Maybe He Should Stop Driving

Tringa said:
I don't know the circumstances of this collision but how easy is it for Range Rover/Freelander to end up on its side in an accident?

....

Dave
Click to expand...

Possibly easier than a lower car, however it turned over due to being hit from the side by the other vehicle, at considerable speed I suspect - not due to trying to corner too fast.
 
Tringa said:
I don't know the circumstances of this collision but how easy is it for Range Rover/Freelander to end up on its side in an accident?
Dave
Click to expand...
Pure guess here but this might have been the armoured freelander, only thing that puts me off thinking it was armoured is all the glass lying around in the pics............glass might be from the Kia though?
 
admirable said:
Pure guess here but this might have been the armoured freelander, only thing that puts me off thinking it was armoured is all the glass lying around in the pics............glass might be from the Kia though?
Click to expand...

In one of the news reports it did say it was armoured
 
Lindsay56 said:
I bet they won't do him for Due Care & Attention
Click to expand...

And rightly he shouldn't be done for it, my mate has never been done for it and he's pulled out on 2 people over the years and neither was my Grandad (87 at the time) when he pulled across a junction and missed a car coming because of the sun in his eyes.

Just cause he's 97 doesn't mean he shouldn't be driving. Do people really think everyone who has an accident shouldn't be driving? Or is it just because of his age/people hate the royals?
 
My point is that the law should apply equally to all, and in my personal case I was 19, had long hair and was a student pulling across a main road, other party was a youngish mum on her own speeding (yes she was) trying to get to school to pick her kids up. I got done. If other people don't it's a law inconsistently applied which brings the law and its enforcers into disrepute.

In the case of Phil, I have always liked his style and don't have anything against the royals per se, but at 97 his hand/eye coordination, perception of speed etc will not be so good, and believe me the Rangie has a lot of power and torque if you put your foot down, so it is not the ideal car for an older driver anyway. He should have given up driving on roads years since for his own and others' safety. I would expect anyone over 90 or so to have stopped, if they could afford to have a driver especially.
 
Tony Else said:
after hearing it on the radio, and subsequently posting on here, I have had a read up, and it would appear the section of road was already being considered for a speed reduction, and a meeting, arranged prior to the accident.
Click to expand...

40 crashes with 5 of them fatal in the last five years. In 2015 it was recommended that the section of road concerned be fitted with average speed cameras.
 
Old bloke 91 ran down and killed two people in my local town, hit the accelerator rather than the brake on an automatic.
Another old man in his late eighties ran down and killed a youngster outside the local primary school as they crossed at the lollipop lady.

Think there should be checks after 70 to assess competence for driving both physically and mentally.
 
It seems there are some differences in the reporting of the incident. Sky reported that the Duke may have been accompanied by another person the car, they also said there was a baby in the other car as well, neither were reported by the BBC.

https://news.sky.com/story/duke-of-edinburgh-involved-in-car-crash-near-sandringham-estate-11610133

"Another passenger was in the vehicle at the time of the crash. While a spokeswoman would not comment on who this was, it was likely his close protection officer."

"There was a baby in the back seat screaming."
 
Lindsay56 said:
I got done. If other people don't it's a law inconsistently applied which brings the law and its enforcers into disrepute.
Click to expand...

Rightfully so if you were in the wrong. I imagine the charge of Driving without due care and attention is down to the discretion of the officers... Not sure though.

Out of interest how did you know she was speeding? Surely if it was proven she'll have got done for her offence too?




tijuana taxi said:
Old bloke 91 ran down and killed two people in my local town, hit the accelerator rather than the brake on an automatic.
Another old man in his late eighties ran down and killed a youngster outside the local primary school as they crossed at the lollipop lady.

Think there should be checks after 70 to assess competence for driving both physically and mentally
Click to expand...

So there have only been 2 instances of people being hit and killed in your town and both happen to be over 70?
 
rick448 said:
Out of interest, do you have some statistics to back up that statement? I seriously doubt there has been any meaningful research on this subject which shows the real risks of accidents at either end of the driving age spectrum. The numbers of drivers in their 90's will be minuscule compared to 17 year old drivers, which is likely to make a percentile comparison unreliable.

As for the insurance cost, I think you'll probably find that they charge a fortune for insurance because they can. Though this is a guess as I don't have access to the complicated insurance calculation logarithm. :D
Click to expand...
I was going to dig out some stats, but @j crossley beat me to it in post #50.
 
