Should a 97 year old man be driving on a public road?

unbelievable he's just rolled a car and then two days later he thinks it's a good idea not too wear a seat belt and his wife does the same, they obviously think there above the law
 
stockhausen said:
Meanwhile, the driver of the Kia - who was not responsible for the accident can look forward to a long drawn-out battle with the crooks of the Insurance industry.
Click to expand...

And you are certain of this how?

In my book, the starting point for responsibility in a highway collision is 50/50.

Subsequent analysis might move one way or another away from this initial position. but it is rare indeed for somebody who has ended up in a collision to be totally blameless.
 
Would be interesting if she had dash cam footage, frankly I think these days (especially with certain criminal elements who fake accidents etc...) it would be prudent for all drivers to have one fitted, quite low cost after all and very useful to have (if you're generally a safe driver).

It does seem silly that all that was required of HRH was a quick eye test, people in their 90s generally shouldn't be driving at all IMOH but assuming that the effects of ageing etc... there ought to be a retest periodically once people hit say 80 or so. At the very least reaction times or the ability to conduct an emergency stop (one of the tests involved in a full driven test) ought to be checked in addition to eye sight.
 
Orionaut said:
rare indeed for somebody who has ended up in a collision to be totally blameless.
Click to expand...

Where did you find this lovely statistic?

Unless the Kia was speeding or driving in a reckless manor by not paying attention to the road ahead I can't see how it could be it's fault. Given the damage to the cars doesn't look like a 60 mph impact it would be fair to assume the kia braked significantly before the impact.
 
Orionaut said:
Well, the INSCOS certainly have access to it.

Otherwise they wouldn't load the premiums for people who have been involved in "Non-Fault" accidents...
Click to expand...

Insurers have found that drivers with non-fault claims are more likely to have an at-fault claim in the future, so some may increase your premium to reflect this increased risk.
Click to expand...

This is not evidence for partial faults on Non-Fault claims. It concludes they are more likely to be driving on higher risk roads at higher risk times. This is something that can only vaguely be accounted for on a quote based your home address. An accident adds that extra information which can increase the risk factor which in turn increases the premium.

This may change in the future with smart boxes, so they know exactly where you drive and can charge accordingly to the risk factor of the roads and times your drive, but that's still a long way off for most drivers.

If you have an at fault claim your premium would go up a lot more than a non-fault claim. So if there was any evidence of fault it certainly wouldn't be classed as a non-fault claim, because insurance companies aren't pushovers.

You're jumping to wild conclusions without evidence suggesting that a significant majority of accidents have some level of fault on all parties based on insurance premiums.
 
“We could see the Land Rover about 150 yards from us at a junction, then it started to move,” she said. “I kept thinking he was going to stop but he didn’t … My friend was braking and seemed so in control but I was terrified.”

So he started to pull out while they were still 150 yards away yet they carried on at such a speed to roll a Land Rover at the point of impact? Did they actually brake at all?
 
ajf said:
See the passenger is going all out to make the most of this.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...oman-broke-wrist-considering-personal-injury/
It was just a traffic collision for goodness sake, regardless of who one of the drivers was.
Tell the insurance, let them sort it out, and get a hire car provided.
No real reason for Police or Palace to need to offer ‘support’.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Who on earth has a car accident and then expects some flowers or a note of sympathy from the other party? You never speak to them again and you just deal with their insurance company.
 
practically, what kind of insurance compensation would you expect for a broken wrist
... you could be incapacitated for several weeks unable to drive, unable to do your job, prepare meals for your children ...... ......
 
Coffin-dodger is a sobriquet regularly applied to any person of advanced age on this forum - what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - perhaps you should reconsider your Monarchy obsession?
 
Em3bbs said:
"Coffin-dodger"? What a genuinely unpleasant person you are.
Click to expand...

He's 97 at the behest of the state's desire to keep him alive and the advanced abilities that did not exist even a century ago, and if he had crashed and killed someone significantly younger than him, then coffin dodger would be a very light term indeed.

We should only be so lucky that he did not in fact murder someone that time, but the fact they he got behind the wheel two day's later shows utter contempt for his "people".
 
stockhausen said:
The real clincher here is whether or not the coffin-dodger gets prosecuted for driving without due care and attention and gets banned - we shall see ;)
Click to expand...

can't see that happening some idiot crashed into the rear of my car i was stationary at some temporary road works his car doing 30 plus at least 3.5k damage done my car in broad daylight perfect driving conditions phoned the old bill straight away, his excuse and i heard him say it his foot fell off the brake lol some time later letter come from s.yorks police no further action the matter closed , get a dash cam if your driving or even a a head cam just to be sure :p
 
dowie said:
Well they sort of are above the law to some extent, especially HM.
Click to expand...

It's time to reimplement the Magna Carta, we have the perfect opportunity what with Brexit. I'm personally sick of law being applied selectively based on class/race/religion/wealth/status etc. If you've done the crime you should do the time regardless of who you are.
 
mmj_uk said:
It's time to reimplement the Magna Carta, we have the perfect opportunity what with Brexit. I'm personally sick of law being applied selectively based on class/race/religion/wealth/status etc. If you've done the crime you should do the time regardless of who you are.
Click to expand...

You realise the Magna Carta was to give power to Barons right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom