Thank you Prince Philip!

135678

Comments

  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    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.
    Yes, both have to do with brains not functioning at peak. But what to do about it is different. One solution for the young would be to not allow driving before one's 25th birthday. This has obvious problems.
    For older people, the solution is more more practical: After a certain age, apply comprehensive measures to assess driving fitness. IMO, this is the controversial thing because no one wants that to happen to them.

  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    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.

    Perhaps you are trying to amuse?

    Far from being a "dickhead" Prince Philip is an intelligent man, passing out top of his course at Dartmouth. Highly regarded by his peers and superiors when he was in the Royal Navy he was being "tipped for the top" before he became engaged to Princess Elizabeth.

    It is more than time that people stopped repeating - even in jest - the canard that Prince Philip had any involvement with the death of the late Diana, Princess of Wales. FYI she let it be known before her death that he was a member of the royal family that she found more sympathetic - perhaps because he too was seen by court and family as an outsider (more so than Diana in fact) and had difficulty adjusting to the goldfish bowl of royal family life.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    It is quite possible to be an intelligent dickhead. Driving around with no seatbelt the day after causing an accident which caused injury whilst having offered no apology for his negligent and careless driving points in that direction to me.
  • First, it wasn't the day after.

    Two, for him to offer an apology would be something any solicitor - or his insurance company - would advise against because it would likely be construed as an admission of fault.

    Third, it is by no means certain that he caused the accident: for a car as lightweight as a KA to cause a heavy 4x4 to overturn requires a great deal of momentum.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    First, it wasn't the day after.

    Two, for him to offer an apology would be something any solicitor - or his insurance company - would advise against because it would likely be construed as an admission of fault.

    Third, it is by no means certain that he caused the accident: for a car as lightweight as a KA to cause a heavy 4x4 to overturn requires a great deal of momentum.

    First point big fucking deal, next day, day after that.

    Second point - he didn't even enquire how she was. Just some bollocks about being remembered to them or something, whatever that means.

    Third point, unless there's a blind bend involved, he still failed to see an approaching vehicle. Careless.
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    If the Kia was speeding significantly, he may not have been able to see them coming. That is why speeding is discouraged.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Gwai wrote: »
    If the Kia was speeding significantly, he may not have been able to see them coming. That is why speeding is discouraged.

    Were the road not pretty straight, yes.
  • Hidden dips.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    edited January 21
    <snip>for a car as lightweight as a KA to cause a heavy 4x4 to overturn requires a great deal of momentum.
    The car was a Kia, model not specified. Anything from the little Picanto to the hefty Sedona.

    According the person who helped him out of his overturned vehicle, the first thing Prince Philip did was enquire after the well-being of the others involved.
  • ExclamationMarkExclamationMark Shipmate
    edited January 21
    Hidden dips.

    Not on that stretch of road. I've driven it - it's clear all round at the point of impact.

    As a general comment what is it about that family that prompts excuses for events that have yet to be proven? The default seems to be "he knows what he's doing …. he's ok" yet 2 days later we have evidence (supported by a Police statemen) that he was driving in a manner contrary to law. Making a point is one thing treating everyone like idiots just because you want to is another. Indefensible.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    A few years ago, as I was pulling into the parking lot at my church, an elderly man was backing up. He was not looking where he was going and he was going to hit me. I honked my horn, but he kept coming back. I started to lay on the horn. He backed right over my bumper--and kept backing up! Then he pulled forward. I got out of my car and stopped him. I asked him if he knew what he had done. He seemed unaware of what happened but told me to fix my car and send me the bill. I did get the car fixed, but did not send the bill to him., I sent it to his son whom I knew.

    A good friend of my wife who is suffering from dementia recently drove through a stoplight and T boned another car. The investigating officer interviewed my wife's friend and reported she was not even aware of the accident. The police department contacted her caretaker which we also know. She is no longer driving. Her dementia is still getting worse.

    I do not know of Phillip's mental state, but there just comes a time when elderly people should not drive. I began to realize that with my dad when he drove off as I was attempting to get into the car. I should have intervened then and prevented him from rolling his car later.

    I think the Royal Family needs to intervene. The Queen may not be able to persuade Phillip to stop in spite of her rank, but Prince Charles. Edward, Andrew and Princess Anne need to set down with their parents and tell them enough.

    Shocking, I know. But many families have to go through this.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    edited January 21
    As a general comment what is it about that family that prompts people to judge the older driver at fault for events that have yet to be proven?
  • Rich people with no little responsibility enjoying a life that few can, merely by an accident of birth. I think this is a factor in it.
    Prince Phillip is a bigot from a bygone age who appears to embody the disconnect between royals and their subjects. And he is very old. IMO, it is very easy to see why people jump to the worst case with him in this.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    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.

    Perhaps you are trying to amuse?

    Far from being a "dickhead" Prince Philip is an intelligent man, passing out top of his course at Dartmouth. Highly regarded by his peers and superiors when he was in the Royal Navy he was being "tipped for the top" before he became engaged to Princess Elizabeth.

    It is more than time that people stopped repeating - even in jest - the canard that Prince Philip had any involvement with the death of the late Diana, Princess of Wales. FYI she let it be known before her death that he was a member of the royal family that she found more sympathetic - perhaps because he too was seen by court and family as an outsider (more so than Diana in fact) and had difficulty adjusting to the goldfish bowl of royal family life.

    I am trying to amuse. I find the whole spectacle amusing, and look askance at those who don't. If this incident is worth noting at all, it is only worth noting for the giggles. IMNVHO talking seriously about this incident is akin to being interested in whether Kate and Megan are having a spat. The Queen exists only to make constitutional decisions. That's her function. When she goes it will likely be Charles' function. The rest of the malarkey around the Royals is like 20-20 cricket. Its sole function is to benefit real cricket by amusing the kiddies.

    As for the theory that Prince Philip ordered a hit on Lady Di, that is proof of the ridiculousness that surrounds the minor royals. It is to be repeated ad nauseum because by doing so you denigrate the progenitors of it, and the rich bastard who owned Harrods.

    So, here is something amusing: The minor royals of minor royals from The Windsors. Note especially the line, "But we don't have the work ethic. It's been bred out of us."
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    As a general comment what is it about that family that prompts people to judge the older driver at fault for events that have yet to be proven?

    Not saying he is or is not at fault. I am saying that generally, people at that age are incapable of being able to drive safely. They aren't current with the laws. Physically, their reaction time is significantly slower. Their eyesight is dimmer. Their hearing poor. They can easily be distracted. They can easily have a blackout experience.

    It is my bet Prince Phillip is physically incapable of driving because of his age.
  • Potentially dumb question:

    Are cars in England required to have a combination shoulder and seat belt? Can a car get away with having just the seat belt? (Maybe an older car? Don't know what he was driving.)

    The reason I ask is because I saw a pic or clip of P, probably taken the day after, that was supposed to prove he was driving without a seat belt. I couldn't see a shoulder belt, but wondered if he might have a lap seat belt.

    I grew up when there were just lap seat belts, and there were campaigns to get people to use *those*. Many people found the belts uncomfortable or silly. When shoulder belts came along, same thing.

    Just wondering aloud.

    Thx.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    A few years ago, as I was pulling into the parking lot at my church, an elderly man was backing up. He was not looking where he was going and he was going to hit me. I honked my horn, but he kept coming back. I started to lay on the horn. He backed right over my bumper--and kept backing up! Then he pulled forward. I got out of my car and stopped him. I asked him if he knew what he had done. He seemed unaware of what happened but told me to fix my car and send me the bill. I did get the car fixed, but did not send the bill to him., I sent it to his son whom I knew.

    A good friend of my wife who is suffering from dementia recently drove through a stoplight and T boned another car. The investigating officer interviewed my wife's friend and reported she was not even aware of the accident. The police department contacted her caretaker which we also know. She is no longer driving. Her dementia is still getting worse.

    I do not know of Phillip's mental state, but there just comes a time when elderly people should not drive. I began to realize that with my dad when he drove off as I was attempting to get into the car. I should have intervened then and prevented him from rolling his car later.

    I think the Royal Family needs to intervene. The Queen may not be able to persuade Phillip to stop in spite of her rank, but Prince Charles. Edward, Andrew and Princess Anne need to set down with their parents and tell them enough.

    Shocking, I know. But many families have to go through this.

    If he can't see sense from his own family then that's time to get the bizzies in.
  • Golden key, I don't know what the law is, but cars are manufactured with shoulder belts. The last time I wore a lap seat belt was about 40 years ago.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    @Gramps49 said - I think the Royal Family needs to intervene. The Queen may not be able to persuade Phillip to stop in spite of her rank, but Prince Charles. Edward, Andrew and Princess Anne need to set down with their parents and tell them enough.

    Shocking, I know. But many families have to go through this.

    Yes, in fact I’d say most families - and it will be our turn one day. Maybe we’ll remember this thread when that day arrives?

    My brother has just moved to what he thinks will be his final house. He’s made sure it’s near a bus stop.

    My MIL drove until she was 86. It came to the stage where she was nervous to turn right and carefully planned her routes to be left turns only. 🙄

    We had to have ‘the conversation’ with her. It wasn’t easy, she was fiercely independent - and a huge help to us when the boys were small. She had plenty of money for taxis but never used them. 🤔🤨😒
  • My Mum refuses to let a friend of hers drive her. The friend once told her that she hated summer in their beach town because all the parked cars obscured the white line on the side of the road. She said she uses the line to orient her on the road and doesn't take her eyes off it.

    My 91 year old neighbor mostly drives in his fields, or his tractor when he's mowing. He does drive to church and the shops (maybe 3 mins) in our town too. He says it gives him a bit of a thrill. He's a bit loconic like that. At Christmas his huge multi-generation family came to visit, and they set up a racetrack in the home field and around the house and sheds. They all spent time zooming around on motorised go-carts, but only the kids (his great-grandkids) wore crash helmets. His wife died a few years ago. He nursed her through some form of dementia. She was in a nursing home for less than a year, if I remember rightly.

    If people can lawfully drive, they shouldn't have to deal with ageist bullcrap.
  • PuzzlerPuzzler Shipmate
    Perhaps Prince Philip should spend more time at Balmoral where I believe there is plenty of scope to drive without using public roads.

    I worried about my dad’s driving when he repeatedly scraped his car whilst backing into his drive ( better than backing out on to the road at least). He once got scraped by a fire engine he was trying to avoid. Not sure whose fault that was. As mum didn’t drive and was too arthritic to cope with buses, he felt he needed to keep driving, but eventually it was surgery that forced him to stop driving, though his car remained in the garage until the day he died, some 18 months later. He accepted that he shouldn’t drive, but could not bring himself to sell the car.
    I foresee the same problem with my husband in the future. I hate being a passenger with him, but he won’t let me drive when we are out together. His reactions, in my opinion, are too slow for the speed he drives. If that is being ageist or sexist, I don’t care.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    [She had plenty of money for taxis but never used them. 🤔🤨😒
    That's because using taxis is - by definition - "extravagant".

  • Balmoral, where the Queen drove me off the road, because she didn't know how to unfog the windscreen......
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Cathscats wrote: »
    Balmoral, where the Queen drove me off the road, because she didn't know how to unfog the windscreen......

    Do tell...
  • Cathscats wrote: »
    Balmoral, where the Queen drove me off the road, because she didn't know how to unfog the windscreen......

    Not the first Her Maj related driving incident I've heard either.
  • I was in the passenger's seat and didn't like to say "If you press this button you will see better." When we got to our destination - a cottage on the estate - she hopped out (she was then abut 88 or 89) and remarked "Oh, it's not foggy!" So going back I did venture a respectful "Ma'am, if you press this button it might help." To be fair they were trying her on a new model of Land Rover and she didn't like it. I have no idea if anyone had shown her all the controls.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    [She had plenty of money for taxis but never used them. 🤔🤨😒
    That's because using taxis is - by definition - "extravagant".
    Which of course it is not! When I had to give up driving I kept a record of taxifares for a couple of months, but there was no need to continue - far less than owning and running a car. I use them more often than I did, but never quibble about the cost. They are a very valuable service.

  • Puzzler wrote: »
    Perhaps Prince Philip should spend more time at Balmoral where I believe there is plenty of scope to drive without using public roads.

    I worried about my dad’s driving when he repeatedly scraped his car whilst backing into his drive ( better than backing out on to the road at least). He once got scraped by a fire engine he was trying to avoid. Not sure whose fault that was. As mum didn’t drive and was too arthritic to cope with buses, he felt he needed to keep driving, but eventually it was surgery that forced him to stop driving, though his car remained in the garage until the day he died, some 18 months later. He accepted that he shouldn’t drive, but could not bring himself to sell the car.
    I foresee the same problem with my husband in the future. I hate being a passenger with him, but he won’t let me drive when we are out together. His reactions, in my opinion, are too slow for the speed he drives. If that is being ageist or sexist, I don’t care.

