Prince Phils driving exploits.

[Top Cats Hat]

I have only been breathalysed once in my life and it was a traffic light system that would go yellow if there was any alcohol in your breath and red if it were over the limit.

[PRESLEY]

I hope the police charge him for driving without due care and attention. Then banned. This would happen to anybody else the  who did the same at the same age.  

[ECCOnoob]

31 minutes ago, PRESLEY said:

I hope the police charge him for driving without due care and attention. Then banned. This would happen to anybody else the  who did the same at the same age.  

Would it?  

 

Dont you need a thing called evidence to bring a charge?   Do we know that the Duke was playing on his moble, or trying to tune the radio or reach into the central console to grab a sweetie or was he chatting away to his passenger or looking up at the sky....

 

Or perhaps it was something called an ACCIDENT. 

 

I have been in one.  It was completely my fault and my insurance paid out in full but I never got criminally "charged".    My brother was in one, he stalled as he was exiting a junction and had a bump.    His insurers too found 100% liability and paid out in full.   He never got PC Plod knocking on his door.   

 

Lets face facts.   If the story was old man has accident nobody would give a toss and little Miss Victim wouldn't get invites on the Tabloid TV sofas.

 

She is milking it for all its worth and knows it.    Waaaaaa he never personally apologised.    Waaaaa I never got to see him grovelling for causing my damages.   Waaaa look at me.        The only interesting thing is whether he should be allowed to carry on driving, but that's a decision that would have to be made for any other person of the same age.    The law on re-tests and driving suitability assessments applies to all - royal or other.    That is a decison for the DVLA and nobody else.

 

Car accidents happen every day.    Insurance is there for a reason and IF fault is found she will get renumerated.   IF she has genuine personal injuries then she can proceed to file a claim.     End of story.

 

This is the cult of "famous" we live in these days.   A so called high profile person can't so much as fart without the press jumping all over it.   That creates of sub culture of people just like this "victim" leaching onto that public profile and draining it for all its worth.    The media lap it up because it sells papers and next minute she will be on the next series of Im a Celebrity identifiable only as being that bird who the Duke crashed his car into. 

 

It really is pathetic.

Edited January 22, 2019 by ECCOnoob

[PRESLEY]

6 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

Would it?  

 

Dont you need a thing called evidence to bring a charge?   Do we know that the Duke was playing on his moble, or trying to tune the radio or reach into the central console to grab a sweetie or was he chatting away to his passenger or looking up at the sky....

 

Or perhaps it was something called an ACCIDENT. 

 

I have been in one.  It was completely my fault and my insurance paid out in full but I never got criminally "charged".    My brother was in one, he stalled as he was exiting a junction and had a bump.    His insurers too found 100% liability and paid out in full.   He never got PC Plod knocking on his door.   

 

Lets face facts.   If the story was old man has accident nobody would give a toss and little Miss Victim wouldn't get invites on the Tabloid TV sofas.

 

She is milking it for all its worth and knows it.    Waaaaaa he never personally apologised.    Waaaaa I never got to see him grovelling for causing my damages.   Waaaa look at me.        The only interesting thing is whether he should be allowed to carry on driving, but that's a decision that would have to be made for any other person of the same age.    The law on re-tests and driving suitability assessments applies to all - royal or other.    That is a decison for the DVLA and nobody else.

 

Car accidents happen every day.    Insurance is there for a reason and IF fault is found she will get renumerated.   IF she has genuine personal injuries then she can proceed to file a claim.     End of story.

Know it all!

[jaffa1]

1 hour ago, ECCOnoob said:

Would it?  

 

Dont you need a thing called evidence to bring a charge?   Do we know that the Duke was playing on his moble, or trying to tune the radio or reach into the central console to grab a sweetie or was he chatting away to his passenger or looking up at the sky....

 

Or perhaps it was something called an ACCIDENT. 

 

I have been in one.  It was completely my fault and my insurance paid out in full but I never got criminally "charged".    My brother was in one, he stalled as he was exiting a junction and had a bump.    His insurers too found 100% liability and paid out in full.   He never got PC Plod knocking on his door.   

 

Lets face facts.   If the story was old man has accident nobody would give a toss and little Miss Victim wouldn't get invites on the Tabloid TV sofas.

 

She is milking it for all its worth and knows it.    Waaaaaa he never personally apologised.    Waaaaa I never got to see him grovelling for causing my damages.   Waaaa look at me.        The only interesting thing is whether he should be allowed to carry on driving, but that's a decision that would have to be made for any other person of the same age.    The law on re-tests and driving suitability assessments applies to all - royal or other.    That is a decison for the DVLA and nobody else.

 

Car accidents happen every day.    Insurance is there for a reason and IF fault is found she will get renumerated.   IF she has genuine personal injuries then she can proceed to file a claim.     End of story.

 

This is the cult of "famous" we live in these days.   A so called high profile person can't so much as fart without the press jumping all over it.   That creates of sub culture of people just like this "victim" leaching onto that public profile and draining it for all its worth.    The media lap it up because it sells papers and next minute she will be on the next series of Im a Celebrity identifiable only as being that bird who the Duke crashed his car into. 

