Was Prince Philip really 'dazzled'? New photos reveal low sun at crash site

oldjones said:

Do you have even a tiny bit of evidence that Phillip hadn't passed whatever is the UK's version of the age/ability tests that most jurisdictions require? And are you now replacing your earlier flat statements " that someone that old is incapable of driving a car SAFELY!", and "at 97, NOBODY should be driving!!!" with this entirely different proposal to test that ability?

Whoever might perhaps believe in letting "… someone drive "because why not?"", we haven't heard from them in this thread.

Click to expand...

I stand behind my statement that NOBODY AT 97 years of age should be driving!!! Did you not read that HE WAS IN AN ACCIDENT????? Guess that doesnt matter to you?

What part of that age do you think its ok? I explained myself, however I noticed members from this board that dont agree with someone NEVER give their reasons for what they think is right! All you guys do is try to rip apart someones ideas and pass them off as crazy!

Its your turn to tell me why you think someone that old should still be driving! How about you put your child in that persons car for a drive and tell me you arent the least bit nervous!

Fathammer said:

I stand behind my statement that NOBODY AT 97 years of age should be driving!!! Did you not read that HE WAS IN AN ACCIDENT????? Guess that doesnt matter to you?

What part of that age do you think its ok? I explained myself, however I noticed members from this board that dont agree with someone NEVER give their reasons for what they think is right! All you guys do is try to rip apart someones ideas and pass them off as crazy!

Its your turn to tell me why you think someone that old should still be driving! How about you put your child in that persons car for a drive and tell me you arent the least bit nervous!

Click to expand...

And I've missed yours. If you ever gave them. You've been all over the map saying no one that age should drive period. Then saying people should be tested, then that the tests are useless, and never stating when or why old people should be prohibited from driving.

You're the one saying, "Change the system!" Fine. Tell us how, and tell us why. But try to introduce some rational thought to back up the hysterical stuff. If we take you at your word so far, it was OK by you for Phil to drive before his last birthday, but not at 97.

Me, I'm not advocating anything new and different, nor am I defending the status quo. Just hoping for an adult discussion of a serious issue.

He was probably driving out to see an sp

Today he was caught on camera driving without a seat belt on. Is Phil going to get a ticket? I highly doubt it. Maybe he has a death wish.

It’s not ageism to point out that it’s fortunate Prince Phillip remembered his pants before he got hold of the keys to the Land Rover. If he wasn’t the Prince, he likely would have had his license removed long ago.

Btw, since when is being “dazzled by the sun” a valid excuse for an accident? Did he remember his pants but forgot his royal sunglasses? If you can’t see, you shouldn’t be on the road. Period.

essguy_ said:

It’s not ageism to point out that it’s fortunate Prince Phillip remembered his pants before he got hold of the keys to the Land Rover. If he wasn’t the Prince, he likely would have had his license removed long ago.

Btw, since when is being “dazzled by the sun” a valid excuse for an accident? Did he remember his pants but forgot his royal sunglasses? If you can’t see, you shouldn’t be on the road. Period.

Click to expand...

That is my issue on this. How is sun in the eye an actual defence to an accident?

The only driving test senior citizens in Britain have to pass regardless of their age is an eye test every 3 years, just ridiculous.

azeri99 said:

The only driving test senior citizens in Britain have to pass regardless of their age is an eye test every 3 years, just ridiculous.

Click to expand...

I agree, and I suspect the low-vision danger is likely already addressed by mandatory reporting when the NHS prescribes glasses, as we do here.

But then, I also think every driver should be road-tested regularly, if not at every renewal, certainly at least as often as we're required to get a new photo. Considering most of the bad drivers, making most of the errors we all see daily, are in the mid-range — neither novices nor nonagenarians — not re-testing everyone is ridiculous.

oldjones said:

I agree, and I suspect the low-vision danger is likely already addressed by mandatory reporting when the NHS prescribes glasses, as we do here.

But then, I also think every driver should be road-tested regularly, if not at every renewal, certainly at least as often as we're required to get a new photo. Considering most of the bad drivers, making most of the errors we all see daily, are in the mid-range — neither novices nor nonagenarians — not re-testing everyone is ridiculous.

Click to expand...

I agree people should be re-tested if they have proven to be a liability on the road whether it be due to accidents or multiple moving violations. I don't think people who have spotless driving records should be re-tested until a certain age whatever that may be. I think cost also comes into it. How costly would it be to have everyone with a drivers license re-tested every 5 years. The ministry would have to hire many more examiners to administer that many tests.

Charge a fee to cover the cost.

To see what popular polls are saying about having an age limit on older drivers, take the poll and see if your view on the situation is popular.
https://freebies.com/polls/poll-should-there-be-an-age-limit-for-driving.html

The comments are pretty interesting as well.

azeri99 said:

I agree people should be re-tested if they have proven to be a liability on the road whether it be due to accidents or multiple moving violations. I don't think people who have spotless driving records should be re-tested until a certain age whatever that may be. I think cost also comes into it. How costly would it be to have everyone with a drivers license re-tested every 5 years. The ministry would have to hire many more examiners to administer that many tests.

Click to expand...

Actually, I believe a Spanish holding company receives a profit from their subsidiary, which the Ontario government contracted to do the testing a good many years back. And of course those profits come from the fees the test-victims are charged, where they formerly went into the Treasury. In any case the operation is self-supporting through fees.

But those details have nothing to do with the point here: You and other posters have asserted that Phillip's crash 'proves' that a) old people are grossly dangerous on the roads and b) shouldn't be allowed to drive. But the assertions have been mostly without evidence to support a) or suggestions for the age-limit b) would require.

Kinda makes discussion pointless.

oldjones said:

Actually, I believe a Spanish holding company receives a profit from their subsidiary, which the Ontario government contracted to do the testing a good many years back. And of course those profits come from the fees the test-victims are charged, where they formerly went into the Treasury. In any case the operation is self-supporting through fees.

But those details have nothing to do with the point here: You and other posters have asserted that Phillip's crash 'proves' that a) old people are grossly dangerous on the roads and b) shouldn't be allowed to drive. But the assertions have been mostly without evidence to support a) or suggestions for the age-limit b) would require.

Kinda makes discussion pointless.

Click to expand...

If they can pass a test that actually tests their driving abilities, then they should be able to drive, passing just an eye test just seems ridiculous to me, I should have stated if a 97 year old can pass a driving test then they should still be able to drive, I shouldn't have ruled them out just based on age.

azeri99 said:

If they can pass a test that actually tests their driving abilities, then they should be able to drive, passing just an eye test just seems ridiculous to me, I should have stated if a 97 year old can pass a driving test then they should still be able to drive, I shouldn't have ruled them out just based on age.

Click to expand...

Agreed on both.

Fathammer said:

To see what popular polls are saying about having an age limit on older drivers, take the poll and see if your view on the situation is popular.
https://freebies.com/polls/poll-should-there-be-an-age-limit-for-driving.html

The comments are pretty interesting as well.

Click to expand...

I realize it's completely off topic to ask, but why on Earth would anyone care whether their personal opinion on a serious topic, such as driving laws, is "popular"?

And you might have warned those who could be tempted that the site expects you to log in personally, with tracking cookies enabled, if you want to see those comments or any actual poll data (assuming they make it available) such as actual numbers of participants or how they reflect any particular population anywhere in the world.

oldjones said:

I realize it's completely off topic to ask, but why on Earth would anyone care whether their personal opinion on a serious topic, such as driving laws, is "popular"?

And you might have warned those who could be tempted that the site expects you to log in personally, with tracking cookies enabled, if you want to see those comments or any actual poll data (assuming they make it available) such as actual numbers of participants or how they reflect any particular population anywhere in the world.

Click to expand...

On the first point: Apparently personal opinion matters when you someone says anti-vaxxers are wrong and vaxxers are right because they are the majority. So yea, popular opinion matters because ITS ALL OVER THE MEDIA THESE DAYS!!!!.....and,

Secondly: WTF are you talking about? I didnt have to log in. I didnt get a notice about tracking cookies aor anything else you're BSing about and my computer has all the security nanny's on! LOL. all I did was scroll down a little to see comments. Maybe you need to learn how to use a computer?

Fathammer said:

On the first point: Apparently personal opinion matters when you someone says anti-vaxxers are wrong and vaxxers are right because they are the majority. So yea, popular opinion matters because ITS ALL OVER THE MEDIA THESE DAYS!!!!.....and,

Secondly: WTF are you talking about? I didnt have to log in. I didnt get a notice about tracking cookies aor anything else you're BSing about and my computer has all the security nanny's on! LOL. all I did was scroll down a little to see comments. Maybe you need to learn how to use a computer?

Click to expand...

Vaxxers and anti-vaxxers are as irrelevant to this topic as the vagueness of 'what's popular" is to any useful discussion of the quite different term 'popular opinion'. That has both political and statistical meaning far more rigorous than voluntarily clicking on a single random website of dubious provenance and functionality; a TERB poll would be more meaningful; at least it would tell me about the thinking of fellow hobbyists concerned with TO.

You may imagine you have all the "nannies" you need on your 'puter, but but you know nothing of me or mine, and apparently little about your chosen site: I could indeed read the comments, but only by using a browser I keep just to access sites that insist I allow their advertising, permit them to track me, and to keep cookies for their purposes. The reading didn't live up to your billing. But since freebies.com requires a new vote each time one wants to view comments, I've now voted multiple times. Making their poll even less popular with me. Or a measure of anything.