Prince Philip Crash
Discussion
DrBrule said:
Prince Philip's road accident from a couple of years ago was mentioned in the office this morning.
Out of interest, what would have happened if a royal caused a death in a road accident?
Having been present.in.the passenger.seat of a car that left the road and killed a pedestrian, and the only eye witness to the crash, I'd say, that the bar for anything a other than driving without due care and attention is very high. My mate was found not guilty of that even though he lost control. Out of interest, what would have happened if a royal caused a death in a road accident?
Causing death by dangerous driving would require some serious intentional stupidity, where as a momentary lapse by a dodery OAP (who would rightly be mortified at his part in someone's death) would be treated with sympathy by the powers that be.
Add in the royal family connection and the outcome would be similar to if no one was even injured.
He'd hang up his driving gloves and a statement by his press secretary made.
If he'd been pissed as a fart, off his head on drugs and driving at 130 in a 20, I think it's possible that the whole thing would be hushed up and witnesesses dealt with, but hey that just my cynical view of the "Establishment"
Pit Pony said:
Having been present.in.the passenger.seat of a car that left the road and killed a pedestrian
This story sounds far more interesting than speculating about the unknowables in the OP.So if you're up for giving some more info..
What happened? Was your mate being a tit? Did he really get off with no consequences at all?
DrBrule said:
Prince Philip's road accident from a couple of years ago was mentioned in the office this morning.
Out of interest, what would have happened if a royal caused a death in a road accident?
King or Queen, nothing as said above. The Crown can’t prosecute the Crown.Out of interest, what would have happened if a royal caused a death in a road accident?
Other royals - presumably the same as the rest of us, though in practice I don’t know how the CPS would have any hope of prosecuting sufficiently high up royals.
Bennet said:
Pit Pony said:
Having been present.in.the passenger.seat of a car that left the road and killed a pedestrian
This story sounds far more interesting than speculating about the unknowables in the OP.So if you're up for giving some more info..
What happened? Was your mate being a tit? Did he really get off with no consequences at all?
Dark, drizzling, and coming off the M42 North East bound to head south east to Coventry on the A45. Speed limit in the motorway roundabout was 60 at the time, and we were doing about 40. (I went back and rode my motorbike around it about 6 times at different speeds and I'm fairly certain that was right)
As we got onto the slip road the back end of the marina started sliding.
My mate gave it opposite lock, and struggled to get in control. Suddenly we were heading straight onto the pavement, where a bloke was walking up to the bus stop further up. He was dropped off at the motorway roundabout every night by a work mate. We hit him. He hit the front screen, and bounced into the ditch. The back end of the car hit a lamppost and me ended up upside down in the ditch. The bloke was about 15 foot away.
We managed to get out through the front screen, and I tried to keep him alive whilst my mate flogged a car down to get an ambulance.
Eventually we were taken to East Birmingham a&e where I had cuts and bruises attended to. The pice came and breathalised us both, and took statements.
Then we got the bus to the city centre and a train back to Coventry.
The bloke died a few day later.
At the coroner's court dick Whittington decided it was a freak accident.
Then he was charged with the offence of driving without due care.and it went to Solihull magistrates court.
His dad's mate was a barrister in London and I was the prosecution witness.
I told the truth. The prosecution solicitor tried to suggest I was lying.
The barristor had a pile of legal text books and spent 30.minutes quoting case law.
Basically, if there was a reaonable excuse, and your driving was no different to the average person, then case law says you are not guilty.
The excuse? Camber, cheap but legal tyres, drizzle and a marina. Which the police witness said, had a reputation of being dangerous in the rain.
Given that we were well in the speed limit and my mate had tried to control the slide, if think it was a fair verdict to find him not guilty.
It was tragic for the family. And my mate suffered from flash backs.
Bennet said:
Tragic situation. Thanks for sharing.
Without intending any comment on that specific situation, it seems wrong to me that "the average person" is taken as the par for driving standards.
It depends. Would seem a bit unfair if they decided that everyone's reactions had to be the equivalent of Lewis Hamilton's in the wet.Without intending any comment on that specific situation, it seems wrong to me that "the average person" is taken as the par for driving standards.
You have to set the bar of driving standards somewhere, and UK law decided on the fairly ephemeral "average person" as that standard. It allows flexibility for even the most unlikely circumstances, and also allows leeway to suit a variety of conditions and circumstances.
Bennet said:
Without intending any comment on that specific situation, it seems wrong to me that "the average person" is taken as the par for driving standards.
