98 yr old duke crashes range rover
Discussion
ikarl said:
ElectricSoup said:
jamei303 said:
ElectricSoup said:
That's cool, so long as we're all allowed to choose our own punishment to avoid prosecution. Excellent idea.
No one mentioned choosing your own punishment, but I'm sure if you're ever pulled for doing 80 on a motorway and the cop gives you a few words of advice and sends you on your way, you will no doubt refuse and insist on a full court hearing.Not all accidents are a case of DWDCA.
I am certain of nothing, I am merely suspicious that the only reason a prosecution has not taken place is the identity of the driver involved.
ElectricSoup said:
Indeed, hence courts making the decision. Usually.
I am certain of nothing, I am merely suspicious that the only reason a prosecution has not taken place is the identity of the driver involved.
You're sounding awfully like the loons on Twitter - but without the excess frothing! I am certain of nothing, I am merely suspicious that the only reason a prosecution has not taken place is the identity of the driver involved.
It really is very common for such an event to be disposed of like this no matter who you're married to. The real surprise would have been a court appearance for a 97 year old driver - any 97 year old driver - who has surrendered their licence after a minor prang. (Yes, it was a minor prang.)
Cold said:
ElectricSoup said:
Indeed, hence courts making the decision. Usually.
I am certain of nothing, I am merely suspicious that the only reason a prosecution has not taken place is the identity of the driver involved.
You're sounding awfully like the loons on Twitter - but without the excess frothing! I am certain of nothing, I am merely suspicious that the only reason a prosecution has not taken place is the identity of the driver involved.
It really is very common for such an event to be disposed of like this no matter who you're married to. The real surprise would have been a court appearance for a 97 year old driver - any 97 year old driver - who has surrendered their licence after a minor prang. (Yes, it was a minor prang.)
I stand corrected.
Minor (relative to life-changing / death) injury RTC with an elderly driver whom has surrendered their licence.
Sounds like a normal outcome to me.
Due care offences are usually not dealt with in court. They’re either dealt with via a fixed penalty notice or driver improvement scheme. Surrendering the licence voids both of those as you’d be endorsing a surrendered licence / putting someone on a driving course who would no longer drive.
So if you summons him to court you’d essentially create a scenario where it would have been better for him to have kept his licence, which would be a perverse incentive.
As I say, sounds normal to me.
Sounds like a normal outcome to me.
Due care offences are usually not dealt with in court. They’re either dealt with via a fixed penalty notice or driver improvement scheme. Surrendering the licence voids both of those as you’d be endorsing a surrendered licence / putting someone on a driving course who would no longer drive.
So if you summons him to court you’d essentially create a scenario where it would have been better for him to have kept his licence, which would be a perverse incentive.
As I say, sounds normal to me.
Don’t have a problem with the CPS’s decision; little would be achieved by pursuing a prosecution and possibly securing a conviction.
I do have a problem with his arrogance in continuing to drive following the incident and without a seatbelt, as well as without apparent contrition.
I do have a problem with his arrogance in continuing to drive following the incident and without a seatbelt, as well as without apparent contrition.
Edited by Escort3500 on Thursday 14th February 19:42
Cold said:
You're sounding awfully like the loons on Twitter - but without the excess frothing!
It really is very common for such an event to be disposed of like this no matter who you're married to. The real surprise would have been a court appearance for a 97 year old driver - any 97 year old driver - who has surrendered their licence after a minor prang. (Yes, it was a minor prang.)
My MIL had similar 15 years ago, and she was hospitalised. Plod saw her and she said "I'll probably give up driving" and no further action was taken. We suspect the other driver involved was on their 'phone at the time, again not pursued". MIL (having given up for many years) is now back behind the wheel as FIL has given up driving!It really is very common for such an event to be disposed of like this no matter who you're married to. The real surprise would have been a court appearance for a 97 year old driver - any 97 year old driver - who has surrendered their licence after a minor prang. (Yes, it was a minor prang.)
La Liga said:
Minor (relative to life-changing / death) injury RTC with an elderly driver whom has surrendered their licence.
Sounds like a normal outcome to me.
Due care offences are usually not dealt with in court. They’re either dealt with via a fixed penalty notice or driver improvement scheme. Surrendering the licence voids both of those as you’d be endorsing a surrendered licence / putting someone on a driving course who would no longer drive.
