quoting a statement from the police with the usual police thing of not naming people
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    What a crazy decision ‘tho - just after a major accident!

    Maybe he’s got a death wish? 🙄

    Or maybe, given his age, there are physical changes which render putting the seat belt on difficult or painful (which is a point at which I personally would be giving up the keys and operator's license. But then, I am not a Royal Personage).
  • It's inequality before the law isn't it?

    Which begs the question as to how far down the chain of inherited titles and money that people are treated differently. Do titled people have "prince", "sir", "duke", "grand poobah" etc printed on their driving licenses? It's sort of reverse positive profiling of the hoidy-toidy.

  • 1. As would be the action taken for any other person similarly discovered: it is standard procedure for people discovered on a public road not wearing a seat belt to be "spoken to" - prosecution usually only follows if the person involved is in an accident at a time when they're not wearing a seat belt or if they are cited for another traffic offence.

    2. The Sandringham estate is on both sides of the main A149 road and so it is possible that a driver - royal or otherwise - who chooses not to wear a seat belt on a private estate road forgets to stop to put it on while they cross the public highway.

    1. OK so every driver in Norfolk now has one free warning. Hmmm I don't think so somehow.

    As for Philip should the Police not view the "non seat belt" in the context of the RTA on Thursday? Seems like he's taking the mickey.

    3. That's no defence. An accident can happen within 10 yards as we have already seen.

    Frankly the double standards and the "sympathy" for Philip - without thought of what may have happened to a 9 month old - make me rather sick of our unequal and unjust nation.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    What a crazy decision ‘tho - just after a major accident!

    Maybe he’s got a death wish? 🙄

    Or maybe, given his age, there are physical changes which render putting the seat belt on difficult or painful (which is a point at which I personally would be giving up the keys and operator's license. But then, I am not a Royal Personage).

    Again that's no excuse in law for infringement. He had a seat belt on Thursday, why not Saturday? If not, he be through he windscreen
  • fineline wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Oy. There are bad practitioners of anything in every age group. That is irrelevant to the question of ageing and driving.

    But then we don't know yet whether the question of ageing and driving is relevant to this situation.
    It is possible it isn’t. However the comments about young people driving, to which I was responding, aren’t at all relevant and won’t be whether or not age is a factor in this accident.

    It's possible. We simply can't know at this point. I made a comment about young people driving because Boogie made a comment about being driven by an elderly couple who drove in a dangerous way, as if being elderly was automatically connected with that particular way of driving.
    What is connected to ageing are the diminishing of factors that make operating a vehicle less of a risk. And everyone loses capabilities over time. Everyone. In that way, it is different to the mental health issue.
    The only way youth driving is related to aged driving is in having discussions about how to manage the dangers.
    However, that generally isn't why youth driving is brought up in these conversations.
  • Interestingly Ontario still commonly refers to "The Queen's Highway" and our highway marker design includes a shield surmounted by St. Edward's Crown.

    It is also required in this province that all drivers over age 80 undergo recertification every two years. Given his record and age, HRH Phil the Greek via Denmark would likely fail the driving history review.

    His physician, if in Ontario, would also be under a statutory duty to report any medical issue affecting his ability to drive.

    In short, I doubt HRH would be permitted to drive on his spouse's Ontario roads any longer.
  • I saw that the tabloids have published a photo of the Duke back behind the wheel. Good on you my Lord! Get straight back on the horse, there's a good fellow.

    Mark, I have no idea why you think people are unequal in Britain. Here's a documentary from Harry Enfield on class.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    ...The only way youth driving is related to aged driving is in having discussions about how to manage the dangers.
    However, that generally isn't why youth driving is brought up in these conversations.
    It's related because young brains are still developing, and their owners don't always make the right decisions. Both groups, as previously noted, have their own issues in terms of safe driving.


  • Sparrow wrote: »
    According to the media here, he has not only had a replacement car delivered but is already driving it on public roads and without a seat belt.

    Is there a link to support this assertion? If this is the case, he is even more of a dickhead then I had been led to believe. Which is really saying something.

    Toad - if your "Lord" wants to risk his own life on horseback, he is welcome to do so. If he wants to risk the lives of others because he is too vain to accept he should no longer be driving, then he is not welcome to do so.
  • Sparrow wrote: »
    According to the media here, he has not only had a replacement car delivered but is already driving it on public roads and without a seat belt.

    Is there a link to support this assertion? If this is the case, he is even more of a dickhead then I had been led to believe. Which is really saying something.

    Toad - if your "Lord" wants to risk his own life on horseback, he is welcome to do so. If he wants to risk the lives of others because he is too vain to accept he should no longer be driving, then he is not welcome to do so.

    Yep and Police have "offered advice" to him. I doubt that it includes the phrase "don't get into a car"
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Sparrow wrote: »
    According to the media here, he has not only had a replacement car delivered but is already driving it on public roads and without a seat belt.

    Is there a link to support this assertion? If this is the case, he is even more of a dickhead then I had been led to believe. Which is really saying something.

    Toad - if your "Lord" wants to risk his own life on horseback, he is welcome to do so. If he wants to risk the lives of others because he is too vain to accept he should no longer be driving, then he is not welcome to do so.

    Been all over the papers and BBC with pictures.

    Can we stop pretending that the man gives a shit?
  • I thought it was obvious that Prince Phillip doesn't give a shit about anything outside the Royal Family, and naturally he is a dickhead, although the guy is entitled to drive if he holds a valid license. He did order a hit, if Steven Toast is to be believed. I recommend watching Toast of London, series 1, episode 3 - Vanity Project via your streaming service of choice.

    If he was an American, they would have made his President. But he's not, so he married the Queen instead.
Sign In or Register to comment.