 

It really is pathetic.

Here here,I'm  with you all the way , nothing has been proved yet who was at fault or as you say  a straight forward  accident.

[Top Cats Hat]

2 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

Or perhaps it was something called an ACCIDENT. 

There is rarely such a thing as an accident with a collision between motor vehicles. 

 

That is why the Plice have replaced the phrase road traffic accident with road traffic collision. In the vast majority of cases one or other of the drivers is at fault.  If someone fails to brake and goes into the back of another that driver is at fault. If the driver brakes and the brakes don't work, that driver is still at fault. If the driver is on the way back from a sucessful MOT test and the brakes fail, the MOT tester is at fault. In almost all collisions someone is to blame. Even with unusual conditions such as heavy rain, snow, fog, black ice and yes, low sun, a driver has a responsibility to drive appropriately for the conditions.

 

In the case we are discussing now it is highly likely that someone is to blame. The two cars started off on two different roads with two different speed limits in force. So unless it can be shown that one of the drivers blacked out or was otherwise impaired then one person drove  their vehicle into the path of the other person's vehicle. As the woman on the A149 had the right of way, in the absence of any other evidence it is very likely that Prince Phillip was responsible for the accident.

 

Whether or not he is charged with careless or without due care and attention if he is found to be responsible will be a decision for the Chief Constable in conjunction with the CPS and almost certainly the Home Secretary and the Palace. I suspect that ultimately it will be a political decision.

 

If the investigation finds him responsible but the CPS do not prosecute, the other driver has a right to ask for a Victim's Right to Review which will force the CPS to explain the decision.

[ECCOnoob]

A finding of liability for a road traffic accident does not and has never automatically lead to criminal investigations and potential prosecution.

 

If it did every police force in the country and the CPS would be completely snowed under with investigations backlogged for years.    The subsequent hearing of such prosecutions would collapse the court system.

 

Unless anybody has some concrete evidence that the duke deliberately was driving without due care and attention or was deliberately undertaking negligent acts whilst controlling his vehicle what grounds for bringing charges of criminal acts  could be raised?  

 

if the answer is none. Then just like 1001 other day-to-day road traffic incidents it will be left to the insurers to deal with as a civil matter.

 

Based on the current rumours neither driver was over the alcohol limit, neither  driver was deemed to be excessively speeding and neither driver appears to have done anything which was a deliberate negligent act which would be defined as intent to driving without due care and attention.   

 

I know there is a certain section who can't wait to get the head of a royal on the spike but this is getting beyond a joke.

Edited January 22, 2019 by ECCOnoob

[Top Cats Hat]

4 hours ago, ECCOnoob said: neither driver appears to have done anything which was a deliberate negligent act which would be defined as intent to driving without due care and attention.   

One of them drove intentionally or otherwise, into the other one's vehicle making quite a mess of both cars.

 

Somebody was driving carelessly! 🙄

[phil752]

4 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

A finding of liability for a road traffic accident does not and has never automatically lead to criminal investigations and potential prosecution.

 

If it did every police force in the country and the CPS would be completely snowed under with investigations backlogged for years.    The subsequent hearing of such prosecutions would collapse the court system.

 

Unless anybody has some concrete evidence that the duke deliberately was driving without due care and attention or was deliberately undertaking negligent acts whilst controlling his vehicle what grounds for bringing charges of criminal acts  could be raised?  

 

if the answer is none. Then just like 1001 other day-to-day road traffic incidents it will be left to the insurers to deal with as a civil matter.

 

Based on the current rumours neither driver was over the alcohol limit, neither  driver was deemed to be excessively speeding and neither driver appears to have done anything which was a deliberate negligent act which would be defined as intent to driving without due care and attention.   

 

I know there is a certain section who can't wait to get the head of a royal on the spike but this is getting beyond a joke.

Only one was coming out of a side road, onto a main road, mm which one was that, I guess it was the one that could not possibly be at fault or the one that it defiantly would be not in the public interest to prosecute. Oh and it couldn't be the one with a new land rover, wonder how the other people with injuries are getting on.  Have they a new car yet?

[Obelix]

13 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

A finding of liability for a road traffic accident does not and has never automatically lead to criminal investigations and potential prosecution.

 

If it did every police force in the country and the CPS would be completely snowed under with investigations backlogged for years.    The subsequent hearing of such prosecutions would collapse the court system.

 

Unless anybody has some concrete evidence that the duke deliberately was driving without due care and attention or was deliberately undertaking negligent acts whilst controlling his vehicle what grounds for bringing charges of criminal acts  could be raised?  

 

if the answer is none. Then just like 1001 other day-to-day road traffic incidents it will be left to the insurers to deal with as a civil matter.

 

Based on the current rumours neither driver was over the alcohol limit, neither  driver was deemed to be excessively speeding and neither driver appears to have done anything which was a deliberate negligent act which would be defined as intent to driving without due care and attention.   

 

I know there is a certain section who can't wait to get the head of a royal on the spike but this is getting beyond a joke.

Driving without due care is an offence of strict liability - it doesn't require mens rea to be present. Ergo it can be charged and prosecuted even if there was no intent.