    People have to get tested regularly above a certain age. I'd like my Mum to update her car so it has all the newfangled safety stuff like parking sensors, rear camera, blind spot indicator, but she won't. She reckons the new stuff will be hard to learn...
  • Golden key, I don't know what the law is, but cars are manufactured with shoulder belts. The last time I wore a lap seat belt was about 40 years ago.
    As far as the google and I can tell. their is no legal requirement to wear a shoulder belt. There is a safety reason to do so, however.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    If people can lawfully drive, they shouldn't have to deal with ageist bullcrap.
    I would be curious as to what you are seeing as ageist.
    I do not think it ageist to say that driving skills decline with age. This is simply a fact. My gran drove into her late 90's, she was mentally sharp until her death. However, to claim she was as good a driver as in her younger days would be slightly less than reality. She, fortunately, lived in a small village and her driving needs were minimal. Each person is going to have different circumstances and evaluating them should be individual.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    People have to get tested regularly above a certain age. I'd like my Mum to update her car so it has all the newfangled safety stuff like parking sensors, rear camera, blind spot indicator, but she won't. She reckons the new stuff will be hard to learn...
    FInd someone who has those things, especially the rear camera, and borrow it. I scoffed until I drove a car with a camera fitted. They are brilliant. The large ones in the dash are better than the mirror ones, IMLE.*

    *In My Limited Expereince
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    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.

    This could be related to the old saw: "I've not been in an accident but I've seen dozens".
  • oh everyone in my family has cars with all the mod cons except Mum. It might be something about the car being a luxury buy for my father, who passed some years ago. Mum thinks about those things, of course, but rarely speaks them.
  • PuzzlerPuzzler Shipmate
    If I am honest I am reluctant to think about updating my six year old car because of having too many buttons and gadgets to master. I do less than 4000 miles p.a. So not in any great rush. We always go away in husband’s car, and I use public transport where possible.
    I can see the advantage of them though.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Potentially dumb question:

    Are cars in England required to have a combination shoulder and seat belt? Can a car get away with having just the seat belt? (Maybe an older car? Don't know what he was driving.)

    If your car has a seatbelt, you are required to use it. You are required to maintain your car's seatbelts in good order. If your car is sufficiently old that it does not have seatbelts, you are not required to have them fitted.
  • His physician, if in Ontario, would also be under a statutory duty to report any medical issue affecting his ability to drive.
    It's actually physicians, nurse practitioners and optometrists in Ontario. In some jurisdictions in Canada it is mandatory for "any healthcare provider", meaning anyone at all of a regulated health care profession.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Potentially dumb question:

    Are cars in England required to have a combination shoulder and seat belt? Can a car get away with having just the seat belt? (Maybe an older car? Don't know what he was driving.)

    The reason I ask is because I saw a pic or clip of P, probably taken the day after, that was supposed to prove he was driving without a seat belt. I couldn't see a shoulder belt, but wondered if he might have a lap seat belt.

    I grew up when there were just lap seat belts, and there were campaigns to get people to use *those*. Many people found the belts uncomfortable or silly. When shoulder belts came along, same thing.

    Just wondering aloud.

    Thx.
    I don’t think any cars have been produced in Britain without front seatbelts in over 50 years. The earlier ones were diagonal (shoulder to hip) belts, but three point seatbelts have been standard for decades. Drivers are legally required to wear a seatbelt on the public highway unless they carry with them certification from a doctor that there is a medical reason why they can’t.

    The vehicle he was seen driving was brand new.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Seat Belts have been compulsory equipment in the UK since 1972, I believe. And if the vehicle is equipped with them they must be worn

    Now, here is the kicker. In the US some of the states have not wearing seatbelts a primary offense, meaning you can get stopped for that offense alone. Whereas other states say it is a secondary offense, meaning the police have to stop you for another offense first.

    Not sure how the police in the UK approach that.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    Required to be fitted for front seats in new cars since 1965. Required to be worn since 1983.
    AFAIK English law doesn’t have the distinction between primary and secondary offences.
  • Thx for all the responses to my seatbelt question.
  • BroJames wrote: »
    Required to be fitted for front seats in new cars since 1965. Required to be worn since 1983.
    AFAIK English law doesn’t have the distinction between primary and secondary offences.

