Should he still be driving at 97?

Me too!!

I think its time to leave this thread. ?

Taking account of future needs in an insurance settlement that arise from an accident doesn’t in any way shape or form make the accident acceptable, He joined the main road from a side road and he himself has mentioned the low sun - QED. I’m always hostile to RF apologists and to those that think that accidents just happen - they mostly are not accidents and all the money in the world doesn’t make it all right.Thsnk goodness he’s now off the road - selfish git.

FGS maryeliza, it's perfectly obvious what annepl meant! No acknowledgement that the other car driver might just be at fault too? No I thought not! Why do you always have to be SO hostile when people make comments that you disapprove of?

medical

Like not being able to benefit from an MRI should she need one in the future

I was merely saying that insurance settlements when done properly take account of future needs as much as possible based on meducal assessments.. I know this because my son was left in a coma after an RTA. I did not say it was ok to be injured because the insurance covers everything. Why would I??
It seemed quite clear to me.

Jabber of course it was perfectly fine for PP to drive out when he couldn’t see - silly me

So what did your comment on insurance actually mean then?

That's not what I said. or meant. If yoy want to misinterpret feel free.

Perhaps the driver of the oncoming car was careless, driving too fast, chatting and not quite paying attention, on the phone? who knows? This is well-known accident black spot hence the reduction in the speed limit, so perhaps P.P should have sat there until the sun went down or behind a cloud, but most people wouldn't, so to behave as if this accident is somehow peculiar to P.P, because of his age or wealth, or rank,is plain ridiculous.

So ann if this women had ended up paralysed by PPs driving it would have been ok because there would have been an insurance payout? Yeah right.

As I’ve posted before there are absolutely no valid figures about the relative driving safety of older drivers ( or of disabled drivers for that matter). No one of any age should be driving if not physically capable but our present legislation for disabilities/ medical conditions/ age that might impact driving ability rely on self reporting and do not make it mandatory for opticians/ doctors to report drivers who should not be on the road. Depending on the disability it’s possible to drive perfectly safely with a specially adapted car eg all hand controls. But in the real some people will not be able to drive and quite frankly that’s just tough. What we should care about is systems in place that help to mitigate this disadvantage like good public transport or community transport schemes or adequate benefits that mean people can afford taxis. As for this particular accident, he was joining a main road from a side road and should not have driven out if he was ‘dazzled’. Accidents don’t just happen - people usually lcause them through lack of attention, carelessness or .dangerous driving.

paddyanne the MP’s in your party took the allegiance oath , they are not socialists surely, yet you praise them

I'm not a royalist I don't believe in having kings queens lords and ladies etc...the class system in this country stinks in my opinion.
But I'm being objective and looking at this accident as if Philip was just an ordinary person (which he is - to me!) My brother had a really awful accident when blinded by the sun. My husband and I have both had accidents over years of driving. Most people I know have. Thats what insurance is for. The lady's insurance claim will take into account any tests she may need.
As I say I don't support how the RF live while many of us struggle with alk sorts of problems and little or no help. But I'm not going to be vindictive. Its just not nic.e

The reality is disabled and elderly drivers don’t have many accidents because they are careful drivers

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/90-year-old-driver-admits-13721295

Well, what's the purpose of it then, and why is it it part of the driving test?!!!!

David I’m afraid your post is full of twaddle. Firstly passing the eyesight test for driving ie reading a number plate at a certain distance does not mean your eyesight is good enough to drive with

Wealth if earned is one thing where in this case its the taxpayer who has contributed to it then its our business.After all Phillip arrived with nothing didn't he ? Only down to his scheming uncle that he married so"well" and hasn't had to do a hard days work since .Annie ,thought you were a socialist ...we dont believe in all these kings and queens and knights of old nonsense ...especially not when people are dying because of government policies while Lizzie gets massive rises every year .

merlot what has his position’ to do with the accident? Have accidents become ‘a class thing ‘ , he was in an accident , he no longer has a licence , what more do you want , a public hanging ?

Position, wealth, has nothing to do with this

When should anyone stop driving? The Duke of E had good enough eyesight and didn’t have any other conditions that disqualified him.
So should we all be in perfect health in every way?, ideally yes but what about disabled drivers they are all not perfect and unable to react as an able person would. One man I knew quite well had poor control in his legs, he walked with 2 crutches, one day he lost control and crashed on to the pavement injuring several including one woman very badly, should he have been allowed to drive at all.

The reality is disabled and elderly drivers don’t have many accidents because they are careful drivers.

We wouldn't be commenting on any of this if he didn't hold some sort of position. Wealth has nothing to do with it.

A wealthy celeb can have any number of drivers and flunkeys but we don't comment about it because they have no position so we neither know nor care what they do.

So long as nobody gets killed.

How can he help his position? What's that got to do with anything?!!

Why would others surrender their driving licenses because the of what the Duke did or didn't do?!!! Why should he be any different to anyone else in what he does or doesn't want to do?!! None of the RF HAVE to drive, so should they all HAVE to given up their licenses simply because they're are wealthy? Incidentally they're not the only wealthy family in this country, (inherited) but they always seem to get the stick for it!

Change the record,*annie*. It's his position not his wealth that's inviting comment.

Back to his wealth as usual