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

Jalima1108 I read a list of them this afternoon, about 7 or 8, but I can't find it now and haven't got time to trawl the net, but here is info about one of his accidents.

"The duke was involved in another crash in East Anglia in January 1996. Businessman Patrick Daynes said he ended up in neck brace and with whiplash when his Mercedes was involved in a collision with the duke's Range Rover in Brandon, Suffolk."

Nonnie Maryeare you suggesting he did it deliberately? Surely not. I don't think anyone else has gone that far. If you say it wasn't an accident you are making a very serious accusation and I think you should be careful saying that on a public forum

Whatever made you suggest this, Nonnie? I can't see any post that could be interpreted this way. Have I missed something?

Has he had more accidents, then, Sparklefizz? I didn't realise.
I'm surprised the Obamas were allowed to be driven by him, then.

Maryeare you suggesting he did it deliberately? Surely not. I don't think anyone else has gone that far. If you say it wasn't an accident you are making a very serious accusation and I think you should be careful saying that on a public forum.

You say 'apparently' the car was from Balmoral so we still don't know. My questions were an attempt to dispel all the assumptions, I clearly failed. I don't know, I'm not defending him, I just don't think it is helpful to make so many nasty comments. I know social media is a nasty place but hoped some of us older people were above such things.

Jalima1108 After all these years of driving he has had an accident and thank goodness no-one was seriously injured.

He has had a lot of accidents, although none as bad as this, and there is a list in one of the newspapers online.

Nonnie the Palace don’t do PR? Really? As for the replacement car, it apparently arrived in a trailer from Balmoral and is one he drives there - but of course all this could just be a lie. And if you turn on to a main road when you couldn’t see because of the sun( if that’s what happened) then that is not an accident, it is at the vey least careless driving.

It is well known that the Royal Family don't do PR, they give out basic factual information only. Think of when a baby is born.

Do we know the car was from Balmoral? Do we know what other uses the Freelander has? Who else is inconvenienced by it not being available? How does it hurt anyone else for them to have a replacement car?

Do we know what has been said to the owner of the Kia? Do we know how they are being treated?

I am uncomfortable about all the assumptions here. If I had been in an accident of my own making I wouldn't like to think that you were all saying such things about me. I suspect you would all be saying things like 'accidents happen' & 'we all have momentary slips' GN is very supportive of its own, why different in this case?

Well apparently he’s been photographed out driving on a public road without a seat belt in his brand new car - what a hero. Well I’d use another 4 letter word for him if I were posting on MN if this story is true

And as for older people in rural areas needing cars because of poor or no public transport - what about people of all ages in those communities who can’t even afford a car? Better public transport seems a better policy than allowing 97 year olds to drive regardless

Oh come on Jal really? Only one car available so a replacement had to come? Yeah right.

I agree, the coverage has been completely OTT.

And what we should be doing is collecting meaningful statistics relating age, miles driven, severity and fault in all accidents. All relevant health care professionals should have a mandatory legal duty to report any patient whose driving is potentially adversely affected by a health condition ( regardless of age of course) to the DVLA. This is note case at the moment - it is only the drivers legal responsibility to report themselves.

Well, the replacement car could be because it is used by others or that he will now have to be driven by others.

Or stick to the roads on Sandringham.

There are many people not fit to be on the roads and it is not necessarily because of their age.

The immediate delivery of a replacement car is not irrelevant- it’s a fuck you and he’s going to carry on driving and a complete PR disaster. They could simply have delayed it at least whilst matters were further investgated. No one is saying that all drivers over a certain age should be banned but the current system beggars belief. And PP does not need to drive ever ever ever. The BBC coverage has been a disgrace and the A of Y should be praying to his God for forgiveness for his crass subservient hocus pocus tweeted prayer.

I think the fact that a replacement vehicle was delivered after the accident is irrelevant. When Mr.GG had an accident the insurance company delivered a car to our home the same day.

I am uncomfortable with people assuming all elderly drivers should be banned after a certain age. In rural communities with irregular or in some cases no public transport it is the only way they can get out and about, whether it be doctors/hospital appointments, shopping or visiting family and friends.

An assessment after 75 and every 5 years thereafter may be a solution?

I must admit I'm normally pretty tolerant of the RF but thought what the heck when I saw the picture of the replacement car -presumably for the D of E ,who I can well imagine is extremely pig headed.And apparently known for driving too fast in his younger years.He has any number of staff and other vehicles to ferry him around.
I intend to give up driving before I become unfit to do so,and 97 is not old.It's very old.Maybe it's me but I can't think of one person I've known at that age - and that's a few of our family -who were still fit to be on the road,even though they thought they were.

prayer not pray

DoraMarr I think much of what you say is true - but that is because of the way it has been reported in the press, on the tv (oh, not again) - extremely ott and the reporting was one-sided as was the rather daft pray from the Arch Bishop.
However, that's not the fault of the RF.

I agree Dora in fact why did it need to be delivered so soon?

we won't know until the police have finished their enquiries who is to blame for the accident.

We do know who is to blame for the accident. If you pull out in front of an approaching vehicle you are to blame. It's the same as if you hit a car from behind even though it may have braked suddenly. You are to blame.

I think it was cavalier-and bad PR- to have a replacement car delivered shortly after the accident.

DoraMarr. it is possible Sentanu posted his prayer on hearing the duke had been in a car accident and the second prayer posted when he learned others were involved, we don’t know.

Why if one has two cars is it cavalier to use the second car ?

Well, we won't know until the police have finished their enquiries who is to blame for the accident. However, the fractured wrist suffered by one of the women in the Kia is, as maryeliza54 has noted, not a minor injury, and be extremely painful. Also, it can mean loss of earnings if the suffer cannot work, and will certainly cause personal inconvenience. I think, reading the posts, what rankles is that there seems to be more focus on the Duke than on the people in the other car- including the nine month old baby boy. The unctuous message from Archbishop Sentanu, followed only later by a prayer for the other injured, plus the image of a replacement Range Rover delivered to Sandringham shortly after the accident, seems to suggest a rather cavalier attitude by the Royal Family and the Established Church to the whole incident. Of course, we don't know what messages etc, if any, have passed between the Duke and the occupants of the other car, but the overriding impression is of an elite oblivious to, or perhaps careless of, the lives of their subjects.

Well I am sorry about the tone, Eazybee how would you like us to register shock, disapproval, regret for the consequences for the other car’s occupants and a degree of disgust at a situation which need not have happened?
or

So far the lack of remorse, any sort of recompense and a commitment to a more sensible course of action in future are conspicuous by their absence
We don't know, though, do we, what communications etc have been going on behind the scenes between the injured parties and the RF?
For all we know there may be much going on that we will never hear about and if the RF put out a statement to that effect then they would be accused of 'virtue signalling' or whatever the term is.