Duke In Rollover

[Cunobelin]

what do you make of this?

“We could see the Land Rover about 150 yards from us at a junction, then it started to move,” she said. “I kept thinking he was going to stop but he didn’t … My friend was braking and seemed so in control but I was terrified.”

"Philip allegedly told onlookers that he was dazzled by the sun but Fairweather < wrist was broken> cast doubt on his explanation, claiming it was cloudy at the time."

seems he needs to be prosecuted? now that would be a first?

can he be sued ?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jan/20/prince-philip-has-not-said-sorry-for-car-crash-injured-woman-claims

Does make me smile.... no-one knows, other witnesses say that the sun was a problem, so unless people were actually there, probably best left to the formal investigation.

Then we have the "lack of contact" .... had the Royals been in contact they would have been accused of trying to affect the outcome.... so pilloried either way

It is common practice not to admit liability, nor to be in contact with the other party during an investigation, something that the other driver and passenger fully acknowledge in less partisan reports

[Tangled Metal]

I understand the direction the Duke should have been looking of he was to see the oncoming car that hit him was not in the direction of the sun. How does sun dazzle work if that's true?

Now I know your can have an effect where your eye needs time to get over a sudden flash of light. If he looked into the sun then back towards the car is have thought commonsense dictates you would wait until the dazzle after effects end before looking for traffic coming and moving off.

We weren't there but surely Sun dazzle is something you can check using a map with North highlighted and the time of day. You already know from where the cars ended up which direction the car that hit him came from and thus where he needed to look to see it. Anyone want to provide any evidence to support or rule out sun dazzle?

[francovendee]

I just think it tells a lot about the man, or his state of mind, when after being involved in a serious accident he then drives without wearing a seat belt.
He's either going ga ga or thinks he's above the law

[thirdcrank]

I understand the direction the Duke should have been looking of he was to see the oncoming car ...

That reminds me of a song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXndvWwZuaA

We're speculating about rumour mongering based on hearsay.

[Canuk]

I just think it tells a lot about the man, or his state of mind, when after being involved in a serious accident he then drives without wearing a seat belt.
He's either going ga ga or thinks he's above the law

Bit of both

[merseymouth]

Morning all, The behaviour of many drivers appals me!
Quite a few years ago there was an incident involving a friend of mine, a pedestrian killed by said friend.
It was about 11pm one summer good road conditions, fair lighting on the road a 30 mph duel carriageway section' He was to his own admission doing nearer to 40 mph overtaking other vehicles. Ahead he noticed a person in the roadway so he sounded the horn? The person didn't appear to be moving out of the way so he sounded the horn again but longer?? Notice my wording, no mention is made by him of lifting off the throttle, nor of going for the brake pedal???
He told us that he couldn't move left because of the vehicles he was attempting to overtake????
With impact imminent he finally went on the brakes, but still told us that hitting the person was better than hitting cars alongside!
Well he did hit the person, launched him skywards, but hitting the bonnet & roof before making airspace!!
His car came to rest over 40 plus feet later. The man, it was a man, suffered massive head injuries as well as the obvious damage caused by the car impact, he was DOA.
I asked him why he hadn't gone for the brakes rather than the horn, received a silly face in response.
So I asked as to whether he might have acted differently if it had been a fallen crate, or a block of concrete, response was similar silly face!!!!!!!
What was the upshot, apart from the death of a fellow human being? He got charged with "Driving Without Due Care & Attention"!!!!!!!!!! Not even causing the death, just a fine of £50 with 3 points on his license.
Of course he was distressed by the damage to his car, poor lamb.
Just the same these days. One should read Heathcote Williams's poem about the issue of drivers. Hit a person with an unattached bumper, charge at least manslaughter, but if the bumper is still attached to a car? I rest my case.
He was no longer a friend of mine from that point on. MM

[mercalia]

I just think it tells a lot about the man, or his state of mind, when after being involved in a serious accident he then drives without wearing a seat belt.
He's either going ga ga or thinks he's above the law

Bit of both

Maybe he was taking quite literally that "it was the kings highway"? only he should be on it and others had to give way so he could pass

[Canuk]

I understand the direction the Duke should have been looking of he was to see the oncoming car ...

That reminds me of a song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXndvWwZuaA

We're speculating about rumour mongering based on hearsay.

Fair point, the accident investigation needs to be completed first. 'Sun in my eyes' though is the most likely advice given to a client by a solicitor in such circumstances. Even if it is a bare faced lie, it's effective.

[mercalia]

what do you make of this?

“We could see the Land Rover about 150 yards from us at a junction, then it started to move,” she said. “I kept thinking he was going to stop but he didn’t … My friend was braking and seemed so in control but I was terrified.”

"Philip allegedly told onlookers that he was dazzled by the sun but Fairweather < wrist was broken> cast doubt on his explanation, claiming it was cloudy at the time."

seems he needs to be prosecuted? now that would be a first?

can he be sued ?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jan/20/prince-philip-has-not-said-sorry-for-car-crash-injured-woman-claims

Does make me smile.... no-one knows, other witnesses say that the sun was a problem, so unless people were actually there, probably best left to the formal investigation.

Then we have the "lack of contact" .... had the Royals been in contact they would have been accused of trying to affect the outcome.... so pilloried either way

It is common practice not to admit liability, nor to be in contact with the other party during an investigation, something that the other driver and passenger fully acknowledge in less partisan reports

well that he was back driving a few days later suggesrs he wasnt given any kind of formal warning " you may get prosecuted"? He is just carrying on as if nothing has happened

[pete75]

what do you make of this?

“We could see the Land Rover about 150 yards from us at a junction, then it started to move,” she said. “I kept thinking he was going to stop but he didn’t … My friend was braking and seemed so in control but I was terrified.”

"Philip allegedly told onlookers that he was dazzled by the sun but Fairweather < wrist was broken> cast doubt on his explanation, claiming it was cloudy at the time."

seems he needs to be prosecuted? now that would be a first?

can he be sued ?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jan/20/prince-philip-has-not-said-sorry-for-car-crash-injured-woman-claims

Does make me smile.... no-one knows, other witnesses say that the sun was a problem, so unless people were actually there, probably best left to the formal investigation.

Then we have the "lack of contact" .... had the Royals been in contact they would have been accused of trying to affect the outcome.... so pilloried either way

It is common practice not to admit liability, nor to be in contact with the other party during an investigation, something that the other driver and passenger fully acknowledge in less partisan reports

Dazzled by the sun? Doesn't that make his driving worse? Failing to look properly and pulling out is careless rather than dangerous driving. Dazzled by the sun so unable to see and pulling out regardless is dangerous rather than careless driving. Trouble is it's often used as an excuse to justify the driving and there's been more than one case discussed here where a driver has "got away" with killing a cyclist by claiming they didn't see them because they were dazzled by the sun.

[Tangled Metal]

Doesn't dazzled by the sun only work if you're already in the carriageway and the dazzle means you hit something off your intended path?

What I mean is if you're dazzled by sun just before you make a significant change of direction such as turning onto a main road then making that move when dazzled is the last thing you should do?

Stopped at a junction, where you're on the minor road going into a main road, IMHO you don't move out until you're sure there's enough space to make that turn and accelerate away. If you have any doubts or can't see for whatever reason you act cautiously until you can see.

Now with the dazzle defence it should only be considered as a potential cause if it hits you suddenly when you're moving legitimately at a suitable speed. A true accident rather than negligence due to poor judgement.

This is not a view from a legal standpoint only a opinion based on my own common sense. It's what I do and what I've been taught on an advanced driving course started 6 weeks after passing my driving test at 17 years of age. Best thing I've done behind the wheel. A bit more than the pass plus test a fair few younger drivers take to reduce insurance premiums.

[mercalia]

Doesn't dazzled by the sun only work if you're already in the carriageway and the dazzle means you hit something off your intended path?

What I mean is if you're dazzled by sun just before you make a significant change of direction such as turning onto a main road then making that move when dazzled is the last thing you should do?

Stopped at a junction, where you're on the minor road going into a main road, IMHO you don't move out until you're sure there's enough space to make that turn and accelerate away. If you have any doubts or can't see for whatever reason you act cautiously until you can see.

Now with the dazzle defence it should only be considered as a potential cause if it hits you suddenly when you're moving legitimately at a suitable speed. A true accident rather than negligence due to poor judgement.

This is not a view from a legal standpoint only a opinion based on my own common sense. It's what I do and what I've been taught on an advanced driving course started 6 weeks after passing my driving test at 17 years of age. Best thing I've done behind the wheel. A bit more than the pass plus test a fair few younger drivers take to reduce insurance premiums.

quite right. seems like need a poll to determine is Olde P should get hung drawn and quarted?

[Tangled Metal]

What I mean is if you're dazzled by sun just before you make a significant change of direction such as turning onto a main road then making that move when dazzled is the last thing you should do?

quite right. seems like need a poll to determine is Olde P should get hung drawn and quarted?

That bit in bold applies to all drivers irrespective of age.

[thirdcrank]

“We could see the Land Rover about 150 yards from us at a junction, then it started to move,” she said. “I kept thinking he was going to stop but he didn’t … My friend was braking and seemed so in control but I was terrified.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... man-claims

This is from a witness - a passenger in the other car. Let's accept that without some sort of reference point, the 150 yards might as well be 150 light years, but the prima facie evidence is 150 yards. Again, that person is quoted in the link as saying her friend was driving at 50 mph. I don't know how she assessed that speed - possibly she's quoting her friend. The HC stopping distance at 50 mph is 175 feet ie assuming her evidence to be correct, the driver on the main road had a fair amount of road to stop in to avoid a crash completely.

I'm not trying to exonerate somebody who as emerged from a minor road without giving way, but rather exploring some of the "evidence" on which speculation is being based.

[Flinders]

“We could see the Land Rover about 150 yards from us at a junction, then it started to move,” she said. “I kept thinking he was going to stop but he didn’t … My friend was braking and seemed so in control but I was terrified.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... man-claims

This is from a witness - a passenger in the other car. Let's accept that without some sort of reference point, the 150 yards might as well be 150 light years, but the prima facie evidence is 150 yards. Again, that person is quoted in the link as saying her friend was driving at 50 mph. I don't know how she assessed that speed - possibly she's quoting her friend. The HC stopping distance at 50 mph is 175 feet ie assuming her evidence to be correct, the driver on the main road had a fair amount of road to stop in to avoid a crash completely.

I'm not trying to exonerate somebody who as emerged from a minor road without giving way, but rather exploring some of the "evidence" on which speculation is being based.

Fair enough, but most young people have not much of a clue about yards and feet. I'm willing to be some of them don't even know there's a difference, never mind what it is. She may even have meant one when she said the other. Aside from that, even as an old Imperial measurements person, I don't say 'that's x feet/yards, and my stopping distance is y feet/yards' I just know the space I need to stop in in different conditions by experience, and endeavour to keep at least that space in front of me clear (you can't always when other drivers jump into that space). As a witness, I'd never quote distances, just relative positions, like 'when I passed the telegraph pole by the wall the other car was passing the farm gate' or whatever.