Thank you Prince Philip!

123578

Comments

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    So Mark, you are screwed. It might not be fair that you, who claim to be a law abiding citizen, is killed in a road traffic accident, or worse, survive such an accident. But the odds are that you will encounter somebody behaving abnormally on the road, and that might result in such an accident. You have to decide every day whether you are going to take that risk or stay at home.
    None of this excuses wantonly speeding.
    And arguing that the world is dangerous does not excuse adding to it.
    It is akin to saying "Might as well fire bullets into the air in the heart of Sydney, because people die there everyday."

    LB, I am in full agreement with you. I was looking for an incident in my life where the cops let me off. That necessitates me talking about an incident in which I did the wrong thing.
  • Surely it isn't that hard to be selfless for the few hours a day one spends driving. There's always plenty of other opportunities to be selfish.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    @Simon Toad said - As I am a narcissist ....
    I would say average speed cameras, everywhere. And, as @NOprophet_NØprofit suggests, monitoring boxes in cars plus large penalties, preferably paid in big compensation payouts for victims and their families.

    That conflates civil and criminal law, compensation and penalties. The compulsory third party personal injury insurance is in place to make sure that there are sufficient funds available to meet claims for damages. It would be against public policy to be able to insure against criminal penalties and fines have to come from the pocket of the accused.

    And there will be accidents where a drunken driver is not at fault. A pedestrian might suddenly dart out from the kerb into the path of a car; at an intersection, the drunken driver may be proceeding in accordance with a green traffic light and collide with someone who does not stop for a red light. The driver would still have to pay the penalty for driving either under the influence or with more than the prescribed blood content of alcohol but not be found liable to pay a cent in damages.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    There's a classic meme in American culture of country cops hiding in their vehicle behind a roadside billboard, just waiting for a speeder to come along.

    Oh, I have seen this.
  • Ok. Wasn't sure how often it happens in real life. There are also speed traps and revenue corridors where, AIUI, the road and rules and police practice are set up so that the drivers are set up. They may not have any choice but to break a rule/law; and, gee, the local gov't has no choice but to fine them and take the money. Poor local gov't.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Ok. Wasn't sure how often it happens in real life. There are also speed traps and revenue corridors where, AIUI, the road and rules and police practice are set up so that the drivers are set up. They may not have any choice but to break a rule/law; and, gee, the local gov't has no choice but to fine them and take the money. Poor local gov't.
    IMO, the problem with a speed trap isn't that it traps speeders, but that a visible presence slows them down more effectively.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    So Mark, you are screwed. It might not be fair that you, who claim to be a law abiding citizen, is killed in a road traffic accident, or worse, survive such an accident. But the odds are that you will encounter somebody behaving abnormally on the road, and that might result in such an accident. You have to decide every day whether you are going to take that risk or stay at home.
    None of this excuses wantonly speeding.
    And arguing that the world is dangerous does not excuse adding to it.
    It is akin to saying "Might as well fire bullets into the air in the heart of Sydney, because people die there everyday."

    LB, I am in full agreement with you. I was looking for an incident in my life where the cops let me off. That necessitates me talking about an incident in which I did the wrong thing.
    I read that incorrectly then. Apologies.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Plus a willingness to change. It’s no use saying ‘I’m only human’ and continuing to endanger life.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited January 26
    There's not much value in caritas that ends after the requisite number of chances have been used. Self-protection is of course vital on the part of the lover, but to require some form of words or evidence of attitude as the price of love is not the way I want to practice my faith.

    I know at least some of my faults though, and I have been greatly loved.

  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    edited January 26
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    There's not much value in caritas that ends after the requisite number of chances have been used. Self-protection is of course vital on the part of the lover, but to require some form of words or evidence of attitude as the price of love is not the way I want to practice my faith.

    I'm confused. Is this a reference to your own extension of charity, to other posters' comments on your story of reckless driving, to how you think police officers should treat reckless drivers, or what?
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    There's not much value in caritas that ends after the requisite number of chances have been used. Self-protection is of course vital on the part of the lover, but to require some form of words or evidence of attitude as the price of love is not the way I want to practice my faith.

    I know at least some of my faults though, and I have been greatly loved.

    I think @Simon Toad this has been posted on the wrong thread?
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    ... There are also speed traps and revenue corridors where, AIUI, the road and rules and police practice are set up so that the drivers are set up. They may not have any choice but to break a rule ...

    How exactly do they accomplish this? Big roadside magnets and giant fans to make the car go faster? Specifics, please, on the setup.

    Perhaps you are thinking of a "set up" like on the way to my workplace, where a four-lane divided road passes by an elementary school and the speed limit drops from 60 km/h to 50 km/h, which is still way faster than the usual school/playground limit of 30 km/h. The police stake out this area regularly because most drivers are already going well over the 60 km /h limit even before they blow past the school. Add in the morning and afternoon pickup/dropoff circus and it gets very dangerous. I'm mystified as to how the cash-grabbers force them to drive at 80 km/h all the way and stop them from simply tapping the brakes when they see the 50 km/h sign.



  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Until a few years ago Waldo, Florida, was notorious as a speed trap in which 6 different limits were posted within a few miles and their 7-member police force wrote 12,000 tickets a year. (The force was disbanded following state investigations into, among other things, illegal ticket quotas.) The American Automobile Association paid for large billboards to be posted outside of town warning motorists.
  • It is possible to set up speed traps that make it difficult for even law-abiding people to get caught. Most speed cameras and the odd hidden policeman with a radar/laser are not the same thing.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    One of the worst speed traps I have seen was in Idaho. I had just gotten off the freeway (speed limit 75 mph --120 clicks) to a county road (50 mph--80 clicks) a quarter mile down the road, it dropped to 30 mph (48 clicks). There were no Reduce Speed signs, and the 30 mph speed sign was hidden behind an overgrown bush. Yes, I got nabbed. But after I sent in payment for the fine, I also sent a protest letter with pictures attached to commissioners of that county.

    Next time I drove on the same road, lo and behold, they put up Reduce Speed signs, and the bush was removed.
  • There was a road near us in London - the Uxbridge Road. The problem here was with the bus lanes, as it crossed several boroughs each with different rules. For instance (as I remember) one borough would say "no driving in bus lane at any time", another did not permit driving during peak hours, another had a different set of times. Of course one wouldn't be aware that one was passing from one jurisdiction to another, and the enforcement signs are small and easily missed - indeed they mat get obscured by buses! I never got a ticket. but a lot of people did. Same thing with parking rules where the borough boundary (eg Camden/Westminster) goes down the middle of the street.
  • PuzzlerPuzzler Shipmate
    Has Prince Philip’s apology to the injured persons indicated responsibility, and will that cause the police to pursue the incident and bring a charge?
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Puzzler wrote: »
    Has Prince Philip’s apology to the injured persons indicated responsibility, and will that cause the police to pursue the incident and bring a charge?

    You can be ‘so very sorry’ without being responsible. So I think not.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate

    I don't ink that what he is reported as having said could reasonably be interpreted as an admission of liability
  • As has been mentioned up-thread often apologies are taken to be an admission of guilt which is completely ridiculous. I'm in two minds about this particular "apology" as it seems to be playing the "Oh, poor me for being involved in such a horrendous thing - please don't prosecute me because I have suffered enough" card.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    I am truly grateful that none of my apologies have had to weather this level of public scrutiny.
  • Hypothetically, if the Prince were to take a driving test tomorrow and pass, would this incident change people's opinion from "he's too old to be driving" to "accidents can happen to anyone"? Even autonomous vehicles have trouble with glare.

    Or put another way, I'm 56 years old. If I have a crash tomorrow, would anyone assume I was too old to drive? Probably not, but so what? Based on a lifetime of observations as a pedestrian, cyclist, passenger and driver, and based on the fact that my province has hundreds of car murders per year, I believe the average driver is shitty, careless, distracted, irresponsible, egotistical and overconfident at every age. I would be in favour of testing everyone every five years, for example - not because that's how quickly driver ability changes, but because they need a refresher on how to drive safely and legally.









  • Hypothetically, if the Prince were to take a driving test tomorrow and pass, would this incident change people's opinion from "he's too old to be driving" to "accidents can happen to anyone"?
    The standard driving tests are about basic competence, teens pass them and still have the most accidents of any age group. IME, age-related erosion of capability isn't on/off. So, no. Rather, this would establish that he is not completely incompetent, but not whether his abilities have diminished, especially during everyday driving.
    I would be in favour of testing everyone every five years, for example - not because that's how quickly driver ability changes, but because they need a refresher on how to drive safely and legally.
    I would be in favour of this as well, but I doubt it will happen.
    However, better tests for ageing drivers than their own self-assessment could.

