97 yo driver causes crash

Joe_Horner

unforeseen wrote: »

Latest news from Norfolk Constabulary. The other driver has been charged with attempted regicide

I thought his name was Phil, who's this Reg guy?

Arklight

According to the Telegraph he's been a menace on the roads around there for decades.

His car insurance must be £10,000 a month. Not that it's him paying the premiums.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/19/prince-philip-crash-duke-told-witnesses-fool/

That aside, I'm astonished he's allowed to drive around the same predictable roads as he pleases in a soft skin vehicle. How do they stop terrorists getting to him?

twhitehousescat

Arklight wrote: »

According to the Telegraph he's been a menace on the roads around there for decades.

His car insurance must be £10,000 a month. Not that it's him paying the premiums.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/19/prince-philip-crash-duke-told-witnesses-fool/

That aside, I'm astonished he's allowed to drive around the same predictable roads as he pleases in a soft skin vehicle. How do they stop terrorists getting to him?

there will be no car insurance , like many large companies the government will give the royal permission to use a bond

fred246

When you are that sort of age you are pretty close to death anyway. A minor injury can lead to death in circumstances where a younger person would easily survive. So it seems possible that you could be charged with causing death by dangerous or careless driving just because you hit a very elderly person. I am sure the courts would take the circumstances into account though.

jk0

I wonder if Phil's 'insurers' will argue about the blame.

Joe_Horner

jk0 wrote: »

I wonder if Phil's 'insurers' will argue about the blame.

If there are grounds to (I believe speed has been alluded to, and it usually takes a pretty fast impact to flip a Landrover, which could complicate 100% liability) then there's no reason they shouldn't.

His age and who he is don't reduce his rights if there was some fault on the other side.

unforeseen

Joe_Horner wrote: »

If there are grounds to (I believe speed has been alluded to, and it usually takes a pretty fast impact to flip a Landrover, which could complicate 100% liability) then there's no reason they shouldn't.

His age and who he is don't reduce his rights if there was some fault on the other side.

As the speed limit on that stretch is 60MPH, that's probably sufficient for even a Smart car to flip a Landrover when it T-bones it.

But we would like to think that his position doesn't reduce his culpability and the rights of the other party

AdrianC

Joe_Horner wrote: »

If there are grounds to (I believe speed has been alluded to

It's an NSL road.

The only reason speed has been "alluded to" is that, by pure coincidence, the local authority were meeting the following day with various speed limit reductions on their agenda, including that stretch of A149.

Joe_Horner

AdrianC wrote: »

It's an NSL road.

The only reason speed has been "alluded to" is that, by pure coincidence, the local authority were meeting the following day with various speed limit reductions on their agenda, including that stretch of A149.

Speed is not only a factor when an arbitrary number is exceeded, so the fact it's NSL doesn't automatically mean the other car doing (let's say) 58mph is in the clear. It could well have been inappropriate to be doing considerably lower than 60 despite the NSL. In fact, a good half of my drive to work each day is on NSL roads where 60mph would b e positively suicidal!

The fact that the local authority was already considering a reduction on that stretch weighs pretty heavily in favour of the above being the case; although, without the full reports from the investigators, we simply don't know either way and judging definitively from a couple of press photos is a mug's game.

And I'm not for a minute suggesting his position should reduce culpability, but neither should it increase it just because we're all "anti-elite" nowadays. Even the privileged are entitled to a fair hearing!

And I say that as a committed socialist.

AdrianC

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Speed is not only a factor when an arbitrary number is exceeded, so the fact it's NSL doesn't automatically mean the other car doing (let's say) 58mph is in the clear. It could well have been inappropriate to be doing considerably lower than 60 despite the NSL. In fact, a good half of my drive to work each day is on NSL roads where 60mph would b e positively suicidal!

Lovely, but this was a straight, wide single carriageway A-road.

With a side entrance with Give Way lines, out of which somebody pulled when the road was not clear.

And I'm not for a minute suggesting his position should reduce culpability, but neither should it increase it just because we're all "anti-elite" nowadays.

Couldn't agree more.