97 yo driver causes crash

Arklight

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!

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.

Well according to that Telegraph article, a newspaper not known for it's feverish desire to curtail the privilege of the elites, he has been a menace on the roads around there for decades. He seems to have caused a number of accidents and injured other people to the point that locals try and avoid him.

An ordinary person would have been priced off the road through their insurance premiums, and possibly investigated for dangerous driving. Doesn't seem to have applied to old Phil.

Stoke

So Phil was to blame then? Superb.

Car_54

Stoke wrote: »

So Phil was to blame then? Superb.

Fortunately, the courts decide that. Not the Daily Telegraph.

Stoke

[quote=[Deleted User];75349352]Fortunately, the courts decide that. Not the Daily Telegraph.[/QUOTE]

Do you actually think Phil would end up in court ? Come on mate.....

Car_54

Stoke wrote: »

Do you actually think Phil would end up in court ? Come on mate.....

I don't think the question of liability will go to court: the insurers will reach agreement.



However, there's the question of criminal proceedings. There's a fairly recent precedent where Princess Anne was convicted and fined.

twhitehousescat

[quote=[Deleted User];75350008]I don't think the question of liability will go to court: the insurers will reach agreement.



However, there's the question of criminal proceedings. There's a fairly recent precedent where Princess Anne was convicted and fined.[/QUOTE]

Princess Anne , ,,,,,,,,,,, she used to drive a reliant scimitar ,,,,,,,,,,you know :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Car_54

twhitehousescat wrote: »

Princess Anne , ,,,,,,,,,,, she used to drive a reliant scimitar ,,,,,,,,,,you know :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

It's not clear which has caused your hilarity: Princess Anne or the Reliant Scimitar? (Either is plausible.)


Anyway, her crime was not a motoring one, it was under the Dangerous Dogs Act.

twhitehousescat

[quote=[Deleted User];75350271]It's not clear which has caused your hilarity: Princess Anne or the Reliant Scimitar? (Either is plausible.)


Anyway, her crime was not a motoring one, it was under the Dangerous Dogs Act.[/QUOTE]

are you calling carmilla a ,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Andy_L

unforeseen wrote: »

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

The CPS won't take it further. As The DoE's not a king there's no realistic chance of a prosecution

Andy_L

[quote=[Deleted User];75350271]It's not clear which has caused your hilarity: Princess Anne or the Reliant Scimitar? (Either is plausible.)


Anyway, her crime was not a motoring one, it was under the Dangerous Dogs Act.[/QUOTE]

she's been done for speeding a few times as well
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/13/2