  • What would worry me if I ever had to do a retest is the likely requirement to navigate with SatNav. I took mine out of the car the day I bought it and wouldn't have a clue how to use it.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    ...
    However, better tests for ageing drivers than their own self-assessment could.

    My point, however, is that self-assessment is meaningless for the overwhelming majority of drivers of ANY age. My 73-year-old best friend (now deceased) was one of the better drivers I've known and she passed her retest despite being legally blind in one eye, but my 30-year-old friend is the one who talks and texts on her phone while driving. over the speed limit and rolling through stop signs (we call it the "California roll") and she won't be tested for another 30 years, at least. That's nuts.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    ...
    However, better tests for ageing drivers than their own self-assessment could.

    My point, however, is that self-assessment is meaningless for the overwhelming majority of drivers of ANY age. My 73-year-old best friend (now deceased) was one of the better drivers I've known and she passed her retest despite being legally blind in one eye, but my 30-year-old friend is the one who talks and texts on her phone while driving. over the speed limit and rolling through stop signs (we call it the "California roll") and she won't be tested for another 30 years, at least. That's nuts.
    I completely agree. Though the texting and driving thing is not limited to middle-aged or young people, I know people in their mid-sixties who do it. Stupidity and overconfidence know no age. But age affects everyone.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    Puzzler wrote: »
    Has Prince Philip’s apology to the injured persons indicated responsibility, and will that cause the police to pursue the incident and bring a charge?

    You can be ‘so very sorry’ without being responsible. So I think not.
    All insurance companies advise you not to use "sorry" in any communication regarding an accident. It is seen as an admission of fault and, hence, liability.

    I wonder if Philip has car insurance?

  • Probably self-insured, as there's no realistic way for an insurance company to assess the driving risks (esp. security) associated with being a royal.
  • Self-insurance is not an option in the UK because there is no way the DVLA can check it before you pay road tax, and the royal household has to pay that for any of its cars to be able to operate on the public highway.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    @Simon Toad said - As I am a narcissist ....
    I would say average speed cameras, everywhere. And, as @NOprophet_NØprofit suggests, monitoring boxes in cars plus large penalties, preferably paid in big compensation payouts for victims and their families.

    That conflates civil and criminal law, compensation and penalties. The compulsory third party personal injury insurance is in place to make sure that there are sufficient funds available to meet claims for damages. It would be against public policy to be able to insure against criminal penalties and fines have to come from the pocket of the accused.

    And there will be accidents where a drunken driver is not at fault. A pedestrian might suddenly dart out from the kerb into the path of a car; at an intersection, the drunken driver may be proceeding in accordance with a green traffic light and collide with someone who does not stop for a red light. The driver would still have to pay the penalty for driving either under the influence or with more than the prescribed blood content of alcohol but not be found liable to pay a cent in damages.

    Intoxicated driving is an offence in and of itself, that's true. The system where I live will penalize the driver criminally, suspend their driving licence immediately at roadside for 120 days, impound the vehicle regardless of ownership for at least 30 days, with zero tolerance for drugs. For alcohol impairment is .04 for non-criminal, .08 for criminal penalties. So there are legal and administrative penalties. The impounding of a vehicle is an additional cost to the accused and only refunded if found not guilty post-trial. But it is pretty hard to refute.

    The intoxicated driver has insurance voided by default. Which means that the driver is not insured against any vehicle damage nor any other claims. Regardless of the fault for the #CrashNotAccident. If injured the intoxicated driver is entitled to physical rehabilitation and all of the non-medicare health services but receives no income benefits if off work.

    Re the darting out ped, this person's issues are dealt with seperately from the driver's. I have seen that the provincial insurer has assessed fault for a pedestrian for walking drunk into traffic. The ped was billed the $750 deductable by the insurer which is the default amount that the standard compulsory license plate insurance does not cover. That's the total liability possible as far as I can tell (you pay for an annual car licence and compulsory insurance at the same time; you can buy an additional policy to lower the deductable and add some additional things like higher income replacement). I like no fault, as it has removed all profit taking.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Self-insurance is not an option in the UK because there is no way the DVLA can check it before you pay road tax, and the royal household has to pay that for any of its cars to be able to operate on the public highway.

