HRH crash

[WDB124066]

Well you watch this!

 

[Deleted member 6183]

Golden

 

[219]

I wonder if he just pulled out without looking. Royals must be so used to junctions, roundabouts and traffic lights being open to them so they can travel safely without stopping.

It has been reported, by HRH’s own admission, that he was blinded by the direct sunlight when pulling out .

 

[219]

I see and respect your point. I consider this country to be my land as well but law forbids me to not wear a seatbelt.

Depends on the vehicle’s age , and whether you have a medical exemption.

 

[219]

Yes it does and the consequence of failure or not complying with the law costs us money and/or it is dangerous to society. Neither apply in this case and it is her Country. Can we say the Law has no place with Royalty other than to show the subjects we are all equal...which we aren't.


But it may also suggest they have little idea of the practicle things in life, the pragmatism of having to comply all the fing time to rules or concepts they think are a good idea but simply are not.

Harry is copping a swath of reality in this regard ATM. Good idea but it wasn't really was it Harry. Good idea to wear the seat belt but not really. Thank God they don't really believe in what they say I was starting to find myself questioning some stuff!

And FWIW this is not your land - you are permitted to use it but it is not yours, bit like money, it isn't yours, it is theirs and you are permitted to use it.

Her Majesty , as the reigning monarch, is constitutionally above the law and cannot be arrested or prosecuted; the same is not true of HRH .

 

[Stratman]

It has been reported, by HRH’s own admission, that he was blinded by the direct sunlight when pulling out .

So even though by his own admission he couldn't see if it was safe to pull out, he went ahead and did it anyway. Shows p1ss poor judgement at the very least.

 

[219]

I only pointed out the lack of perceived interest in the real victims of this accident.
Nobody, least of all me is trying to do a hatchet job on HRH.
Just putting 2 and 2 together and making 4 unlike a few others who are ready to exonerate the man because of his age and who he is.
He has admitted he drove out of a side road and into the path of a car which had every right to be where it was because he didn't see them.

As reported, but it was also reported that , after getting out of his vehicle, the first thing HRH did was to enquire about the welfare of the other parties.

 

[219]

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.-----?????

Anyone , who has the means , can self insure by lodging the required amount with Lloyds .

 

[219]

So even though by his own admission he couldn't see if it was safe to pull out, he went ahead and did it anyway. Shows p1ss poor judgement at the very least.

So , should he sit there until the sun sets ? Or , more practically , and as most people would in the circumstances, emerge cautiously and hope that any other road users would see him .

 

[saff]

Depends on the vehicle’s age , and whether you have a medical exemption.

Thanks for that. I did say the law forbids me to not wear a seatbelt.

 

[AMGeed]

I'll even take you to the Club for a meal and a jar if you like...

https://www.pihabowlingclub.com/history

Given time I am pretty sure they will be come up with a more appropriate response.

I'm old, but don't smell of wee just yet. I'll pass on the lawn green bowls

 

[E55BOF]

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

And you sound to me like the sort of guy whom I would leave the pub to avoid. For the record, though, I very much doubt we have ever frequented, or ever will frequent, the same pub; this is at least as much of a satisfaction to me as I am sure it is to you...

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?

I apologise if you felt my post was aggressive; no aggression was intended, I assure you. Your post reads as though you were suggesting that the crash was the result of his flouting the law the first time, that's all, and that is why I asked the question. If you read my post again, in fact we are pretty much in agreement on the whole thing, and certainly that in the circumstances, driving without a seatbelt was a dam' fool thing to do.

 

[brucemillar]

And you sound to me like the sort of guy whom I would leave the pub to avoid. For the record, though, I very much doubt we have ever frequented, or ever will frequent, the same pub; this is at least as much of a satisfaction to me as I am sure it is to you...



I apologise if you felt my post was aggressive; no aggression was intended, I assure you. Your post reads as though you were suggesting that the crash was the result of his flouting the law the first time, that's all, and that is why I asked the question. If you read my post again, in fact we are pretty much in agreement on the whole thing, and certainly that in the circumstances, driving without a seatbelt was a dam' fool thing to do.

I have absolutely no idea what the cause of the crash was.

I have read tonight that HRH has allegedly stated to the Police and rescuers that he was “blinded” by the sun and described his driving as stupid/foolish. His wearing of a belt or not, would have zero to do with any collision/crash. However it is a legal requirement to do so (wear a belt) and two days later it is still a legal requirement.

If, as we read he feels, through his actions that he can ignore the law then he is an **** and a stupid one at that. By not wearing his belt he is potentially drawing his rescuers into danger and costing us all a few quid in rebuilding him.

Age? Well something affects his judgement?

Final word from me on it. Were it frank the plumber? We would not have heard about it. That would perhaps have been better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[grober]

I would suggest the guidelines below might apply.
Based on the facts as presently available I would offer HRH has indeed committed an offence under the road traffic act by pulling out from a side road on to a main road into the path of an oncoming vehicle [ which had right of way in terms of the highway code] thus causing a collision.

What's not in question is whether he committed said offence but more about the severity of the sentence based on such factors such as any mitigating circumstances [ blinded by the sun] and the severity of the consequences of said action. [ injury to persons and/or damage to other vehicles]
Careless Driving (drive without due care and attention) (Revised 2017)

ps Given the circumstances as outlined I would offer that for any ordinary driver/ member of the public it would be a slam dunk in terms of whether an offence had been committed.

 

[WDB124066]

Blinded by the sun is a neat way of putting it so you don't have to drop one of your subjects in it. Fact is she had plenty of time to avoid the Landy but didn't - why?

 

[219]

Thanks for that. I did say the law forbids me to not wear a seatbelt.

Travel in a vehicle of appropriate age , or other exempted vehicles and you can indeed legally not wear one .

 

[Stratman]

Blinded by the sun is a neat way of putting it so you don't have to drop one of your subjects in it. Fact is she had plenty of time to avoid the Landy but didn't - why?

Fact??????

 

[WDB124066]

Yep, read the thread and attachments. She was miles away and ploughed straight into him - cause she is a below average driver.

He is being the Gentlemen saying I couldn't see a thing because of the sun[NODODY PULLS OUT ONTO A MAIN ROAD IF YOU CAN"T SEEEEEEDDDDOOOTTTHHHEEEYYY>?????, thats the same as I don't remember BUT HE ISN"T GOING TO SAY THAT IS HE!!!!!

 

[Stratman]

How could she hit the old duffer if she was 'miles away'?

 

[WDB124066]

You will have to ask her that but looking at her I don't think she would have told the truth once in her life.