HRH crash

[zipdip]

There are lots of accidents like this when the sun is low,that road is straight and a 60 mph speed limit,but lots of drivers just do not drive with the thought has that car seen me, I will ease off the speed a little and cover the brake,as luck would have it no serious injury,as for should the old duke have been driving ,well he is allowed to by the rules just like many other older drivers,and from April I will been in the same boat,I suppose we all knew that the women injured would appear in the papers,goes with the territory I suppose,the old duke has passed the eyesight test and both drivers were breath tested and found sober,so no action will be taken and the insurance company will pay out and life goes on.

 

[markjay]

Whenever an elderly person is involved in a collision, clearly the question of age, health, and mental capacity must be considered.

But we should also keep in young that young able-bodies drivers of sound mind make mistakes all the time. No driver drives perfectly all the time, every time.

So we should be careful when judging the situation, else we could end-up demanding higher standards from elderly motorists than we do from the rest of the driving population.

 

[E55BOF]

I was wrong, or premature, regarding the picture of the Duke being ticked off for not wearing a seatbelt; it took a brave copper to do that, though, and well done that man or woman.

I was astonished to find out that he was driving again two days after the accident. That he was driving without a seatbelt, though, shows that either he has balls of steel, or he showed a serious lack of judgement. Since the Freelander rolled, I would have thought he must have been wearing one then to get away without injury, and in those circumstances I'd not have ten per cent enough courage/stupidity/stubbornness to drive unbelted two days later.

As for his judgement, the whole accident episode has been, rightly or wrongly, a minor PR disaster, and to compound that by committing another, albeit minor, motoring offence so soon afterwards smacks of insensitivity at best. If his judgement while driving is of the same standard, perhaps it is surprising only that he has not had an accident sooner.

As for the consequences of the accident, in this case if the police investigation concludes that the Duke (no, not David Dickinson, silly...) was responsible, on the reported facts so far he should be charged with careless driving/driving without due care and attention (the same offence nowadays), and the case dealt with in Magistrates' Court, where if proven it would be a Category Two offence.

The standard penalty would be a fine of between 25% and 125% of his weekly income, and 5 to 9 points on his licence. More importantly, however, in view of his age it would, quite rightly, be very surprising indeed if he was not required to take a driving test.

No-one except the sovereign is immune from prosecution. Will he be charged? Will he plead, or be found, guilty? If so, what penalty will be imposed? These are not really matters in the public interest, but they certainly are of great public interest, and the media will be watching very closely.

Personally, I wish him well, but I think he should stop driving now.

 

[brucemillar]

He should be bound by the same laws of the land that bind us all. Is he not?

That aside. If (and it is an “if” as I wasn’t there) he chooses to flout the law then do so again two days after he has had a crash that involves the use of belts (or not). It shows him in a very poor light. Or as he may choose to say “an ignorant buffoon”

He should be treated no better or worse than any other road user.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[John]

Lock him up at her majesty’s pleasure...

I didn't realise they were in to that kind of thing...

 

[brucemillar]

He should be bound by the same laws of the land that bind us all. Is he not?

That aside. If (and it is an “if” as I wasn’t there) he chooses to flout the law then do so again two days after he has had a crash that involves the use of belts (or not). It shows him in a very poor light. Or as he may choose to say “an ignorant buffoon”

He should be treated no better or worse than any other road user.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

Whenever an elderly person is involved in a collision, clearly the question of age, health, and mental capacity must be considered. But we should also keep in young that young able-bodies drivers of sound mind make mistakes all the time. No driver drives perfectly all the time, every time. So we should be careful when judging the situation, else we could end-up demanding higher standards from elderly motorists than we do from the rest of the driving population.

Let'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.

 

[grober]

Is age a factor behind the wheel?
Evidently there are 110,790 drivers between 90 -99 in the UK who still hold driving licences altho how many are actually driving on the road is not recorded--- picture licences may be retained as sources of identification for example.

