Flinders wrote: ... 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.
That's part of what I'm trying to get across, yet an armchair jury is using it as a basis for reaching conclusions. Another thing is that retrospectively estimating distance accurately from a moving vehicle when you didn't anticipate having to do so is virtually impossible.
Let's suppose there were to be some sort of court proceedings. If I were to be defending the case and I knew this witness had said this ie published in the media, I'd be very slow to accept a different version. I'd concentrate on getting the witness to be as definite as possible that the Duke's vehicle began to emerge when theirs was 150 yards away. Once her colours had been nailed to that mast, I'd introduce the point that the HC stopping distance at 70mph is 315 feet ie still leaving over 40 yards in which to stop.
Flinders wrote: ... 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.
That's part of what I'm trying to get across, yet an armchair jury is using it as a basis for reaching conclusions. Another thing is that retrospectively estimating distance accurately from a moving vehicle when you didn't anticipate having to do so is virtually impossible.
Let's suppose there were to be some sort of court proceedings. If I were to be defending the case and I knew this witness had said this ie published in the media, I'd be very slow to accept a different version. I'd concentrate on getting the witness to be as definite as possible that the Duke's vehicle began to emerge when theirs was 150 yards away. Once her colours had been nailed to that mast, I'd introduce the point that the HC stopping distance at 70mph is 315 feet ie still leaving over 40 yards in which to stop.
If we look at the scene it's almost certain that the witness account/estimate is bobbins.
DofE emerging 150 yards distant must have essentially parked on the junction and the oncoming car driven into him to have had the accident as it is purported. Witness evidence is notoriously inaccurate, as you would know better than any of us.
francovendee wrote: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
As far as l understood it he was not wearing a seatbelt whilst driving on private roads on the Sandringham estate. So no laws broken.
You could argue that he should wear the belt because of heightened press interest, but he's not that sort of bloke.
francovendee wrote: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
As far as l understood it he was not wearing a seatbelt whilst driving on private roads on the Sandringham estate. So no laws broken.
You could argue that he should wear the belt because of heightened press interest, but he's not that sort of bloke.
A report last night on the 10pm news did suggest it had been on public roads, at least in part.
“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?
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.
But according to posts on this site, it was sunny and was not sunny
It still remains that no-one here has any real idea what happened, and it is all conjecture
“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?
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
Cunobelin wrote: 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
Flinders wrote: ... 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.
That's part of what I'm trying to get across, yet an armchair jury is using it as a basis for reaching conclusions. Another thing is that retrospectively estimating distance accurately from a moving vehicle when you didn't anticipate having to do so is virtually impossible.
Let's suppose there were to be some sort of court proceedings. If I were to be defending the case and I knew this witness had said this ie published in the media, I'd be very slow to accept a different version. I'd concentrate on getting the witness to be as definite as possible that the Duke's vehicle began to emerge when theirs was 150 yards away. Once her colours had been nailed to that mast, I'd introduce the point that the HC stopping distance at 70mph is 315 feet ie still leaving over 40 yards in which to stop.
If we look at the scene it's almost certain that the witness account/estimate is bobbins.
DofE emerging 150 yards distant must have essentially parked on the junction and the oncoming car driven into him to have had the accident as it is purported. Witness evidence is notoriously inaccurate, as you would know better than any of us.
Interesting that the Driver of the Kia is keeping quiet.......we could start a whole new thread of conjecture, guesswork and ill informed claims on that as a conspiracy theory
Cunobelin wrote: 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.
But according to posts on this site, it was sunny and was not sunny
It still remains that no-one here has any real idea what happened, and it is all conjecture
Wait for the official report
It could quite possibly have been both. Moving clouds may cause that to happen and they often move quickly on the Wash and surrounding areas.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
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
Suggests.... no-one actually has the foggiest
Eh? Now you're claiming it was foggy!
Quite possibly, or blizzards, rainstorms... a tsunami even for all we actually know
Cunobelin wrote: Interesting that the Driver of the Kia is keeping quiet.......we could start a whole new thread of conjecture, guesswork and ill informed claims on that as a conspiracy theory
Yep next thing she'll be driven into a Paris tunnel by a drunken driver and not come out the other end.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
thirdcrank wrote: That's part of what I'm trying to get across, yet an armchair jury is using it as a basis for reaching conclusions. Another thing is that retrospectively estimating distance accurately from a moving vehicle when you didn't anticipate having to do so is virtually impossible.
Let's suppose there were to be some sort of court proceedings. If I were to be defending the case and I knew this witness had said this ie published in the media, I'd be very slow to accept a different version. I'd concentrate on getting the witness to be as definite as possible that the Duke's vehicle began to emerge when theirs was 150 yards away. Once her colours had been nailed to that mast, I'd introduce the point that the HC stopping distance at 70mph is 315 feet ie still leaving over 40 yards in which to stop.
If we look at the scene it's almost certain that the witness account/estimate is bobbins.
DofE emerging 150 yards distant must have essentially parked on the junction and the oncoming car driven into him to have had the accident as it is purported. Witness evidence is notoriously inaccurate, as you would know better than any of us.
Interesting that the Driver of the Kia is keeping quiet.......we could start a whole new thread of conjecture, guesswork and ill informed claims on that as a conspiracy theory
Indeed - but I felt pretty confident that the passenger's account just couldn't be anything close to the actualite, just looking at the crash site.
Now if she had skidded for those 100+ yards on the plague of frogs & locusts that everyone seems to be ignoring, well that's another matter
francovendee wrote: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
As far as l understood it he was not wearing a seatbelt whilst driving on private roads on the Sandringham estate. So no laws broken.
You could argue that he should wear the belt because of heightened press interest, but he's not that sort of bloke.
Firstly I doubt very much that Norfolk Police have dared to offer advice on this as reported and I suspect there may be good reasons for him not to wear one. My Father in law was in the RUC, never wore a seat belt, and is still exempt from wearing one, because of the threat of terrorist attack, he has in recent year started to wear one but he has been retired 15 years. As the Duke is probably a bigger target than the FIL, probably is told not to by the security service.
In the crash in Paris 1997, I understand the security person was the only survivor, he was wearing a belt, although he was supposed not to, is that right?
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120 Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
Cunobelin wrote: Interesting that the Driver of the Kia is keeping quiet.......we could start a whole new thread of conjecture, guesswork and ill informed claims on that as a conspiracy theory
Yep next thing she'll be driven into a Paris tunnel by a drunken driver and not come out the other end.
I have proof of that..........
Here we have conclusive proof of Philip pacing out the tunnel whilst he plans the crash
Last edited by Cunobelin on 21 Jan 2019, 6:48pm, edited 1 time in total.
