Dithering rich prat in a 4x4 causes car crash and almost kills a baby

Mr Pigeon

Illiterate Flying Rat
Scout
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
26,705
Location
bin
Caf Award
Caf Awards Host 2019, 2021
Caf Award 2
Caf Lifetime Achievement Award 2023
But apparently it's fine because he's royalty, innit.

Prince Philip, 97, was unhurt but visited hospital on Friday for a check-up following Thursday's crash.

A nine-month-old boy in the other car was uninjured. The driver, a 28-year-old woman, had cuts while a 45-year-old female passenger broke her wrist.
Click to expand...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46918039

97 is a hell of an age to still be driving, especially something that size...

...if it turns out that the other car was at fault then I'll be the one that looks like a right prat.
 
My blood boiled when this was breaking news and the ginger royal correspondent bloke on the BBC braizenly claimed that the people in the other car were obviously driving recklessly. They had literally no details other than Phillips car flipped to report at this point and they were “assuming” the other car was fully to blame.

Turns out Phillip pulled out of a junction in front of someone and has since cited the low winter sun to blame.

The BBC can feck off and I hope the people in the other car sue them. They can have my licence fee.
 
She and her fellow members approved proposals to drop the speed limit from 60mph to 50mph and install average speed cameras along the A149.

The meeting was told there had been 40 accidents resulting in injury since 2012, including five deaths.

The proportion of those accidents resulting in death or serious injury was "almost double the national average" said the report before councillors.

Speaking afterwards, Ms Walker said the A149 had been discussed at "virtually every meeting" of the committee but the topic had been "pushed to the side".

"I think the fact that it was the Duke of Edinburgh involved yesterday, it has brought this right to the forefront, and I think we will now see some speedy work done," she said.

"I wouldn't say it was an accident waiting to happen, but it is something we have highlighted previously.

"Unfortunately it was who it was, and I hate to say this, but if it hadn't have been him would we be discussing this today?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-46912556
Click to expand...
Known black spot which the council have been finally pushed into doing something about.
 
Pexbo said:
My blood boiled when this was breaking news and the ginger royal correspondent bloke on the BBC braizenly claimed that the people in the other car were obviously driving recklessly. They had literally no details other than Phillips car flipped to report at this point and they were “assuming” the other car was fully to blame.

Turns out Phillip pulled out of a junction in front of someone and has since cited the low winter sun to blame.

The BBC can feck off and I hope the people in the other car sue them. They can have my licence fee.
Click to expand...
I want this just for the Daily Mail comments alone.
 
Nothing against Phil the Greek, per se, but, because an old man who wasn't paying proper attention and is clearly too old to be driving in the first place, caused an accident by pulling out into a major road without looking, they have reduced the speed limit on that road.
 
Sassy Colin said:
Nothing against Phil the Greek, per se, but, because an old man who wasn't paying proper attention and is clearly too old to be driving in the first place, caused an accident by pulling out into a major road without looking, they have reduced the speed limit on that road.
Click to expand...
It makes a lot more sense than just putting the blame on the person who caused the accident, doesn't it? The reports now are that they won't be looking to prosecute even if it's deemed to be hazardous driving, unless the other involved party want to. I'd imagine that even if they wanted to they would be bullied by sycophants into not doing it.
 
Old folks should have yearly driving tests to ensure they're not on the road when they're no longer capable of driving safely.
 
Last edited:
I just caught the front page headline of the evening standard on the way home and it was saying what a hero he is for checking on the passengers of the other car.
 
cesc's_mullet said:
Old folks should have yearly driving tests to ensure they're not on the road when they're no longer capable to drive safely.
Click to expand...

Yup. Something like every 2 years after 60, & every year after 70.
 
Shamwow said:
I just caught the front page headline of the evening standard on the way home and it was saying what a hero he is for checking on the passengers of the other car.
Click to expand...
The guy who helped him out of his car says that he didn't get a thank you but "it's ok as his mind was obviously on other things". Proper serf material, they can keep it.
 
The BBC's extensive and over-the-top coverage of this was utterly laughable and ridiculous. I was listening to this on the home commute on BBC Radio Five Live and lost count how many times it was emphasised that the Duke was not injured. They must've covered it continuously for over an hour at least, like it was some kind of mass atrocity. I wasn't surprised to see it made top headline news on the BBC homepage.

They had royal correspondents, royal historians, eye witnesses, random well-wishers and every Tom, Dick and Harry they could find. Not one single mention of the other party. All the blame was on what a dangerous road it is (the speed limit was even magically lowered the next day :lol:) and not on a doddering 97 year old git who has no business being behind the wheel, let alone in a high powered car. Mind you, it was lucky he was, given the state of it.

The BBC's obsession with the royal family is pretty vomit-inducing.
 
cesc's_mullet said:
Fair enough. I imagine that's because they're stupid, reckless and immature though, not because they aren't in control of their facilities (like they once were) like the older generation.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah. I think there's an argument for everyone having to be retested on a regular basis irrespective of age. Young lads are the worst. The old folks I generally see out and about pootle around well under the speed limit and pose little danger. Most people know when their time is up behind the wheel and don't need taking off the road by the authorities.
 
Barca84 said:
The vast majority of people I see not driving safely are young twats and research backs this up..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37292951
Click to expand...

I'd argue though that the majority of drivers under 25 are sensible and safe drivers - I'm talking drivers with 2 or 3 years experience as novices are naturally not going to be as competent.
I'd also argue that the majority of drivers over the age of 75 while likely sensible are by no means safe. Slower reaction times, poorer vision and worse physical condition leading to fatigue makes this unavoidable.


There was an old lady in the village I used to go to school... Can't remember her name but we will call her Maude. Maude was a running joke in the village, all the kids were told by their parents to steer well clear of her car which had dings and scrapes all over it. She used to drive straight over the zebra crossing in the middle of the village without slowing down regardless if anyone was waiting or even actually crossing it. She only drove about 10-15 miles an hour so people saw her coming and got a jog on.

Sure enough, one day she hit a child and all of a sudden it wasn't funny any more, the kid wasn't badly hurt but could easily have been. Maude didn't stop initially until a bloke ran alongside her furiously banging her window and then got in front of her car at the junction.

Because the kid was crossing the road not at the zebra crossing, Maude wasn't deemed to have been at fault. Her lawyers argued that she was intending to pull the car over and stop in a safe position but feared for her safety when the man attacked her car and she got off scot free and was allowed to keep her licence, much to the absolute fury of the village.


Just one anecdotal example, but it's absolute madness that it's not compulsory to retake your driving test when you qualify for your bus pass. A lot of people that age have never taken a test in the first place and the roads are a completely different animal to what they drove on most of their lives.

I actually think it should be the law that people have to refresh their driving tests every 15 years anyway. 15 years is a hell of a long time so it's not like it would be a huge hindrance to every drivers lives to book a half hour driving test that would cost £50. In fact it would probably be in the government's interest to pay that £50 themselves, it would be at most £200 per driver per life time and would weed out the bad drivers and improve everyone else which could help ease pressure on the NHS ER.
 
While 97 is a sure no go for driving I'm torn on the issue.

Most of the accident are caused by extremely well skilled driver with bad mentality that they choose not to obey traffic law. In my country those cnuts are some of the best driver the country has to offer, they just dont have the right mentality to drive.
 
@Pexbo, it's not true that people of retirement age might not have taken a driving test. Tests first started in 1934. Anyone who's in their 70s would have been born in the 40s and would started driving in the 1950s at the very earliest.

My late dad didn't take a test because he learned in the Army, but he'd have been nearly 100 years old now. So, we're getting into Prince Philip territory there, but they are a tiny minority of people who are still on the roads.

It would be safer if they raised the driving age to 21, quite honestly.
 
A few years back I worked at the castle whilst they were in residence and we were warned to be careful walking and driving around the grounds and the perimeter roads because of him and his love of speeding his range rover around.

We thought it was a joke until we saw him do it over and over.
 
Having lived and worked in Norfolk for a number of years I can tell you that you are dead meat if you don't speed and that is especially true on the A149.
 
Pexbo said:
I'd argue though that the majority of drivers under 25 are sensible and safe drivers - I'm talking drivers with 2 or 3 years experience as novices are naturally not going to be as competent.
I'd also argue that the majority of drivers over the age of 75 while likely sensible are by no means safe. Slower reaction times, poorer vision and worse physical condition leading to fatigue makes this unavoidable.


There was an old lady in the village I used to go to school... Can't remember her name but we will call her Maude. Maude was a running joke in the village, all the kids were told by their parents to steer well clear of her car which had dings and scrapes all over it. She used to drive straight over the zebra crossing in the middle of the village without slowing down regardless if anyone was waiting or even actually crossing it. She only drove about 10-15 miles an hour so people saw her coming and got a jog on.

Sure enough, one day she hit a child and all of a sudden it wasn't funny any more, the kid wasn't badly hurt but could easily have been. Maude didn't stop initially until a bloke ran alongside her furiously banging her window and then got in front of her car at the junction.

Because the kid was crossing the road not at the zebra crossing, Maude wasn't deemed to have been at fault. Her lawyers argued that she was intending to pull the car over and stop in a safe position but feared for her safety when the man attacked her car and she got off scot free and was allowed to keep her licence, much to the absolute fury of the village.


Just one anecdotal example, but it's absolute madness that it's not compulsory to retake your driving test when you qualify for your bus pass. A lot of people that age have never taken a test in the first place and the roads are a completely different animal to what they drove on most of their lives.

I actually think it should be the law that people have to refresh their driving tests every 15 years anyway. 15 years is a hell of a long time so it's not like it would be a huge hindrance to every drivers lives to book a half hour driving test that would cost £50. In fact it would probably be in the government's interest to pay that £50 themselves, it would be at most £200 per driver per life time and would weed out the bad drivers and improve everyone else which could help ease pressure on the NHS ER.
Click to expand...
Would some sort of medical test be better instead? Taxi and Private Hire drivers (in London) have to have a medical assessment conducted when they renew or obtain a licence, which is every 5 years I believe.

A reckless driver can tone it down for a test but apart from being assess with a dodgy doctor, eye sight issues will be picked up or even some kind of reaction time test.
 
Penna said:
@Pexbo, it's not true that people of retirement age might not have taken a driving test. Tests first started in 1934. Anyone who's in their 70s would have been born in the 40s and would started driving in the 1950s at the very earliest.

My late dad didn't take a test because he learned in the Army, but he'd have been nearly 100 years old now. So, we're getting into Prince Philip territory there, but they are a tiny minority of people who are still on the roads.

It would be safer if they raised the driving age to 21, quite honestly.
Click to expand...

Fair enough and my apologies for the inaccuracy. I would however argue that the driving tests taken even 25 years ago pale in comparison to the difficulty of the tests today.

My dad who is 70 never had a written exam and passed his test driving on country roads where he said he didn’t meet another car and didn’t have any road systems like traffic lights or roundabouts to deal with. He’s still an excellent driver mind you and touch wood hasn’t had an accident in over 50 years of driving.

I also agree with you that it would be safer if raised to 21 as a lot of emotional maturity is gained during those years but I think there’s a case to be made that the majority of people who are idiots at 17 are also idiots at 21 and having your own transport is essential for a lot of young people to find work which is where a lot of that emotional maturity is gained.
 
Barca84 said:
Oh yeah. I think there's an argument for everyone having to be retested on a regular basis irrespective of age. Young lads are the worst. The old folks I generally see out and about pootle around well under the speed limit and pose little danger. Most people know when their time is up behind the wheel and don't need taking off the road by the authorities.
Click to expand...
Disagree. Yes, they pootle around well under the speed limit but it causes more problems if anything as most people don't wanna go 30mph when the limit is 60. Then you see dangerous overtakings and whatnot. My dad worked as a policeman and he was convinced that old people are no less dangerous than young and stupid people.
 
I spend every day behind the wheel of the car, I'd say driving 5-6 hours every day.

My work has always involved a lot of driving, for 20 years now.

In my experience the two most dangerous types of driver are the elderly and 'soccer mom' types.
 
Pexbo said:
Fair enough and my apologies for the inaccuracy. I would however argue that the driving tests taken even 25 years ago pale in comparison to the difficulty of the tests today.

My dad who is 70 never had a written exam and passed his test driving on country roads where he said he didn’t meet another car and didn’t have any road systems like traffic lights or roundabouts to deal with. He’s still an excellent driver mind you and touch wood hasn’t had an accident in over 50 years of driving.