@keef32 Richard, I accept I was charged correctly back then, irrespective of being a bit of a hippy. In my case the other party was judged by a witness to have been exceeding the 30mph limit, but there was no objective evidence to support that, whereas my fault was clear (although pulling out carefully across a main road close to a bend where you can't see further than 50 yards along because of the bend, suggests that it was a technical fault on my part rather than carelessness - if I'd just put my foot down hard, I would have shot across with no accident occurring most likely, though in an old Ford Anglia, I am not so confident of the result!). But this is off topic really, so...
 
keef32 said:
So there have only been 2 instances of people being hit and killed in your town and both happen to be over 70?
Click to expand...

Its only a small town so not a common occurrence, only other one I recall was my mum.
That was a younger driver, but it was my ma's fault unlike the other two
 
Last edited:
Drive range rovers and your ass will be safe

Tell that to the one couple i saw.
Range rover travelling at legal speed along a straight road. Citroen Picasso failed to stop coming out of side road. Caught the range rover behind rear wheel. Range rover flipped over end to end twice as it went passed me the rolled on its side as it passed behind me. It ended on its side. Male driver lost several fingers and had to wait for fire brigade to get him out.
The Citroen had less visible damage and no injuries to anyone inside it.
Both passed breath test
 
ecoleman said:
So you were all there and saw exactly what happened? Must be the old man at fault!

For all you know the other driver was going way to fast. Must have been a hell of an impact to role the range rover.
Click to expand...

If you are emerging from a side road, the onus is on you to only pull out where there is space to do so. This is regardless of the speed of the traffic on the main road and whether they are under the speed limit or not. The bit of road in question has a 60 mph limit
 
Tony Else said:
Listening to the news on the radio this morning , the relevant council are meeting today to discuss reducing the speed limit on that stretch of road.
There are knee jerk reactions, and there are knee jerk reactions.
Click to expand...

Apparently already ongoing work and not due to this particular incident.
 
Tony Else said:
after hearing it on the radio, and subsequently posting on here, I have had a read up, and it would appear the section of road was already being considered for a speed reduction, and a meeting, arranged prior to the accident.
Click to expand...

That's correct. Just a coincidence.
 
OneOffDave said:
If you are emerging from a side road, the onus is on you to only pull out where there is space to do so. This is regardless of the speed of the traffic on the main road and whether they are under the speed limit or not. The bit of road in question has a 60 mph limit
Click to expand...

And to think I've been pulling out wrong all these years. :rolleyes:
 
Tringa said:
I don't know the circumstances of this collision but how easy is it for Range Rover/Freelander to end up on its side in an accident?

Although you have to renew your licence after the age of 70 you do not have to be medically fit.

As there is no medical test you only have to say you are medically fit. You should tell the DVLA about certain medical conditions but if you don't then no one will check up on you. However, if I recall correctly there is no medical check when you apply for licence at any age.

Dave
Click to expand...

You'd think that, at least, there'd be a requirement for an eyesight test at 70. You can't have self-assessment when it comes to driving, there's too much at stake. Those in rural areas often have either very poor or non-existent transport services so they are unlikely to deprive themselves of mobility. One particular and not uncommon cause of serious injury or death is when elderly drivers press the accelerator instead of the brake in automatic cars. If not a compulsory test for 70 year olds then it has to be so for those of 75..then 80.
 
JohnC6 said:
You'd think that, at least, there'd be a requirement for an eyesight test at 70. You can't have self-assessment when it comes to driving, there's too much at stake. Those in rural areas often have either very poor or non-existent transport services so they are unlikely to deprive themselves of mobility. One particular and not uncommon cause of serious injury or death is when elderly drivers press the accelerator instead of the brake in automatic cars. If not a compulsory test for 70 year olds then it has to be so for those of 75..then 80.
Click to expand...


Do you think younger drivers are any more likely to self report poor eyesight or other health problems?
I reckon everyone should have to take some sort of driving test every 5 years and should have to prove their medical fitness every year - perhaps as part of their insurance. We all tend to forget that driving is a privilege rather than a right.
 
Nod said:
Do you think younger drivers are any more likely to self report poor eyesight or other health problems?
Click to expand...

TBH I'd expect younger drivers to hide health issues that might prevent them driving. A sense of personal responsibility can often (though not always) take some years to develop as an adult.
 
JohnC6 said:
You'd think that, at least, there'd be a requirement for an eyesight test at 70. You can't have self-assessment when it comes to driving, there's too much at stake. Those in rural areas often have either very poor or non-existent transport services so they are unlikely to deprive themselves of mobility. One particular and not uncommon cause of serious injury or death is when elderly drivers press the accelerator instead of the brake in automatic cars. If not a compulsory test for 70 year olds then it has to be so for those of 75..then 80.
Click to expand...

Good point, John. I am in NW Scotland now and I know of one person here who had been advised to stop driving. It took a good while, including the doctor talking to his family before he stopped. Fortunately there is a very good support system that will help the bloke, but your point is valid.

Ignoring the fact that some folks are very keen on their independence, it is often extremely difficult for people in rural areas to manage without a car..

Dave
 
Nod said:
Do you think younger drivers are any more likely to self report poor eyesight or other health problems?
I reckon everyone should have to take some sort of driving test every 5 years and should have to prove their medical fitness every year - perhaps as part of their insurance. We all tend to forget that driving is a privilege rather than a right.
Click to expand...

Those obligations would have to be paid for by the driver, perhaps, as you suggest, through insurance.

The reason I made the point regarding 70 plus is that the discussion is related to the age of the D of E. That aside,I agree with your position. Some kind of testing throughout the years.

On the Ch4 News just now a local said the sun was very low and he had a job seeing clearly himself.

Maybe this question will come up on Radio4 Question Time..just started. It would have to be as a general point as we don't yet know the cause of the incident.That and a question on ..er..Brexit ..Lol..
 
Last edited:
When i was younger i thought old gits should be taken off the road, have learned better since then;)

At 70 i am now a better driver more patient and considerate than i was in my 40s, i no longer care if the pratt next to me wants to get in front from the lights,I don't need to shave two minutes of my arrival time by taking stupid risks.
As for retests at a certain age not sure about that but retraining every so many years for all drivers and an assessment possibly leading to a retest then i think yes.
Against retests as an automatic because retraining could be done by driving schools.
I most likely will give up driving in the next two years but that will be decided by if i want to commit so much of my income to something i hardly use 4,000 miles in two years.
 
Report on the news this morning, he did take an eye test and passed but is being questioned about not wearing a seatbelt
 
StewartR said:
I was going to dig out some stats, but @j crossley beat me to it in post #50.
Click to expand...


as an aside to the evidence thing, having worked in insurance/finanace for far too long i can assure you this has been researched to the n'th degree by insurers. There is something called a Mortality Chart produced from said investigations, one for men and women, which essentially charts your chances of death for every age and they use this to base premiums on. Age going up, time going right. As you'd expect its generally a smoothish line going up from bottom left to top right. However there are 2 spikes, one around 17/18 and one around 50ish. Which coincides with two things, firstly passing your diving test, getting on a car/bike and wrapping yourself round a lampost pretty quickly and secondly around the death of your parents, your left some money and go and blow it on a superbike/car and promptly do the same.

Your mortality has been pretty well investigated.
 
Dave70D said:
Nice of the PM to send her best wishes to the Duke and wish him well, and not a word for the couple or baby in the other car :(
Click to expand...

Why should she. If anyone I knew had an accident I would be sending my best wishes to them and not the other person.
 
The no seatbelt questions related to a separate incident on Saturday, when he was seen driving on the estate without said seatbelt.
 
It's unclear if 'on the estate' means their own private road in which case he won't be required to - and chances of hitting other vehicles will be minimal.
 
viv1969 said:
when he was seen driving on the estate without said seatbelt.
Click to expand...
Even so, aren't roads known as the "Queens highway"?
In other words fork orf the Mrs owns them all and I can do what I damned well like :D
 
4wd said:
It's unclear if 'on the estate' means their own private road in which case he won't be required to - and chances of hitting other vehicles will be minimal.
Click to expand...
I'd assume this, I haven't really followed this story in detail, but I don't remember anything about him not wearing his seatbelt in the original incident, I'd say he'd be pretty beaten about it not.

I wonder if he has had the seatbelt warning gong coded out, or fastened the belt behind him to silence it...
 
Roads running through private estates (even crown) which are used as public highways are subject to the same legislation as "normal" public roads; just like retail parks, trading estates, sporting facilities etc.

If he'd been on one of the many roads on the estate not for public use, then the police wouldn't even have looked into it.
 
keef32 said:
And rightly he shouldn't be done for it, my mate has never been done for it and he's pulled out on 2 people over the years and neither was my Grandad (87 at the time) when he pulled across a junction and missed a car coming because of the sun in his eyes.

Just cause he's 97 doesn't mean he shouldn't be driving. Do people really think everyone who has an accident shouldn't be driving? Or is it just because of his age/people hate the royals?
Click to expand...
You pull out in front of an oncoming vehicle (assuming thats what happened) then the very least its driving without due care or attention. The fact that someone was injured possibly makes it dangerous driving. If you cant see down the road because of low sun, then you really shouldn't be pulling out of a junction until you can be certain nothing is coming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top