mjr wrote: ... Other than extrapolating from the questionable eyewitness reports, there's not much suggestion that anyone was speeding in the Duke's collision, is there? And even if they were, the Duke still should have given way...
I think I've been consistent in saying that HRH failed to give way. There's been a widespread assumption both on here and more widely that the only thing which has prevented his prosecution is some sort of special treatment and I simply do not believe that to be the case. We've moved from prosecution being almost inevitable after a crash to it being quite unusual. It says something for policing-by-social-media
that so many people still believe that a crash = inevitable prosecution. To be fair to the CPS, they look more closely at evidence than was once the case and if the evidence of witnesses is "questionable" they recognise that it reduces the likelihood of conviction.
I believe that the fact of police attending this crash was probably caused by initial reports making it sound more serious than was actually the case. Also, HRH seems to be renowned for eschewing personal security but I presume that Norfolk Constabulary will have contingency plans if he's vulnerable in a public place. I'm pretty confident that if there had been nothing to require a police presence at the time such as a road blockage, then there would have been an assumption that the drivers involved should report the accident within 24 hours at a police station. I'd like to be proved wrong. There's room for discussion over the meaning of "serious injury" in KSI, but I believe it is widely interpreted as a potential fatal ie the SI may become a K.
I linked to the stuff about speed cameras not to imply anything about this crash, just to try to illustrate that equivocation by people such as local councillors over speed restrictions is an issue.
PS There's the issue of "speeding" as in "exceeding the speed limit" and inappropriate speed in the circumstances.