Soldato
I don't have a monarchy obsession, I'm not really bothered about them either way. You, however, seem to have an obsession regarding anyone with more wealth than yourself. Which I'm imagining by your posts here must be a big pool of people.
Should a 97 year old man be driving on a public road?
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
Remember kids, if you ever crash a car you should not be driving again...?
We still don’t know the reason for the collision* yet people seem to be assuming that if he isn’t prosecuted there’s favouritism going on, and that because he’s driving soon after a crash he’s somehow worse than any of the other people that drive soon after they crash (likely most people).
It’s a worrying trend I’ve seen in other places too - if you have a crash someone should be prosecuted. Sure, ALL crashes are down to at least one drivers “careless” or “distracted” driving, but that does not mean that all crashes should involve a prosecuted for careless or distracted driving.
Sometimes **** happens. You don't notice something, you misjudge the situation, or you’re just “unlucky”. Doesn’t mean you should be prosecuted, especially if there are no major injuries in the incident.
*yes, he apparently pulled out in front of an oncoming car, but the question is why.
but this is the wild-west internet , summary justice and execution without trial, but maybe the police will leak data to the juryBBC
I think use of the term Coffin-dodger, says more about the age and socio-economic group of the author; unless you are modifying your vocabularly to avoid profiling
[ google Personality, Gender, and Age in the Language of Social Media]
I think use of the term Coffin-dodger, says more about the age and socio-economic group of the author; unless you are modifying your vocabularly to avoid profiling
[ google Personality, Gender, and Age in the Language of Social Media]
Man of Honour
I was thinking exactly the same thing.
Fact is he's advanced in age and clearly in ability, I've seen his type in my father and grand-father, grossly stubborn to the point of dangerous in being "independent", it's mildly admirable, but no less foolish.
He's far more likely to be the culprit here and all "crashes" are inherently incidents because someone is definitely at fault, the Police's own guidelines. Frankly considering how class orientated we still are, i have no doubt in my mind that this will be covered up by the state because of the insinuations it would lead to. I simply will not trust whatever report comes out, if one does.
He's far more likely to be the culprit here and all "crashes" are inherently incidents because someone is definitely at fault, the Police's own guidelines. Frankly considering how class orientated we still are, i have no doubt in my mind that this will be covered up by the state because of the insinuations it would lead to. I simply will not trust whatever report comes out, if one does.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,129
I suspect that you didn't mean that the nonagenarian was "advanced in ability"?
The likelihood is that age may have impaired his judgement (which seemed always to be questionable), his eyesight and his reaction times.
By all accounts, he turned off a minor road onto a major road, I am not sure which part of the Highway Code advocates this practice.
How do you know what his ability is? Bearing in mind he only stopped working a year or so ago. Does his age have anything to do with the crash?
Sure, it’s likely to be his fault - he pulled out on someone driving straight. The question is still why, and whether the why is grounds for a prosecution. Just because you’re at fault in a crash doesn’t mean you should be prosecuted and have your licence removed*.
It was reported he told the police at the scene that he was dazzled by the sun. That can happen to anyone at any age. It would be pretty easy to miss someone coming in that scenario and then it may well be just “luck” more than anything else. Grounds for prosecution? Personally I’d hope not as it’s not exactly indicative of a dangerous driver, it’s life.
*although if that were the case the roads would be nice and quiet, it’s likely the majority of people will have an at fault incident at some point in their driving life.
Yet travelling without a seatbelt 2 days later doesn't scream (quietly) dangerous to you?
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,129
I am surprised that Kensington and Chelsea Council haven't used the "bad luck" excuse.
I suspect that "Driving without due care and attention" is classed as an offence whether it results in an accident or not - some people may of course be able to escape the consequences - even after a major crash as a result of which nobody was killed - purely by very good luck.
He was wearing a seatbelt at the time of the crash apparently. Seems a bit odd he wasn’t the other day, but considering he had half a bush out the bottom of his car he may well have just come out of a field and just closed a gate, not yet doing his seatbelt up.
We don’t know however because it’s a single photo. I certainly wouldn’t say it screams dangerous without more information.
So every road traffic incident should result in prosecution to one or more parties?
Man of Honour
An English translation of the part of the introduction dealing with who the charter applies to:
Note that this is a translation more than a few decades old, so "men" means "people" as it did for millenia until very recently - the entire magna carta applies to all free people of the kingdom. Which is anyone who isn't a slave or a serf. Which is everyone today.
You can see the direct proof of this being the intended meaning in the original Latin, since Latin clearly differentiates between "people regardless of their sex" and "adult male people", with different words for each.
The magna carta did give power to barons, but not only barons. It was bona fide attempt at a general constition, a bill of rights. There were specific bits for nobles to address specific issues they had with the existing situation and there were specific bits for the church for the same reason, but the overall point of it was a general constitution to create law above all people and to create inalienable rights for all citizens.
But surely the only "free" men were the aristocrats (all of whom were patriarchs of big wealthy families) of the time? Everyone else was a nearly worthless peasant.
While today it mean what we desire it to mean, it really was never meant for "everyone", otherwise it would not have taken literally centuries for even the common "man" to be allowed to vote.
Man of Honour
Some peasants were free people. Some commoners were wealthy free people. It's not true that only aristocrats were regarded as free people or that only aristocrats were rich or that all aristocrats were rich. Even at the extremity of serfdom in England, aristocrats were a minority of free people.
Also, peasants weren't "nearly worthless". In some ways, peasants back then were sometimes more valued than peasants today because in many cases the higher status people saw their peasants frequently and were reminded daily that their own wealth and power was dependent on their peasants. There was less disconnect between the classes.
The magna carta says nothing at all about voting. That's a different thing entirely. It was a constitution, not a declaration of democracy with universal adult suffrage (which didn't exist anywhere until recently and wasn't even an idea until centuries after the magna carta).
Man of Honour
Only in GD can a 97 year old driver derail into the Magna Carta 
The woman he collided with is on the front page of the Metro this morning, wondering why she didn't get an apology, crying and all.
What the **** is wrong with this world? You just survived what could've been a fatal accident and you're balling because he hasn't rung to apologise? How about you be grateful to still be alive and just get on with your life?
And screw him right? Doesn't matter that he was also in the crash does it?
Some people have zero context as to what's important any more.
What the **** is wrong with this world? You just survived what could've been a fatal accident and you're balling because he hasn't rung to apologise? How about you be grateful to still be alive and just get on with your life?
And screw him right? Doesn't matter that he was also in the crash does it?
Some people have zero context as to what's important any more.
Danger is relative.
Driving without a seat-belt is probabally a lot safer than riding a bicycle, and both are likely to be a lot safer than riding horses (Something that the prince has been doing all his life)
Perhaps his perception of relative risk is actually rather better than most peoples..
Soldato
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.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,129
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.