 

[rf065]

If anyone is in any doubt about how easy it is to roll a 4X4 or SUV at low speed, have a look at these........................

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[E55BOF]

He should be bound by the same laws of the land that bind us all. Is he not?

Yes, of course he is. I don't recall anyone suggesting he is not.

If (and it is an “if” as I wasn’t there) he chooses to flout the law then do so again two days after he has had a crash that involves the use of belts (or not). It shows him in a very poor light. Or as he may choose to say “an ignorant buffoon”

That implies that you believe he chose to drive into the crash. Is that really what you mean to say?

 

[grober]

I have a question. Are vehicles of the Royal household "self insured" like some other large quasi government organisations such as the Armed Forces, Post Office, NHS, Police forces etc where the organisation lodges a nominal bond and can demonstrate the financial where-with-all to meet any 3rd party claims or own vehicle repair or replacement ? Such is the increase in third party claims that some of these organisations do take out third party insurance cover while providing own vehicle cover nowadays but some are still self insured I believe.-----?????

 

[alzieboy]

E55BOF FO , you sound to me like the Guy who goes down the Pub you’re so glad you missed

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

I have a question. Are vehicles of the Royal household "self insured" like some other large quasi government organisations such as the Armed Forces, Post Office, NHS, Police forces etc where the organisation lodges a nominal bond and can demonstrate the financial where-with-all to meet any 3rd party claims or own vehicle repair or replacement ? Such is the increase in third party claims that some of these organisations do take out third party insurance cover while providing own vehicle cover nowadays but some are still self insured I believe.-----?????

From memory, the Royal Household has never admitted to having insurance. For the simple reason that they're worth a few bob. They have the assets to cover any claim. (Worth remembering that Windsor Castle's £50 million fire in 1992 wasn't covered by insurance, although that is an asset owned by the State. e As I understood, but may be wrong, from a driving point of view there is not even a need to demonstrate "insurance," given sufficient assets - but I may be mistaken in this.

I used to run a fleet of a few hundred lease cars for a well-known Stockbroker, and that was self-insured, for all but some eye-watering size of third party claim. Can't remember the excess number now, but it was in the Millions before a claim could be made on the policy.

.

 

[219]

A bit more than a parking prang (his car ended up on its side) ... at 97 he was lucky to to only be shocked & shaken.

Shaken but not stirred

 

[219]

Should be. SOP following any RTC.

My initial thought was how fast was the other vehicle going to flip a Range Rover onto its side.

From what I’ve read it was an armoured version of the Freelander - If this is so I wonder if the armour playing in a vehicle with already high ground clearance has a detrimental effect in raising the COG ?

 

[whitenemesis]

Anyone can "self insure" ..
"The rules regarding insurance do 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."
Road Traffic Act 1988

 

[BTB 500]

From what I’ve read it was an armoured version of the Freelander - If this is so I wonder if the armour playing in a vehicle with already high ground clearance has a detrimental effect in raising the COG ?

Thicker bulletproof glass (high up in the vehicle) would certainly raise the CG.

 

[brucemillar]

Yes, of course he is. I don't recall anyone suggesting he is not.



That implies that you believe he chose to drive into the crash. Is that really what you mean to say?

I do not imply anything. But I didn’t see anybody dragging his belts off or forcing him not use his belts two days later.

I wasn’t there and said so. What I meant to say and thought I had is this:

We have laws that govern this scenario. Are they being applied? If yes? Good that is correct and proper. If no? Somebody needs to explain.

If two days later he goes out beltless (again)? Then I make no apology for him. He should feel the law as we would expect to.

Your post reads as being aggressive? I’m not sure why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WDB124066]

Come on down and I'll show you some tricks, bring extra underpants.

Congratulations you have made it to my ignore list.

 

[John]

Congratulations you have made it to my ignore list.

I'm not sure you can add yourself to your ignore list...