So if you summons him to court you’d essentially create a scenario where it would have been better for him to have kept his licence, which would be a perverse incentive.
As I say, sounds normal to me.
Agreed, but please stop the new trend of using whom all the time. Sounds like a normal outcome to me.
Due care offences are usually not dealt with in court. They’re either dealt with via a fixed penalty notice or driver improvement scheme. Surrendering the licence voids both of those as you’d be endorsing a surrendered licence / putting someone on a driving course who would no longer drive.
So if you summons him to court you’d essentially create a scenario where it would have been better for him to have kept his licence, which would be a perverse incentive.
As I say, sounds normal to me.
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/who-vs-whom-its-not...
La Liga said:
My poor English is not new to me 
Thanks for the link, every day is a learning day!
I’m probably coming across as the ultimate Grammar Nazi, I’m not and make plenty of mistakes. It’s just that this and the use of myself when it should be me, or I really bugs me. Thanks for the link, every day is a learning day!
I need to get a life
REALIST123 said:
How long has 'not in the public interest' been a reason not to prosecute driving without due care?
I would have thought that might apply to many, many cases?
Maybe 'nothing to do with the public' would have been a more honest reason...........
The "public interest" consideration is part of every prosecution decision including murder.I would have thought that might apply to many, many cases?
Maybe 'nothing to do with the public' would have been a more honest reason...........
ElectricSoup said:
jamei303 said:
ElectricSoup said:
That's cool, so long as we're all allowed to choose our own punishment to avoid prosecution. Excellent idea.
No one mentioned choosing your own punishment, but I'm sure if you're ever pulled for doing 80 on a motorway and the cop gives you a few words of advice and sends you on your way, you will no doubt refuse and insist on a full court hearing.The prosecution decision considers all of the relevant facts; do we know for definite that the collision was not contributed to by the other vehicle exceeding the limit, for instance?
ElectricSoup said:
Not sure overturning someone else's car is a minor prang, but yeah, I guess you're right on the rest of it. Shame that the old fella in question didn't have the good sense to give up sooner really. I can't imagine there was anyone willing to tell him to stop though. Perils of absolute privilege.
I stand corrected.
I thought it was HIS car that got overturned, not hers?I stand corrected.
I think there's been enough evidence on this thread that whether or not an elderly person has privilege or not does not determine whether they are too stubborn to give up their licence.
Just for a moment, let's suppose he hadn't surrendered his licence and this did end up in court. What outcome would suit the baying masses?
Just as a reminder, he has never contested his liability for this incident. His first words once out of his Freelander were to ask after the occupants of the other car. He wrote to the injured occupants expressing his regret. There is no way that the car driver and passengers will suffer any long term financial loss.
A 97 year old is not going to go to prison for this, but nor would a 27 year old.
He already does community service as part of the day job.
A fine, even at the maximum allowable amount, wouldn't serve as any deterrent.
So we're back to focussing on his licence, perhaps chucking some points on it or at worst disqualifying him from driving for a set amount and include a retest.
So what would be the point of going to court?
Just as a reminder, he has never contested his liability for this incident. His first words once out of his Freelander were to ask after the occupants of the other car. He wrote to the injured occupants expressing his regret. There is no way that the car driver and passengers will suffer any long term financial loss.
A 97 year old is not going to go to prison for this, but nor would a 27 year old.
He already does community service as part of the day job.
A fine, even at the maximum allowable amount, wouldn't serve as any deterrent.
So we're back to focussing on his licence, perhaps chucking some points on it or at worst disqualifying him from driving for a set amount and include a retest.
So what would be the point of going to court?
macushla said:
La Liga said:
My poor English is not new to me
Thanks for the link, every day is a learning day!
I’m probably coming across as the ultimate Grammar Nazi, I’m not and make plenty of mistakes. It’s just that this and the use of myself when it should be me, or I really bugs me. Thanks for the link, every day is a learning day!
I need to get a life
Cold said:
Just for a moment, let's suppose he hadn't surrendered his licence and this did end up in court. What outcome would suit the baying masses?
Resignation and immediate suicide? Cold said:
So what would be the point of going to courit?
Just to hear what he’d say when the court asked ‘occupation’
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff