Permabanned
Maybe she could ask for a Royal pardon.... 
Should a 97 year old man be driving on a public road?
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
Soldato
The Queen doesn't require a licence as licenses are issued in her name.
Man of Honour
But the crash MUST have been Prince Philip's fault because he's old/rich/"white"/male/royalty! No need for any thought or evidence!
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,129
I agree that the elderly gent in question should have been charged with driving without due care and attention, he would then have been able to explain in public that he was entirely blameless.
I have no idea why you think his skin wealth, colour, gender or the fact that he has some archaic hereditiry entitlement is in any way relevant
Caporegime
Hes driving again, and without wearing a seatbelt.
He's 97 and fought in WW2, the idea of a seat belt to drive around lazy country roads is probably rediculous to someone who's been on a WW2 Destroyer dodging bombs. Perspective helps
Permabanned
For someone that I suspect is not a fan of the Royal family I would presume his taking greater risks appeals, rather than appals. If that's his only crime he's not a bad fella'
He's been spotted driving again and without a seatbelt:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...h-Duke-of-Edinburgh-Sandringham-queen-Windsor
https://www.express.co.uk/news/roya...h-Duke-of-Edinburgh-Sandringham-queen-Windsor
Caporegime
On his own private estate!
It isn't his own private estate though, it is Windsor Great Park. Sandringham is privately owned.
Caporegime
the area he was on is privately owned. It's even in the article
"Although the Duke no longer has a licence, as he was driving on privately owned land, he doesn’t actually need one in this instance."
That's just sloppy journalism - don't believe everything you read in the papers, Windsor Great Park is part of the Crown Estate, they do actually have rules and regulations etc...
Likewise a supermarket car park is private land, it doesn't mean you can just let your 5 year old have a go at driving.
He's a member of the Royal Family, they do have a bit of leeway to do what they want and have a blind eye turned by the authorities as realistically no Police officer or park keeper is likely to stick his neck out and attempt to do otherwise.
Commissario
IIRC the Crown estate is neither the Queens private land in that it can be sold by her/the monarchy, but that doesn't preclude it from being private land in the eyes of the law in regards to motoring offence.
And depending on the rules and regulations they may well be able to be suspended or not applicable to certain agreed parties (IE one rule for the public visiting another for staff etc, or it's even likely that not all parts of the crown estates will have the same regulations applied as IIRC there are bits that only apply to certain ones).
As "private land" in the legal definition as used for motoring offences is a tricky one in that you can have land that is privately owned but subject to parts of motoring law (the requirement to be licensed, insured, not drunk), and "publicly owned" land that is private.
To give an idea your local tesco car park will be considered "public" most of the time because the public have unrestricted access to it, whilst a farmers field will normally be considered private (so the farmer, family and friends can race around in bangers without safety measures or insurance if they want).
However if the local Tesco car park puts up a barrier at night that restricts access to only authorised personal it becomes "private", whilst if the farmer opens a corner of his field up to hold a car boot sale giving the public access to it, anyone driving on that land now has to comply fully with the law in regards to things like insurance/licensing (there have been cases where the family of farmers have been caught out and prosecuted under this).
So (from my understanding) if Philip is driving on a bit of crown estate land that is not accessible to the public, and he is doing so with permission of the land owner/agent of the land owner he could be driving naked, drunk, at 150 miles an hour in an old "rolling coal" banger with sword equipped wheel hubs and no seatbelt and possibly not be committing any motoring offences (he certainly wouldn't be committing offences with regards to driving licences, MOT or insurance, although public decency might be an issue
).The point there is that is isn't "his private estate" as the other poster claimed - it is the crown estate. It is open to the public, there are members of the public walking over the place and other road users (though presumably on most roads within the park just residents, staff and authorised visitors), it isn't some private farm land or some non-public area of Sandringham etc...
Main point, he doesn't own it and they probably do have some rules.
So (from my understanding) if Philip is driving on crown estate land that is not accessible to the public, and he is doing so with permission of the land owner/agent of the land owner he could be driving naked, drunk, at 150 miles an hour in an old "rolling coal" banger with sword equipped wheel hubs and no seatbelt and possibly not be committing any motoring offences (he certainly wouldn't be committing offences with regards to driving licences, MOT or insurance, although public decency might be an issue
Yeah I agree with you re: closed off private land etc... but it blatantly isn't equivalent to say a Farm with no public access or some private area of Sandringham or Balmoral etc..
For the sake of being super pedantic and seemingly because this apparently isn't intuitive I've done a quick google search to confirm this, there are regulations for drivers concerning Windsor Great Park:
https://www.windsorgreatpark.co.uk/media/171085/windsor-great-park-regulations.pdf
AFAIK the Duke gave up his driving licence. Though it would be amusing if he did drive around there naked
Soldato
Yeah, @dowie is right. I walk around Windsor Great Park with my kids, and grew up cycling/walking around there. There are a very few 'normal' cars who are allowed through the gates (only resident workers or family etc.) so you wouldn't expect someone not fit to drive to be on the roads inside there. It's a hugely busy place for families who park outside then walk around.
Caporegime
My mistake, it belongs to his wife. Although I imagine she shares.
I drove a Black Cab for almost 30 years and never wore a seatbelt, there is a loophole in the law.
If a licenced taxi driver is cruising for a job, with the TAXI sign illuminated, or he has a fare on board, then he is NOT required by law to wear a seatbelt, (at least in London).
It stems from the idea that if a fare was to try and attack you, you’d have more chance to escape if unfettered.
If your TAXI light is not illuminated, or you have no fare on board, you’re subject to the same seatbelt law as everyone else.
I can’t stand the restriction a belt gives, and my GP issued me with an exemption certificate in the mid eighties, I’d pleaded feelings of claustrophobia.
If I’m driving my wife’s car, alone, I plug the n/s front belt into the driving seat, eliminating the click, click, click.
If I’m driving abroad, I’ll bite the bullet and wear the belt, but it drives me bananas, I hold the wheel with my right hand, and hold the belt away from my body with my left.