Meh, they're not in the habit of prosecuting elderly people for driving violations, they prefer to take away licences, which they did.
Also the road is a known accident hot spot, the council was discussing reducing the speed limit on that stretch on the very day it happened.
And who would? Pressing charges like that would just make your life hell afterwards.
Not necessarily, he's had his license taken away. They're just saying that criminal prosecution isn't really going to help anyone in this case, it happens all the time when you're dealing with a motor accident involving a very old person, at least ones where no one is seriously injured or killed.
Yeah. He probably proactively waived any court proceedings by surrendering his licence voluntarily, whereas if he'd have fought it he'd likely have gone to court and had the same result.
You'd be, as they say, royally fucked.
Nah just give him the death penalty
sorry boys. as much as i want to see the elderly incarcerated, they can't be prosecuted for the simple reason that they are old fuddy-duddies
A lot of anger in this thread, but do we know for sure why he crashed yet?
Honestly this seems like a quite reasonable response that I'd hope anyone involved in a minor car crash would receive. Loss of licence, I assume all the medical bills (if there are any, would the NHS cover the broken wrist?) and damage done to the cars are covered by insurance, no need to slap fines or criminal charges on top of that.
Of course the NHS cover broken wrists! Private medical stuff is usually elective procedures, everything else people tend to get on the NHS.
Of course not, he's not only near death's door but he's royalty as well.
It's kind of sickening that he was fucking 97 and still thinking he was ok to drive. He has put people in danger from his own recklessness.
That is not cool
By this logic it's downright "sickening" that young men (sooo, Facepunch, basically) decide to drive as well:
https://www.acsh.org/sites/default/files/WISQARS_distByAge_bar_20180810-174046%20%281%29.jpg
okay there are some caveats
While I obviously think we should take away licenses of unsafe elderly drivers, if you keep checking up on them (a test every other year and bi-annual check up at the doc or something), I don't see any reason to take away autonomy from the elderly.
I agree that at a certain age people should be required to take their test again, but you'll never see that become a reality because A) it would put a massive strain on driving instructors and B)lets be honest most will probably fail.
tbh most people I know that have been driving longer than a year would probably fail the test if they had to take it again with no lessons. People get into bad driving habits so easily
I thought he voluntarily gave up his license, not that it was taken?
had he not voluntarily surrendered it would have been revoked most likely
better to surrender it and save everyone the face of having prince phillips drivers license being siezed
As much as people are saying that he's not facing prosecution because of his age and voluntarily giving up his licence, you know a major part of this decision was because he's a royal elite.
m8, this man is married to a woman who can literally have nothing ur nuts cut off and nobody can do a thing about it.
One is due to lack of experience, the other is due to being so old that you cant function enough to drive.
Even your graph shows that 80+ year old people are even higher risk.
Elderly people need to be medically safe to drive, from a doctor's perspective. I understand a lot of elderly people are fine driving, but it's going to be hard to convince me otherwise for someone almost 100 years old.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
