Leaving your avatar to once side for just a moment, and be honest now, your not strictly impartial are you...
HRH crash
- Thread starter MercedesDriver
- Start date
Leaving your avatar to once side for just a moment, and be honest now, your not strictly impartial are you...
geraldrobins
MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2013
- Messages
- 1,474
- Car
- VW Golf, past c200cdi
Surely he would be looking right to see if the road was clear?
D
Deletedmember130310
Guest
Quite! My query is whether talk of the sun is a red herring....
An apology can be taken as an admission of guilt , as far as insurance liability goes - one should NEVER say sorry to any other party involved in an RTC , regardless of the circumstances .
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 20,027
- Car
- Lexus RX450h F-Sport with Takumi Pack 2020
Was it a 'new' car or one he already had at another estate?
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
- Messages
- 537
- Location
- Lithuania and UK
- Car
- LHD Brabus B63S (CL63 AMG) and RHD X3 M40i
No, it's at least 4 years old and yes, most likely.
Scott_F
MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2010
- Messages
- 4,211
I knew it wouldn't be long before they came into the equation......
D
Deleted member 6183
Guest
Beware of statistics...especially graphs like the above. For a start, the age ranges aren't equal: 16 -19 is four years whereas the others are all ten years, except the 80+ which is undefined. You must also take into account how many practising drivers there are in each range; and the mileage they cover; and the types of roads they drive on; and the time of day; and the weather conditions; and the nature of the accident; and the circumstances of the accident; and who was at fault; and so on. To my mind, the graph proves nothing - it's just a bunch of numbers that someone at the DfT put together into a meaningless graph. Rant overLet's be clear that drivers under the age of thirty are killed more often than the over 80's, AND that one in four deaths is caused by a driver between the age of 17 and 19 (sic). (The clue is in the insurance premiums)
Here's the BBC on the subject: How dangerous are elderly drivers?
But, that said, Winter collisions just after sunrise and before sunset are a problem for all drivers, but especially the elderly.
.
WDB124066
MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 6,170
- Car
- 1996 E320 Sportline Cabriolet x 2
Unfortunately they are ever present everywhere, they still havn't backed off here either.
MikeInWimbledon
Hardcore MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,328
- Car
- (Ex S211 E500, W212 E500, C216, S212 E500, W211 E500 5.5, W221 S500, S211 E500, SL500, S500, E55)
Beware of statistics...especially graphs like the above. For a start, the age ranges aren't equal: 16 -19 is four years whereas the others are all ten years, except the 80+ which is undefined. You must also take into account how many practising drivers there are in each range; and the mileage they cover; and the types of roads they drive on; and the time of day; and the weather conditions; and the nature of the accident; and the circumstances of the accident; and who was at fault; and so on. To my mind, the graph proves nothing - it's just a bunch of numbers that someone at the DfT put together into a meaningless graph. Rant over
Completely agree. It's a simplification in a table.
17-19 year old drivers kill 400 people a year in the UK.
That's a quarter of all road deaths in the UK. And they do this while driving an average of 1500 miles a year.
Every age group needs to be judged in the context of the mileage they do.
Be clear that those between 40 - 69 drive MORE miles than those between 20-39. It's the curse of the working class / age. And they have FEWER collisions.
What's the best way of judging the risk of a driver ? Look at her insurance premium.
Who has the lowest insurance premiums? The old.
Who have the highest insurance premiums: 17 - 29 year olds
For more sophisticated detailed statistics, see this:
https://www.licencebureau.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/road-use-statistics.pdf
.
Last edited:
WDB124066
MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2009
- Messages
- 6,170
- Car
- 1996 E320 Sportline Cabriolet x 2
No I am not, this year I have learned what the TLVF has been up to for the last 20 plus years while I have been away living in a Taradise that was largely devoid of them - NZLs most productive and efficient province by the way - full of those nasty Farmers.
Identity politics has shocked me senseless, as it has the UK - I think. The world is going mad has nothing to do with the world, if you look closely at what you are objecting to you will find it has its roots in Identity Politics and the TLVF. What surprised me the most is that they get a very special mention in the Bible no less.
For me that movement is nothing but the politics of being useless and getting away with it.
D
Deleted member 6183
Guest
Some old grunter took a spin along the prom at our seaside village last weekend, it was packed with pedestrians and cyclists yet she managed to worm her way on there and drive about half a mile before stopping.
How can their competency get so poor that they think that this is normal, it just cannot be the first time that this particular has done something silly?
How can their competency get so poor that they think that this is normal, it just cannot be the first time that this particular has done something silly?
D
Deleted member 6183
Guest
Plenty of room I imagine?
What if the other driver was doing 100mph and the Duke didn't see them until the last minute? Is that still his fault?
Stratman
MB Enthusiast
Yes. It may be a mitigating factor but you do not pull out of a minor road into a major one in front of another vehicle. Was she doing 100mph? I've seen nothing to suggest she was even breaking the speed limit, never mind by such a margin.
What if he was on his phone, over the limit and the police 'conveniently misread' his breath test because of who he is? This "whataboutery" is easy, isn't it?
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2016
- Messages
- 13,405
- Location
- UK
- Car
- Tesla Model S, Model 3 LR, Model X /// Previous: Jaguar XFR, Mercedes E320 CDI, C32 AMG, CLK 320
Oh my god how are we still talking about this?
An accident happened, all survived, insurance will sort it.
Everyone makes mistakes, we are all human.
An accident happened, all survived, insurance will sort it.
Everyone makes mistakes, we are all human.
grober
MB Master
removed
We all have a sheared interest in our cars and I find this forum in that respect to be excellant for sharing of help and opinions but I wish th
Yep, there are so many possibilities yet some posters have decided it was the Dukes fault already.
Thing is , I don't think anyone on this forum witnessed the incident , so none of us know what really happened .
Absent any strong evidence either way , it appears that HRH emerged from a minor road into the path of a vehicle already traveling on the major road - that alone places liability on him , unless he can show good reason why it ought to be otherwise .
Notwithstanding his age , we are all human , and we all make mistakes , greater or lesser , when we go out in our cars ; most of the time we might inconvenience someone and a horn gets sounded or lights may be flashed , but there are no serious consequences , and those of us with the better attitudes might think 'that was close , and it was my fault , I'll be more careful in future' .
Sometimes , even those of us with good driving records may make an error which results in a collision , if we are lucky just a minor prang and a bit of damage which can be repaired ; if we are less lucky then injury or worse may occur .
It is worth bearing in mind that the outcome is not always proportionate to the degree of the error : we might make what seems like a very minor mistake that still has a catastrophic outcome ( pull out in front of an overtaking car that you didn't see ; said car does not hit you but goes onto the opposite side and has a head on collision or knocks someone down ) ; or someone may do something mind numbingly stupid ( think overtaking round a blind bend , or passing a bus stopped at a pedestrian crossing as examples ) and escape without consequence . That is why the courts have very clear guidelines to assess culpability .
However , there must be millions of minor incidents on the roads every day - while in almost every case charges could be brought , in most cases if the parties are of good character and driving history then this does not happen , and normally the cost of damage or minor injuries are dealt with by insurance , that then being the end of the matter .
There has been much tittle tattle in the media regarding the Duke's driving history and his manner of driving - absent irrefutable factual evidence this is just hearsay and would have no bearing on either a court case or a civil claim . It is likely that he has a 'clean' driving licence , otherwise much would already have been made of it - whether or not his vehicle was insured through an external insurer or whether the Royal fleet is self insured is neither here nor there , any liabilities will be met without question .
The reporting about the non wearing of seat belts is another non issue in itself - he is only placing himself at risk ; the Royals don't use the NHS so any consequential cost to himself from injuries arising from this would be bourne by himself . If he wants to pay the fines ( if they ever were given ) then that is up to himself . There may be an argument in that his apparently disregarding one piece of legislation ( we don't know that he does not have a medical exemption , although the vehicle is of an age where fitment and use of seatbelt is mandated ) goes towards a cavalier attitude towards driving and the law in general ...
I find it mildly amusing to consider that if this matter ever went to court ( which I doubt that it will ) then the case would be HM vs. HRH . I rather think that HRH will already have been tried and convicted in camera by HM and will now be serving penance in the doghouse at HM's displeasure She is known to hate anything which reflects badly on 'The Firm' , and no doubt he will be feeling her wrath .
I suppose that , given that prosecutions are enacted in HM's name , then if she so decided , she 'could' decline to prosecute her husband , and deal with the matter privately , perhaps by banning him from driving on HER highway :-D Of course this is most unlikely to happen .
Absent any strong evidence either way , it appears that HRH emerged from a minor road into the path of a vehicle already traveling on the major road - that alone places liability on him , unless he can show good reason why it ought to be otherwise .
Notwithstanding his age , we are all human , and we all make mistakes , greater or lesser , when we go out in our cars ; most of the time we might inconvenience someone and a horn gets sounded or lights may be flashed , but there are no serious consequences , and those of us with the better attitudes might think 'that was close , and it was my fault , I'll be more careful in future' .
Sometimes , even those of us with good driving records may make an error which results in a collision , if we are lucky just a minor prang and a bit of damage which can be repaired ; if we are less lucky then injury or worse may occur .
It is worth bearing in mind that the outcome is not always proportionate to the degree of the error : we might make what seems like a very minor mistake that still has a catastrophic outcome ( pull out in front of an overtaking car that you didn't see ; said car does not hit you but goes onto the opposite side and has a head on collision or knocks someone down ) ; or someone may do something mind numbingly stupid ( think overtaking round a blind bend , or passing a bus stopped at a pedestrian crossing as examples ) and escape without consequence . That is why the courts have very clear guidelines to assess culpability .
However , there must be millions of minor incidents on the roads every day - while in almost every case charges could be brought , in most cases if the parties are of good character and driving history then this does not happen , and normally the cost of damage or minor injuries are dealt with by insurance , that then being the end of the matter .
There has been much tittle tattle in the media regarding the Duke's driving history and his manner of driving - absent irrefutable factual evidence this is just hearsay and would have no bearing on either a court case or a civil claim . It is likely that he has a 'clean' driving licence , otherwise much would already have been made of it - whether or not his vehicle was insured through an external insurer or whether the Royal fleet is self insured is neither here nor there , any liabilities will be met without question .
The reporting about the non wearing of seat belts is another non issue in itself - he is only placing himself at risk ; the Royals don't use the NHS so any consequential cost to himself from injuries arising from this would be bourne by himself . If he wants to pay the fines ( if they ever were given ) then that is up to himself . There may be an argument in that his apparently disregarding one piece of legislation ( we don't know that he does not have a medical exemption , although the vehicle is of an age where fitment and use of seatbelt is mandated ) goes towards a cavalier attitude towards driving and the law in general ...
I find it mildly amusing to consider that if this matter ever went to court ( which I doubt that it will ) then the case would be HM vs. HRH . I rather think that HRH will already have been tried and convicted in camera by HM and will now be serving penance in the doghouse at HM's displeasure
She is known to hate anything which reflects badly on 'The Firm' , and no doubt he will be feeling her wrath .I suppose that , given that prosecutions are enacted in HM's name , then if she so decided , she 'could' decline to prosecute her husband , and deal with the matter privately , perhaps by banning him from driving on HER highway :-D Of course this is most unlikely to happen .
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