    Driving without a seatbelt is an offence in its own right. The penalty is a fixed penalty notice of £100 or a maximum fine of £500. It doesn't carry penalty points on your licence (but perhaps it should as it makes you a road danger).
  • Ok everyone in Norfolk, cast off your seat belts until caught and told not to. Please also insist that the Police to pay the increase in NHS costs in dealing with the results of car accidents where people haven't worn a belt.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    IME (white, middle class, RP speaking) a great deal depends on the disposition of the police officer involved and the person being stopped. Unless there’s a crackdown of some kind going on then politeness, respect, admission, apology and (if any) mitigation are likely to lead to a warning rather than a penalty. In this respect police officers may be more lenient than safety cameras.

    OTOH an aggressive or surly attitude with answering back, and comments like ‘haven’t you got better things to do with your time?’ or ‘why don’t you arrest some real criminals?’ are all likely to provoke prosecution or the issue of a fixed penalty notice. (The fact of being white, middle class and RP speaking won’t help in that case, maybe even the opposite.)

    (I’m not sure why not wearing a seatbelt would make someone more of a road danger, although they’d certainly be more of a danger to themselves, and more likely to put the NHS to considerable expense.)
  • What equality before the law is there in England/UK? Are some people more equal than others?
  • I think that is true everywhere - though to a greater degree in some countries than others.
  • BroJames wrote: »
    IME (white, middle class, RP speaking) a great deal depends on the disposition of the police officer involved and the person being stopped. Unless there’s a crackdown of some kind going on then politeness, respect, admission, apology and (if any) mitigation are likely to lead to a warning rather than a penalty. In this respect police officers may be more lenient than safety cameras.
    ....

    The opposition to cameras and some drivers' insistence that they must be pulled over by a real live police officer at the time of the offence is selfish and irrational. Not only are police resources limited, so the chance of getting caught is tiny, but some drivers obviously think they can talk their way out of a ticket but they can't argue with a camera.

    And really, how often is any offender "caught in the act" by a police officer? I don't hear those same drivers arguing against using cameras to catch bank robbers, for example. "I didn't rob the bank, someone else must have been driving my face."
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    IME (white, middle class, RP speaking) a great deal depends on the disposition of the police officer involved and the person being stopped. Unless there’s a crackdown of some kind going on then politeness, respect, admission, apology and (if any) mitigation are likely to lead to a warning rather than a penalty. In this respect police officers may be more lenient than safety cameras.
    ....

    The opposition to cameras and some drivers' insistence that they must be pulled over by a real live police officer at the time of the offence is selfish and irrational. Not only are police resources limited, so the chance of getting caught is tiny, but some drivers obviously think they can talk their way out of a ticket but they can't argue with a camera.

    And really, how often is any offender "caught in the act" by a police officer? I don't hear those same drivers arguing against using cameras to catch bank robbers, for example. "I didn't rob the bank, someone else must have been driving my face."

    This. We have the absurdity of speed cameras having to be painted bright yellow to give drivers a fair chance. Anyone would think you couldn't avoid the fines just be observing the limit.
  • The articles I’ve read of prince Phillips seatbelt-less driving have been bit unclear where is happened i.e. was it on the Sandringham estate or the public roads?

    Just interested to know if seat beltless driving on private land is still an offence?
  • I personally got off every driving offence I committed in the 20th Century where I was pulled over by a police officer. I was admonished to drive more carefully on every occasion. This includes speeding offences in my youth and driving through a red light. On one occasion I got off because the cop recognised my surname and drank with my Uncle at the East Ringwood Sports Club. I was doing at least 20 clicks over in a side street that morning. On all other occasions I had no connections with the officer, but I do come from the ethnic group and social class from which cops were primarily recruited - Zone 2 or 3 in The Hunger Games parlance. All I did was be polite, admit the offence and apologise. Yes, it was my white male privilege that did it. If you reckon Philip is getting special treatment because he's a royal, you're wrong. The cop probably drank with Mountbatten.

    I bloody hate speed cameras.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I was doing at least 20 clicks over in a side street that morning. I bloody hate speed cameras.
    Then you clearly have something to be concerned about as witness the 20 clicks over remark.

    OK if you want to kill yourself but give everyone else a fighting chance

Sign In or Register to comment.