    Basically there are 2 types of car insurance here - and my recollection from reading the law reports 50 years ago it's much the same in the UK. The compulsory one, which you pay along with car registration, gives you indemnity in relation to any claim for personal injury made against you. The other, not compulsory, covers you for any damage done to your car or claims against you for damage to other people's property, cars, fences etc. I took the question as being directed towards the latter.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate

    Intoxicated driving is an offence in and of itself, that's true. The system where I live will penalize the driver criminally, suspend their driving licence immediately at roadside for 120 days, impound the vehicle regardless of ownership for at least 30 days, with zero tolerance for drugs. For alcohol impairment is .04 for non-criminal, .08 for criminal penalties. So there are legal and administrative penalties. The impounding of a vehicle is an additional cost to the accused and only refunded if found not guilty post-trial. But it is pretty hard to refute.

    The intoxicated driver has insurance voided by default. Which means that the driver is not insured against any vehicle damage nor any other claims. Regardless of the fault for the #CrashNotAccident. If injured the intoxicated driver is entitled to physical rehabilitation and all of the non-medicare health services but receives no income benefits if off work.

    Re the darting out ped, this person's issues are dealt with seperately from the driver's. I have seen that the provincial insurer has assessed fault for a pedestrian for walking drunk into traffic. The ped was billed the $750 deductable by the insurer which is the default amount that the standard compulsory license plate insurance does not cover. That's the total liability possible as far as I can tell (you pay for an annual car licence and compulsory insurance at the same time; you can buy an additional policy to lower the deductable and add some additional things like higher income replacement). I like no fault, as it has removed all profit taking.

    I'd be surprised if the compulsory personal injury insurance was voided by default. It's a scheme designed to ensure that those injured through the fault of others are covered for even the most catastrophic injuries. Very, very few private people could afford to pay the sums awarded to those with comparatively minor injuries, let alone the catastrophic ones. It's the voluntary one, which covers you for damage to your own vehicle, or property damage sustained by others, which may contain a clause voiding the policy if the driver (other than a thief probably) is either driving under the influence or has more than the prescribed content of alcohol (and these days for illegal drugs for which the testing is available) in the blood.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    My understanding is the compulsory insurance can be voided, but the insurers will still pay and then seek to recover the costs from the insured party. This may or may not be at a rate which has a meaningful chance of every paying off the debt. Years ago I remember working for an insurance company where we had some very, very old files still open because the policyholder was refunding the company at a fiver a month for tens of thousands of pounds.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    My understanding is the compulsory insurance can be voided, but the insurers will still pay and then seek to recover the costs from the insured party. This may or may not be at a rate which has a meaningful chance of every paying off the debt. Years ago I remember working for an insurance company where we had some very, very old files still open because the policyholder was refunding the company at a fiver a month for tens of thousands of pounds.

    Yes. That's how I understand it. The insurance claims against the person. No fault always pays the injured. They've also claimed against bars who've served drinks and knew the person was driving pre- crash.
  • Self-insurance is not an option in the UK because there is no way the DVLA can check it before you pay road tax, and the royal household has to pay that for any of its cars to be able to operate on the public highway.

    AIUI, self-insurance requires you to lodge a bond with some insurance authority or other, and paperwork. This is perfectly checkable. Self-insurance is different from just not having insurance.

    For the UK, you are wrong. From the Road Traffic Act:

    144 Exceptions from requirement of third-party insurance or security.

    (1)Section 143 of this Act does not apply to a vehicle owned by a person who has deposited and keeps deposited with the Accountant General of the Senior Courts the sum of £500,000, at a time when the vehicle is being driven under the owner’s control.
  • The latest news is that he claims to have been dazzled by low sunshine. Sorry if it's already been posted.
    Anyway, that's happened to me before but I've always been lucky - it completely blinds you and you have to slow down quickly. So yes, I believe him and he has more or less admitted that he was at fault. It can happen to any driver of any age. There's no reason to think he was speeding, driving recklessly or drunk.

    Every word of Prince Philip's apologetic letter to car crash victim
  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    The latest news is that he claims to have been dazzled by low sunshine. Sorry if it's already been posted.
    Anyway, that's happened to me before but I've always been lucky - it completely blinds you and you have to slow down quickly. So yes, I believe him and he has more or less admitted that he was at fault. It can happen to any driver of any age. There's no reason to think he was speeding, driving recklessly or drunk.

