Prince Phils driving exploits.

[Albert smith 11]

10 minutes ago, Obelix said:

What have they done then to upset you so?

Same as I have done to upset thee.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

1 hour ago, Baron99 said:

Some entrepreneurial person has gathered up the bits and bobs left at the crash site & stuck them on Ebay saying the money will go to charity.

 

If you fancy bidding, dig deep.  Currently the bidding is at £65,900!

I bet that doesn't stay up long! 😂

[Obelix 11]

16 minutes ago, Albert smith said:

Same as I have done to upset thee.

So nothing then.

 

I'm bemused by your stance, not upset. You obviously think you figure far higher in my esteem and favour than you actually do.

11 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

I bet that doesn't stay up long! 😂

Well technically it would be theft I suspect...

[L00b 441]

3 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

I suspect that if he wasn't wearing one, given that the car rolled twice, he would have been pulled out of the car with many facial and head cuts and at 97, at least one broken limb.

 

Apparently he was pulled out without a scratch! 😱

Now, I know this is only anecdotal, and so worth as much, but...

 

Many (many) years ago, my Dad was ejected from his Renault 25 at (circa.) 75-80 mph. As in, the car (on cruise control at the time, wouldn't disconnect) jumped down from the motorway and ploughed into a churned-up field at around that speed, nose first. Whence my Dad, without his seat belt as he always did (then), proceeded to exit the car through  the sunroof (closed at the time). Then landed in the field, thankfully not in the travel path of the wreck. He was a puzzle, no doubt. A&E and then 'special' ward (visits-byTV) for weeks.

 

The car did two full rolls end-to-end after ploughing. It was, basically, V-shaped after that. With the V6 halfway into the front compartment, and the rooftop about level with the lower chest on a car seat. Completely totalled, and I mean you couldn't have saved a spare bolt from the thing. I saw it as I went to the salvage-breakers to collect his belongings. If my Dad had been wearing his seat belt, most likely he'd have been killed. 

 

But it just goes to show. Physics, forces, etc...yeah, sure. But luck, too.

Edited January 21, 2019 by L00b

[Top Cats Hat 10]

1 hour ago, Obelix said:

Well technically it would be theft I suspect...

'Theft by finding' is what it would be classed as but as eBay are not in a position to prove that, I suspect that it will be taken down under their snowflake 'in bad taste' rules.

[Obelix 11]

The handheld meters might not give a specific reading and it's either pass or fail. So it might not be possible to tell in some had a legal amount of alcohol or not.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

I have only been breathalysed once in my life and it was a traffic light system that would go yellow if there was any alcohol in your breath and red if it were over the limit.

[PRESLEY 1,222]

I hope the police charge him for driving without due care and attention. Then banned. This would happen to anybody else the  who did the same at the same age.  

[ECCOnoob 1,016]

31 minutes ago, PRESLEY said:

I hope the police charge him for driving without due care and attention. Then banned. This would happen to anybody else the  who did the same at the same age.  

Would it?  

 

Dont you need a thing called evidence to bring a charge?   Do we know that the Duke was playing on his moble, or trying to tune the radio or reach into the central console to grab a sweetie or was he chatting away to his passenger or looking up at the sky....

 

Or perhaps it was something called an ACCIDENT. 

 

I have been in one.  It was completely my fault and my insurance paid out in full but I never got criminally "charged".    My brother was in one, he stalled as he was exiting a junction and had a bump.    His insurers too found 100% liability and paid out in full.   He never got PC Plod knocking on his door.   

 

Lets face facts.   If the story was old man has accident nobody would give a toss and little Miss Victim wouldn't get invites on the Tabloid TV sofas.

 

She is milking it for all its worth and knows it.    Waaaaaa he never personally apologised.    Waaaaa I never got to see him grovelling for causing my damages.   Waaaa look at me.        The only interesting thing is whether he should be allowed to carry on driving, but that's a decision that would have to be made for any other person of the same age.    The law on re-tests and driving suitability assessments applies to all - royal or other.    That is a decison for the DVLA and nobody else.

 

Car accidents happen every day.    Insurance is there for a reason and IF fault is found she will get renumerated.   IF she has genuine personal injuries then she can proceed to file a claim.     End of story.

 

This is the cult of "famous" we live in these days.   A so called high profile person can't so much as fart without the press jumping all over it.   That creates of sub culture of people just like this "victim" leaching onto that public profile and draining it for all its worth.    The media lap it up because it sells papers and next minute she will be on the next series of Im a Celebrity identifiable only as being that bird who the Duke crashed his car into. 

 

It really is pathetic.

Edited January 22, 2019 by ECCOnoob

[PRESLEY 1,222]

6 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

Would it?  

 

Dont you need a thing called evidence to bring a charge?   Do we know that the Duke was playing on his moble, or trying to tune the radio or reach into the central console to grab a sweetie or was he chatting away to his passenger or looking up at the sky....

 

Or perhaps it was something called an ACCIDENT. 

 

I have been in one.  It was completely my fault and my insurance paid out in full but I never got criminally "charged".    My brother was in one, he stalled as he was exiting a junction and had a bump.    His insurers too found 100% liability and paid out in full.   He never got PC Plod knocking on his door.   

 

Lets face facts.   If the story was old man has accident nobody would give a toss and little Miss Victim wouldn't get invites on the Tabloid TV sofas.

 

She is milking it for all its worth and knows it.    Waaaaaa he never personally apologised.    Waaaaa I never got to see him grovelling for causing my damages.   Waaaa look at me.        The only interesting thing is whether he should be allowed to carry on driving, but that's a decision that would have to be made for any other person of the same age.    The law on re-tests and driving suitability assessments applies to all - royal or other.    That is a decison for the DVLA and nobody else.

 

Car accidents happen every day.    Insurance is there for a reason and IF fault is found she will get renumerated.   IF she has genuine personal injuries then she can proceed to file a claim.     End of story.

Know it all!

[jaffa1 10]

1 hour ago, ECCOnoob said:

Would it?  

 

Dont you need a thing called evidence to bring a charge?   Do we know that the Duke was playing on his moble, or trying to tune the radio or reach into the central console to grab a sweetie or was he chatting away to his passenger or looking up at the sky....

 

Or perhaps it was something called an ACCIDENT. 

 

I have been in one.  It was completely my fault and my insurance paid out in full but I never got criminally "charged".    My brother was in one, he stalled as he was exiting a junction and had a bump.    His insurers too found 100% liability and paid out in full.   He never got PC Plod knocking on his door.   

 

Lets face facts.   If the story was old man has accident nobody would give a toss and little Miss Victim wouldn't get invites on the Tabloid TV sofas.

 

She is milking it for all its worth and knows it.    Waaaaaa he never personally apologised.    Waaaaa I never got to see him grovelling for causing my damages.   Waaaa look at me.        The only interesting thing is whether he should be allowed to carry on driving, but that's a decision that would have to be made for any other person of the same age.    The law on re-tests and driving suitability assessments applies to all - royal or other.    That is a decison for the DVLA and nobody else.

 

Car accidents happen every day.    Insurance is there for a reason and IF fault is found she will get renumerated.   IF she has genuine personal injuries then she can proceed to file a claim.     End of story.

 

This is the cult of "famous" we live in these days.   A so called high profile person can't so much as fart without the press jumping all over it.   That creates of sub culture of people just like this "victim" leaching onto that public profile and draining it for all its worth.    The media lap it up because it sells papers and next minute she will be on the next series of Im a Celebrity identifiable only as being that bird who the Duke crashed his car into. 

 

It really is pathetic.

Here here,I'm  with you all the way , nothing has been proved yet who was at fault or as you say  a straight forward  accident.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

2 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

Or perhaps it was something called an ACCIDENT. 

There is rarely such a thing as an accident with a collision between motor vehicles. 

 

That is why the Plice have replaced the phrase road traffic accident with road traffic collision. In the vast majority of cases one or other of the drivers is at fault.  If someone fails to brake and goes into the back of another that driver is at fault. If the driver brakes and the brakes don't work, that driver is still at fault. If the driver is on the way back from a sucessful MOT test and the brakes fail, the MOT tester is at fault. In almost all collisions someone is to blame. Even with unusual conditions such as heavy rain, snow, fog, black ice and yes, low sun, a driver has a responsibility to drive appropriately for the conditions.

 

In the case we are discussing now it is highly likely that someone is to blame. The two cars started off on two different roads with two different speed limits in force. So unless it can be shown that one of the drivers blacked out or was otherwise impaired then one person drove  their vehicle into the path of the other person's vehicle. As the woman on the A149 had the right of way, in the absence of any other evidence it is very likely that Prince Phillip was responsible for the accident.

 

Whether or not he is charged with careless or without due care and attention if he is found to be responsible will be a decision for the Chief Constable in conjunction with the CPS and almost certainly the Home Secretary and the Palace. I suspect that ultimately it will be a political decision.

 

If the investigation finds him responsible but the CPS do not prosecute, the other driver has a right to ask for a Victim's Right to Review which will force the CPS to explain the decision.