I also agree with you that it would be safer if raised to 21 as a lot of emotional maturity is gained during those years but I think there’s a case to be made that the majority of people who are idiots at 17 are also idiots at 21 and having your own transport is essential for a lot of young people to find work which is where a lot of that emotional maturity is gained.
Click to expand...
I don't know where your Dad took his test obviously but I took mine over 30 years ago and then took my motorcycle tests just three years ago and I'd say that they were similar although the fear of not passing was greater the first time around.

You didn't have the theory test on the computer back then, true, but you had to know the Highway Code back to front because you were still tested on it, maybe only two or three questions but you had to be word perfect and they could be obscure. I honestly wouldn't say from then to now one was easier than the other.
 
Eyepopper said:
I spend every day behind the wheel of the car, I'd say driving 5-6 hours every day.

My work has always involved a lot of driving, for 20 years now.

In my experience the two most dangerous types of driver are the elderly and 'soccer mom' types.
Click to expand...
I'd concur. The most dangerous are those drivers who drive at 40mph everywhere, town and country and most dangerously while entering a motorway.
 
Why is he allowed to drive by the royal physicians or whoever these folks are? Isn't the royal family supposed to be chauffeured?
 
Eyepopper said:
I spend every day behind the wheel of the car, I'd say driving 5-6 hours every day.

My work has always involved a lot of driving, for 20 years now.

In my experience the two most dangerous types of driver are the elderly and 'soccer mom' types.
Click to expand...

Ditto. I'm always on the road.

Kids driving around like prats are annoying no doubt, Prius cab drivers in London are terrible too. But elderly and school run mums in those big 4x4 tanks are in the worst category for actually being dangerous most often.
 
Redlambs said:
Ditto. I'm always on the road.

Kids driving around like prats are annoying no doubt, Prius cab drivers in London are terrible too. But elderly and school run mums in those big 4x4 tanks are in the worst category for actually being dangerous most often.
Click to expand...

Yep, they're lethal. Driving cars that are too big for them, way too fast and zero manners on the road.
 
Barca84 said:
Oh yeah. I think there's an argument for everyone having to be retested on a regular basis irrespective of age. Young lads are the worst. The old folks I generally see out and about pootle around well under the speed limit and pose little danger. Most people know when their time is up behind the wheel and don't need taking off the road by the authorities.
Click to expand...

dove said:
Disagree. Yes, they pootle around well under the speed limit but it causes more problems if anything as most people don't wanna go 30mph when the limit is 60. Then you see dangerous overtakings and whatnot. My dad worked as a policeman and he was convinced that old people are no less dangerous than young and stupid people.
Click to expand...

Pootling around well under the speed limit is just as dangerous, it infuriates people who aren't retired and don't have all day to potter around leading to potentially dangerous overtaking, I've lost count of the times you see some old dear pottering along at 40 in a 60, then they get to a village with a 30 limit and carry on doing 40. Not to mention the naturally slower reaction times that come to us all with age. When ever the annual somebody driving down the motorway the wrong way story hits the news it's pretty much guaranteed to be an old person, they may not have as many accidents but I'm convinced they cause more than a few.
 
The Firestarter said:
Why is he allowed to drive by the royal physicians or whoever these folks are? Isn't the royal family supposed to be chauffeured?
Click to expand...

This annoys me the most. This isn't some poor old fecker who has to drive himself to the doctor every other week for his heart meds as he has no one else. This guy will always have bodyguards and aides with him.
 
Oldyella said:
This annoys me the most. This isn't some poor old fecker who has to drive himself to the doctor every other week for his heart meds as he has no one else. This guy will always have bodyguards and aides with him.
Click to expand...
This is the way it's always been explained to me, over the years: the royals' lives are so pre-arranged for them that driving is one of very few independent acts of freedom & privacy they can enjoy.
 
Tommy said:
Yup. Something like every 2 years after 60, & every year after 70.
Click to expand...

60, really? Maybe from 75 on, but 60 is way too young for that. Most 60 year olds I know are very fit and a lot of them do lots of miles a year for work.
 
SteveJ said:
This is the way it's always been explained to me, over the years: the royals' lives are so pre-arranged for them that driving is one of very few independent acts of freedom & privacy they can enjoy.
Click to expand...
Couldn't they just kick orphans in the face to pass the time? That's what I do when I'm bored.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.