The standard against which you are judged for dangerous and careless driving offences is that "expected of a competent and careful driver" not an "average person".Cat
Durzel said:
DrBrule said:
Prince Philip's road accident from a couple of years ago was mentioned in the office this morning.
Out of interest, what would have happened if a royal caused a death in a road accident?
King or Queen, nothing as said above. The Crown can’t prosecute the Crown.Out of interest, what would have happened if a royal caused a death in a road accident?
Other royals - presumably the same as the rest of us, though in practice I don’t know how the CPS would have any hope of prosecuting sufficiently high up royals.
Although I understand they have a 'insurance' fund, drive around with lights on to be as obvious as possible and (I assume) an almighty b
king, if not court martial would result. OK, let me have it, what have I got wrong!
Dashnine said:
Same reason as I believe that Army (or any UK Military) drivers can't be prosecuted in civilian courts for accidents, nor require insurance as they operate on behalf of the Monarch (effectively - the Queen can't sue herself).
Although I understand they have a 'insurance' fund, drive around with lights on to be as obvious as possible and (I assume) an almighty bking, if not court martial would result.
OK, let me have it, what have I got wrong!
Lots of organisations "self insure"Although I understand they have a 'insurance' fund, drive around with lights on to be as obvious as possible and (I assume) an almighty b
king, if not court martial would result. OK, let me have it, what have I got wrong!
vaud said:
Dashnine said:
Same reason as I believe that Army (or any UK Military) drivers can't be prosecuted in civilian courts for accidents, nor require insurance as they operate on behalf of the Monarch (effectively - the Queen can't sue herself).
Although I understand they have a 'insurance' fund, drive around with lights on to be as obvious as possible and (I assume) an almighty bking, if not court martial would result.
OK, let me have it, what have I got wrong!
Lots of organisations "self insure"Although I understand they have a 'insurance' fund, drive around with lights on to be as obvious as possible and (I assume) an almighty b
king, if not court martial would result. OK, let me have it, what have I got wrong!
Dashnine said:
Same reason as I believe that Army (or any UK Military) drivers can't be prosecuted in civilian courts for accidents, nor require insurance...
It might be the case that a military driver on active duty (and driving an MOD vehicle) could be court martialled instead of being prosecuted in the civilian courts but even if that's the case, I would still expect any incident involving injury/death of a civilian to end up in the civvie court, even if only because the MOD hand the case over to the CPS. The MOD self-insures its vehicles (including, I think vehicles that it hires).
vaud said:
Lots of organisations "self insure"
Not anymore they don't. Section 143 of the RTA was amended in 2019 to remove the option for a security to be lodged with the Supreme Court as an alternative to having insurance.Those that were making use of the facility at the time of the change were allowed to continue doing so but only for a limited transition period of 2 years. By November this year there will be no one left "self insuring".
Cat
Edited by Cat on Wednesday 21st April 17:17
Dashnine said:
Durzel said:
DrBrule said:
Prince Philip's road accident from a couple of years ago was mentioned in the office this morning.
Out of interest, what would have happened if a royal caused a death in a road accident?
King or Queen, nothing as said above. The Crown can’t prosecute the Crown.Out of interest, what would have happened if a royal caused a death in a road accident?
Other royals - presumably the same as the rest of us, though in practice I don’t know how the CPS would have any hope of prosecuting sufficiently high up royals.
Although I understand they have a 'insurance' fund, drive around with lights on to be as obvious as possible and (I assume) an almighty b
king, if not court martial would result. OK, let me have it, what have I got wrong!
Cat said:
vaud said:
Lots of organisations "self insure"
Not anymore they don't. Section 143 of the RTA was amended in 2019 to remove the option for a security to be lodged with the Supreme Court as an alternative to having insurance.Those that were making use of the facility at the time of the change were allowed to continue doing so but only for a limited transition period of 2 years. By November this year there will be no one left "self insuring".
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/number_of_d...
I believe another way a large organisation can "self-insure" is to use a captive insurer, ie an insurance company which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the large organisation, and insures only the parent organisation's vehicles. The captive insurer still has to meet the same regulatory and solvency requirements as any other insurance company, which I imagine in practice means having a reinsurance contract with a larger insurer to cover the risk of a very large claim. Not sure how many actually do this.
Various branches of local and national government are exempt from the requirement for insurance, not because you can't sue the government, but because their debts are ultimately backed by the treasury, which is assumed to be capable of paying any claim made against it without needing an insurance company to bail it out. (And if the treasury turns out not to be capable of meeting its debts we'll have bigger problems than someone's cracked bumper to worry about!)
Edited by Aretnap on Saturday 24th April 13:04
) Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff