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

Terminal_Boy said:
Wouldn’t giving an apology be seen as accepting responsibility for causing the collision? Been a while since I spoke to an insurance agent, but I’m pretty sure that “Don’t admit responsibility, don’t apologise, just exchange details” was the mantra to repeat mentally after having a prang.
Click to expand...

Yes, and what makes me laugh that of all the people I know who have had RTC's, including myself, I've never made or received a phone call to/from the other party regarding an apology.

It never happens so why she thinks it should for her I don't know, just stinks of 5 mins of fame.
 
AHarvey said:
Yes, and what makes me laugh that of all the people I know who have had RTC's, including myself, I've never made or received a phone call to/from the other party regarding an apology.

It never happens so why she thinks it should for her I don't know, just stinks of 5 mins of fame.
Click to expand...

This is my thought too, like just because he's a minted Royal she's expecting an apology. She wouldn't be going The Sun with a story if a random Joe crashed into her.

I am also a bit miffed at the fact the Prince doesn't seem to have been fined for driving without a seat belt...I was when I got caught after I forgot to put it on years ago.
 
Orionaut said:
Driving without a seat-belt is probabally a lot safer than riding a bicycle,
Perhaps his perception of relative risk is actually rather better than most peoples..

:p
Click to expand...

Well I can vouch that in 60 years of driving and being driven in any kind of motorised transport I have never needed a seat belt (up to yet) but I've been to A&E 5 times coming off my bicycle.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
Well I can vouch that in 60 years of driving and being driven in any kind of motorised transport I have never needed a seat belt (up to yet)
Click to expand...
Do you mean you never let anyone drive you anywhere ? .. alternatively, no emergency stops (eg for cyclists, before they pass under your wheels ) ?
 
jpaul said:
Do you mean you never let anyone drive you anywhere ? .. alternatively, no emergency stops (eg for cyclists, before they pass under your wheels ) ?
Click to expand...

My words were "Well I can vouch that in 60 years of driving and being driven" unless I'm missing your point!
 
SexyGreyFox said:
My words were "Well I can vouc
Click to expand...

SexyGreyFox said:
I have never needed a seat belt (up to yet)
Click to expand...
you said you have never needed a seatbelt .. so it has never restrained/protected you in any way ?
surprising statement !

SexyGreyFox said:
Well I can vouch that in 60 years of driving and being driven in any kind of motorised transport
Click to expand...
some ambiguity here, could mean exclusively whilst being a passenger, or both during driving and a passenger,
either way, still surprising...

so maybe you never stop for anyone ... and, for example, knock down the cyclists ?



OR maybe you were speaking as PF ... and you are giving us an inside line on his bicyling history
 
stockhausen said:
How about you read the post that you quoted?

Since when was NOT having an accident excuse driving without due care and attention? In this case that is immaterial anyhow.
Click to expand...

I’ll take a stab and suggest you don’t understand what I mean by “luck”.

Everyone relies on “luck” when driving. It doesn’t indicate you’re driving without due care and attention but calculated risk.

Sometimes, even with the best care and attention “luck” just runs out. Related examples could be things like blind corners where you have to use your judgement to decide if the road is clear, or perhaps more relevant (considering his defence at the roadside), trying to work out if a road is clear when a low sun is streaming into your eyes. Other examples could include to doing 30 on a clear road in a 30 zone. One day, after dozens of trips there’s a little ice on the corner and you spin off. “Luck” in this case means judgement, not just somone constantly dangerously chancing things and getting away with it.

That’s not to say I’m making a judgement on whether he should or shouldn’t be prosecuted, but that just because he pulled out in front of someone does not indicate he was driving dangerously, or without due care and attention. Let the police decide, rather than let your obvious republican urges make a decision for you.
 
antijoke said:
This is my thought too, like just because he's a minted Royal she's expecting an apology. She wouldn't be going The Sun with a story if a random Joe crashed into her.

I am also a bit miffed at the fact the Prince doesn't seem to have been fined for driving without a seat belt...I was when I got caught after I forgot to put it on years ago.
Click to expand...

On private land?

Or are you assuming that he was driving without a seatbelt when this crash happened? If so, why? They were two different events on different days in different places.

Also, how do you know who crashed into who?

Who? Whom? No idea.
 
Amp34 said:
Everyone relies on “luck” when driving. It doesn’t indicate you’re driving without due care and attention but calculated risk....
Click to expand...
interesting discussion point -
what is the reference driving standard here ? someone with reaction times/visual accuity of a 40yr old and 20yr driving experience ?
and if he/PF has not adjusted his behaviour, through insufficient IQ, to compensate for reduced reaction time/faculties of passing years, then that would be categorised as without due care and attention. ?
proving/prosecuting such a driver failing would be difficult, whether you could gather additional medical information ?
 
jpaul said:
you said you have never needed a seatbelt .. so it has never restrained/protected you in any way ?
surprising statement !

some ambiguity here, could mean exclusively whilst being a passenger, or both during driving and a passenger,
either way, still surprising...

so maybe you never stop for anyone ... and, for example, knock down the cyclists ?

OR maybe you were speaking as PF ... and you are giving us an inside line on his bicyling history
Click to expand...

What are you smoking :)

I have never been in a motorised incident where I would have needed the seatbelt that I'm wearing and I'm pretty sure that many people on here can also make the same claim.
Not once have I crashed into another car or has a car crashed into me and once again many people will also say the same.

What are you on about knocking down cyclists for?
I have no idea what's going through your head!

On the other side of the coin I'm a commuting cyclist who has always worn a helmet and on at least 5 occasions it has saved me from a serious head injury or even death but I know many cyclists who have ridden for decades and never needed to wear a helmet.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
. . .
I have never been in a motorised incident where I would have needed the seatbelt that I'm wearing
. . .
On the other side of the coin I'm a commuting cyclist who has always worn a helmet and on at least 5 occasions it has saved me from a serious head injury or even death
. . .
Click to expand...
So you think (based on your experience) that wearing a helmet is a good idea but wearing a seatbelt is pointless?

ps - are you also aged 97?
 
stockhausen said:
So you think (based on your experience) that wearing a helmet is a good idea but wearing a seatbelt is pointless?

ps - are you also aged 97?
Click to expand...

Did I say that? No I didn't. I would never get in a car without a seatbelt and I would never get on a bike without a helmet.
You have to go and read what I was replying to for the context of what I was saying but you won't.

It just so happens that the seatbelt around me has never been used to save me, I've never been pushed forwards, backwards or sidewards in the 60 years I've been traveling in motorised vehicles.
Does that mean I've got no need to wear one? Absolutely not, I'd be mad not to.

DOES THAT MAKE IT CLEAR?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom