AIBU to think that driving at 97 is a tad unreasonable?

I had a potentially very nasty accident 9 years ago on the M25. A Spanish lorry hit me as he changed lanes without seeing me. I was knocked across two lanes and amazingly no other car was there. I avoided the crash barrier and safely made it over to the hard shoulder. Luckily the lorry driver stopped as did a wonderful young man who immediately said he would be my witness, that I was completely blameless and that he spoke fluent Spanish so would translate if necessary. My car was drivable and I drive home afterwards - a few miles. I just felt really elated at my lucky escape but now I realise I was in shock. The incident has changed my attitude towards driving on motorways permanently - dh says I visibly flinch every time a lorry is in a lane next to us. I wasn’t physically injured but I wish now I’d taken advice on having the psychological issues further examined. My guess is it’s worse if you are completely innocent as it takes away any feeling of control you previously had.

Anniebach posted this link on the other thread about this.

www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1074865/Prince-philip-crash-victim-prince-philip-driving-royal-news-duke-of-edinburgh

Like you, Luckylegs9 I am disappointed in the pair of them, and I think he is a disgrace to have taken delivery of a replacement car and be seen driving out on public roads, and minus a seatbelt. I do wonder if he's got the beginnings of dementia??

It is an insult to the people in the other car, who barely get a thought for the Dukes selfish action inflicted on them. They must have suffered trauma, imagine that happening with your 9 month old baby in the car. He came out of a side road. His fault. As for no seat belts are the Queen and Duke above the law if their "subjects"? I am disappointed in the pair of them how this has been handled, no remorse just the arrogance they can do as they please, it shows how they view us,

I think there will be a court hearing as two cars were involved in the accident, there is a possibility of driving without due care and attention, and police were in attendance at the scene.
Apparently the Duke of Edinburgh has been seen twice since the collision driving without a seat belt.
He has forfeited any sympathy I felt for him previously.

Has he had his cataracts done? The presence of cataracts can mean you are more affected by bright sunshine and driving from sun into shade. That wouldn’t mean you would fail the eyesight test though. And btw the development of cataracts is age related

I think the most he could be charged with is driving without due care and attention, but being so old (and so famous)
Hardly likely to be charged at all.
The police may suggest he just drives on his own estate roads though.

maryliza www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46916429 I doubt there is a even one driver who has not at sometime driven into dazzling sun, because they had no alternative, a road goes round a corner or some such. Most people have some way of dealing with it, reducing speed drastically, pulling their vizor or a pair of sunglasses down, etc.

Driving into the sun is unrelated to age.

^ I had a friend who I would never accept lifts from when she was in her 30s, because her driving was so dreadful.^
Me too M0nica; she would not drive on a motorway (thank goodness) and was a very slow driver; where it would have been safe to drive at 45 - 50 mph she would stick to 30mph and end up with a queue of frustrated drivers behind her.
As DH says, that is what can cause accidents as other drivers try to overtake where it may not always be safe.

Also, that’s not even the issue. It’s about the fact that as we age our various faculties decline albeit differentially ( which is why some individual checks are needed). There is also a huge difference in general between someone of say 73 and someone of 97. I wonder how many people on here would allow a 97 year old to take a beloved dgc out for a drive?

The RAC figures do not prove that Monica

For the avoidance of all doubt I’ll say it again- if the sun is dazzling you and you can’t see but drive out anyway, what then happens is not an accident. It is an entirely foreseeable possibility and to believe that you don’t have to be able to see where you are going whilst driving is an act of utter wickedness quite frankly - although I doubt he’ll even get charged with careless driving.

People tell lies on forms at all ages and their capacity to drive can be limited at any age. I had a friend who I would never accept lifts from when she was in her 30s, because her driving was so dreadful.

But yes I agree that older people should have brief medicals and have to produce the results of a recent eye test and of glasses purchased to that prescription every 2 years, but as the RAC have stated and produced figures to show that even very elderly drivers have a better safety record than 20 year olds.

Its not age related...... a simple ,easy to administer test would be sufficient . As it is its a form which can be filled in and people tell lies.

Oh For God's sake, how on earth can somebody at 97 have the same capacity as he/she did in their earlier years?

Its a nonsense.

Somebody locally ploughed into 2 women and killed them because he pressed the wrong pedal. A close family member insisted on driving, even though he had impaired hearing, eyesight, cognitive abilities and couldn't walk!!

Nonnie Look, I'm not going to have an argument with you over it ... it wasn't even MY post you are picking up on ....

There was someone on the radio yesterday who claimed that there was no such thing as an accident.

Why, then, do we have Accident and Emergency Departments in hospital?

Sparkle saying it is 'not an accident' is the same as doing it deliberately. Do you have another definition of 'not an accident'?

I would be very surprised if we didn't hear of lots of people who say they have seen him driving badly. They want their 15 minutes of fame; I have heard two different people claim they pulled him out of the car. I believe one of them.

Remember a couple of years back when a lottery ticket hadn't been claimed? 82 people in the named city said it was theirs.

www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2019/01/18/prince-philips-decades-previous-collisions-remembered-norfolk/

It's an interesting question though.
At what age do posters think drivers should be obliged to hand in their licences, bearing in mind some people could be fit and healthy with good eyesight, albeit with the help of glasses/contacts/laser eye treatment, and still of very sound mind?

Should anyone of any age who has been known to cause an accident by, for instance, tailgating, using a mobile phone, overtaking, being 'blinded by the sun' or other reasons, have their licences revoked?

www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

Just in case we thought he might have learned a lesson!

Jalima1108 Here's a near-miss:

"Prince Philip 'narrowly avoided another crash'
A motorist has claimed that the Duke of Edinburgh nearly hit her six miles from where he crashed.

Helen Staines said Philip 'nearly ran me off the road' in his car.

It was 'about time he stopped', she said.

She did not say when the alleged near-miss took place, The Sun reported. "

Nonnie She said it could be classed as "careless driving". That's not the same as saying he did it deliberately, is it? It's saying that he lost concentration or whatever.

Of course the RF do PR. The damage limitation guys will be working overtime this weekend planning some diversionary tactics.

Expect some cute pics of Prince Louis being carried in a back-pack on a walk in the woods with George and Charlotte any time soon.

Yes, Sparkle you have missed something. Marye said it was not an accident.

that was 23 years ago!