Share this content
0
728

The Duke of Edinburgh crash

To drive or not to drive

Didn't find your answer?

Search AccountingWEB

The Duke of Edinburgh's crash last week has created much debate in our office. To drive or not to drive over a certain age? Should it be determined on a case by case bases. Is regular testing the answer? Surely, there is no need for this man to drive with endless resources at his disposal. Should he be forced off the road? His arrogance and lack of remorse is astounding. There was a baby in the other car, this could have been catastrophic. He was lucky this time but he may not be so lucky next time.

Replies

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By DJKL
21st Jan 2019 12:14

Case by case seems obvious answer, whilst she does not drive (and never has) my mother in Law, at 89, is more mentally and physically agile than most 75 year olds, people age differently.

My father drove until he died aged 85, no accidents or incidents, albeit he stopped night driving when in his seventies and tended to avoid Edinburgh rush hours.

You ask an open question then skew it with
"His arrogance and lack of remorse is astounding."

This rather spoils any thought of an open mind and impartiality.

Having said that Phil once visited Claverhouse (RNR) in Edinburgh, stood a round in the officers' mess but never paid (Not sure they use money)- my late father was the Commander (S) responsible for mess bills, frankly anyone not paying for their round deserves the full force of the law.

Thanks (1)
By mrme89
21st Jan 2019 12:42

People age differently, but at 97 you simply do not have the same reactions any more. Not to mention any other ailments you may have.

Thanks (1)
avatar
21st Jan 2019 12:42

"His arrogance and lack of remorse is astounding."

According to certain parts of the media who love this kind of thing. Interesting that you feel able to give a definitive view on what the Duke thinks and feels. If you have that gift you should be on the stage.

Hands up anyone who has had a prang who expects the other party's family to phone and check how you are. The Queen's Lady-in- Waiting did.

The roads would be a lot safer if under 25s weren't allowed on them. But, hey, let's not let reality cloud our judgement.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Alex_T
21st Jan 2019 12:46

Completely agree that a case by case is the only answer. My 87 year old neighbour drives regularly without incident however, he is not a typical 87 year old, more like early 70s. Whilst it would be wonderful to be impartial on all of these matters, I agree with @Mr Hobbit, that the Duke's complete lack of empathy for his victim is unforgiveable. Since it is very clear he is entirely at fault here, an apology should have been issued immediately. Another PR nightmare for the royal family. Move over Meghan!

Thanks (1)
By DJKL
to Alex_T
21st Jan 2019 12:51

What does your motor insurance company say about admitting guilt following an accident?

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Alex_T
to DJKL
21st Jan 2019 13:09

It is possible to show empathy without admitting guilt.

Thanks (1)
avatar
to Alex_T
21st Jan 2019 12:57

Entirely at fault? Maybe so, but do we know the full facts. Last time I looked there there was a question mark over the speed of the other driver. Has that been resolved?

I understand the Duke commented that he was blinded by low sun which others have deemed plausible. It is easy to go for the 'age' factor. I make no comment on whether or not he 'should' be driving at that age, save for the opinion that he is quite an extraordinary invididual.

Thanks (1)
to Alex_T
22nd Jan 2019 11:02

Meghan might be the only happy member of the royal family at the moment. She's out of the papers for the first time in months.

Thanks (0)
avatar
21st Jan 2019 13:27

You need to read a book called Thinking Fast & Slow (re your and your office's uninformed illogical emotional reaction to this). Also, the fact is that most road injuries/fatalities are caused by avoidable excessive speed (unnecessary excessive speed by many motorists has been criticised here before re bad fuel economy etc.) and let's face it most elderly drivers are not exactly boy racers (at least rational insurance companies appreciate this fact)!

Thanks (1)
avatar
to Justin Bryant
21st Jan 2019 14:02

Just good debate between colleagues... No emotion involved.

Thanks (1)
to Mr Hobbit
21st Jan 2019 14:22

Your post was quite emotive, particularly surrounding the speculation and inferences you've presented as irrefutable facts.

You and your office have no idea what happened, who was to blame, how the parties feel about it, what is going to be done about it or indeed anything surrounding it, other than what various media outlets with their own agendas have reported, no two of which give the exact same impression.

Perhaps there isn't enough information to give any kind of fact based judgement on any of the points raised?

Thanks (1)
avatar
to Duggimon
21st Jan 2019 15:02

Goodness me! We had a harmless debate over a cuppa this morning.

Thanks (0)
avatar
to Mr Hobbit
21st Jan 2019 18:08

I bet you wish you'd never asked!

Thanks (1)
avatar
to lincolnartist
21st Jan 2019 18:22

I sure do!

Thanks (0)
avatar
to Duggimon
21st Jan 2019 15:07

He jumped into a brand new car within days of the accident and proceeded to drive away without putting on his seat belt. You must agree that this is at the very least foolish given recent events.

Thanks (1)
avatar
to Mr Hobbit
22nd Jan 2019 10:24

How can it be a harmless chat when you bang on about "arrogance and lack of care" etc .
Presumably in your world guilty until proven innocent.

Thanks (1)
21st Jan 2019 14:29

It is generally young drivers rather than older ones that pose the greater danger. That said, there must come a point for those living to a great age when it becomes time to stop.

I think I take issue more with his flouting of the law by not wearing a seat belt.

Thanks (1)
avatar
to Red Leader
21st Jan 2019 14:54

Completely agree! It certainly doesn't help his case.

Thanks (0)
21st Jan 2019 14:37

My father became a menace to other road users at the age of 80. It was no use trying to persuade him to stop, and even when a relative of mine hinted to a local policeman that he had a problem the policeman just said "Ah yes I know what you mean - my mother's the same".
My grandfather drove the wrong way down a motorway in his later years (with my small brother in the car) but as he wasn't stopped by the police he didn't consider this was a massive problem.
There are lots of old buffers around who are entirely dodgy as motorists and lots of younger ones who regularly terrorise others in their desire to break the speed limit.
I shall try to stop before I become an old buffer - assuming I don't go dolally beforehand and can't be persuaded.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By vstrad
21st Jan 2019 14:45

Police investigation ongoing, so not a good idea for HRH to say anything that might indicate culpability. Also, too much contact between the Palace and the other parties might be construed as interfering with witnesses. Finally, the tendency of the other parties to report everything that is said to the Daily Mirror is likely to inhibit the Palace's enthusiasm for further dialogue!

Thanks (3)
avatar
to vstrad
21st Jan 2019 14:56

Very true!

Thanks (0)
to vstrad
21st Jan 2019 15:52

I can just imagine how the noble truth seeker that is a tabloid journalist went about the interview with the injured person in order to get the required quote.

Thanks (1)
21st Jan 2019 17:52

"There was a baby in the other car"

What has that got to do with anything? People drive unsafely regardless of their passengers all the time.

Despite your clear view to the contrary, the Duke of Edinburgh has not been found at fault. Given his high profile position, he has to be even more careful than any other driver to not appear to admit fault.

To take the opposite view for a moment, it strikes me that a vehicle that size requires a lot of force to tip it over. Is that not an indication the other driver was at fault, as they could not have exerted that force without speeding? I don't know for sure, and neither do you. Let's keep speculation until such time as we have facts.

Thanks (1)
22nd Jan 2019 10:08

In 2007, my doctor said that I should look after my knee as I'd be needing it for the next 25 years.

I take that to mean I've 13 years left. Way before I get to 97.

Thanks (1)
avatar
to lionofludesch
22nd Jan 2019 10:26

lionofludesch wrote:

I take that to mean I've 13 years left. Way before I get to 97.

If you're lucky.

Thanks (0)
to andy.partridge
22nd Jan 2019 10:33

If I don't make it, you won't hear me complaining.

Thanks (0)
avatar
to lionofludesch
22nd Jan 2019 11:13

Certainly not if I've gone before you.

Thanks (0)
By Tornado
21st Jan 2019 20:30

Time to look at self-drive cars.

Thanks (1)
to Tornado
22nd Jan 2019 10:09

Tornado wrote:

Time to look at self-drive cars.

I'd trust a 97 year old before a self driving car.

Thanks (1)
to lionofludesch
22nd Jan 2019 12:14

Ditto!

Thanks (0)
By Tornado
to lionofludesch
22nd Jan 2019 12:30

Modern technology is marvellous. A little more trust is required.

You will be telling me next that MTD will not work ..... ridiculous, of course it will. No car crash there.

Thanks (0)
21st Jan 2019 22:26

On this forum many fellow members would, quite correctly, be asking what the legislation states?
In this case, let’s therefore enquire, what evidence do we have?
Looks to me, so far, nothing more than press conjecture?

Thanks (2)
Share this content