    Every word of Prince Philip's apologetic letter to car crash victim
    If you are blinded don't move out onto a main road. If you might be blinded, pay attention and move out carefully.

    It's called due care and attention - failure to observe it is an indictable offence.

    It's one that the Police have heard a million times. It would be very interesting to examine the time of day, angle of sun, orientation of the road to see if it holds water. In any event Philip had driven the road before so should have been aware of the traffic. In other pics he's seen driving in sunglasses. Was he wearing them on the day?

    Methinks the man protests too much. You've said sorry in a letter, now deal with the consequences.

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    Actually, driving without due care and attention is not indictable. It is triable only summarily (by magistrates in a magistrates court).
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited January 28
    My friend was in a bad car accident last week.

    He was blinded by the sun and walked into the path of a car. The car wasn’t speeding. My friend broke his leg in four places and his dog was injured too.

    It’s possible to be blinded by the sun at just the wrong moment, nobody at fault.

    But if he’d been driving a car and the same had happened insurance would deem him ‘at fault’ I think.
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    I have no doubt the prince's letter was run past the royal lawyers before it was sent.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited January 28
    Boogie wrote: »
    My friend was in a bad car accident last week.

    He was blinded by the sun and walked into the path of a car. The car wasn’t speeding. My friend broke his leg in four places and his dog was injured too.

    It’s possible to be blinded by the sun at just the wrong moment, nobody at fault.
    It is possible. But in most situations, IMO, it will someone at fault. We know where the sun is. We know that if we cannot see we can have an unwanted collision. We often do not pay attention at the level we should. Two of the incidents where I have had broken bones were my fault. I was paying attention and exercising caution during those incidents, but not enough or those bones would not have been broken. That they were not incidents of complete carelessness does not absolve me of responsibility.
    But if he’d been driving a car and the same had happened insurance would deem him ‘at fault’ I think.
    Rightly so. The factor of damage is much greater so the level of responsibility is also much greater.

    Accidents are almost always someone's fault to at least some degree.
  • AIUI, in Canada, the law is that a single momentary lapse in attention is not sufficient in and of itself to be considered "driving without due care and attention". People still get convicted because there's usually additional factors causing a crash or a pattern of bad driving. After all, blinking and driving is legal and most of us survive that on a regular basis.

    Why prosecutors face a tough challenge in Humboldt Broncos crash case. In this case, the driver has now pleaded guilty to all charges and is awaiting sentencing.

    And IANAL, but of course, we all know there's a difference between insurance liability and criminal liability.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Sneezing too.
  • Gesundheit.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    Boogie wrote: »
    Sneezing too.
    On the first day we went behind a steering wheel in Driver Education (back when American high schools routinely taught the subject), a friend of mine sneezed a mighty sneeze and, with her eyes thus closed and her experience wanting, bolted forward and destroyed half the course (carefully laid out with orange cones) that we were supposed to navigate in the parking lot. She never lived it down, and I never forgot it.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Two of the incidents where I have had broken bones were my fault. I was paying attention and exercising caution during those incidents, but not enough or those bones would not have been broken.

    This seems like magical thinking to me - the idea that if we do the right things (pay enough attention and exercise enough caution in this case) bad things will not happen to us.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Two of the incidents where I have had broken bones were my fault. I was paying attention and exercising caution during those incidents, but not enough or those bones would not have been broken.

    This seems like magical thinking to me - the idea that if we do the right things (pay enough attention and exercise enough caution in this case) bad things will not happen to us.
    Cause and effect is magical thinking?
    Regardless, your interpretation is not what I was saying. It isn't practical to take every precaution possible. However, this does not mean that fault goes away, just that it isn't always a practical factor in avoidance.
    Also, true accidents and random events do happen. At least in regards to our abilities to manage them.
  • None of us are perfect drivers even if we think we are. That's why I'm very careful and cautious with my driving these days, because I know I'm not perfect and can make mistakes.
  • 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.

    Toad was responding to me, I am the one who called him a dickhead. And apart from the fact that riling up royal apologists like you seem to be does make me piss myself laughing, no, I'm not in jest. Being top of one's class does not exclude one from being a dickhead. Pip's behaviour demonstrates he is one. And not just here - his behaviour many, many times in the past, when he has demonstrated himself a gormless bigot.
  • who is Pip?
Sign In or Register to comment.