Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Prince Phillip involved in road accident

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Prince Phillip involved in road accident

Old 20th Jan 2019, 08:49
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by anchorhold View Post
So Prince Philip has now been warned just forty eight hours after his accident for not wearing a seat belt on a public road. This is the bizarre way the police operate, one person can be prosecuted for an offence, yet the next person is not prosecuted. I would say not wearing a seat belt or using a mobile phone should always result in points. I have to say that if I was facing points in a similar situation in Norfolk, it would seem a good opportunity to challenge both the law and the Chief Constable.
Not wearing a seatbelt is a non endorsable offence and does not result in points, only a fine. As I understand it the police were made aware of this particular case via a photograph taken by a third party, under these circumstances they can not issue a fixed penalty or prosecute as the photographic evidence alone would be insufficient so all they can do is speak to the driver and "offer advice". This is the same regardless of who the person is, royal family or not.
PJD1 is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2019, 08:55
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: UkK
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by anchorhold View Post
So Prince Philip has now been warned just forty eight hours after his accident for not wearing a seat belt on a public road. This is the bizarre way the police operate, one person can be prosecuted for an offence, yet the next person is not prosecuted. I would say not wearing a seat belt or using a mobile phone should always result in points. I have to say that if I was facing points in a similar situation in Norfolk, it would seem a good opportunity to challenge both the law and the Chief Constable.
According to an article this morning, not wearing a seat belt is just a fine and no PP in England.

However I thinks he's pig ignorant for getting back behind the wheel after potentially causing a fatal collision. Just because he's royalty should not make him above the law.
BirdmanBerry is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2019, 08:59
  #83 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 75
Posts: 16,486
Originally Posted by anchorhold View Post
So Prince Philip has now been warned just forty eight hours after his accident for not wearing a seat belt on a public road. This is the bizarre way the police operate, one person can be prosecuted for an offence, yet the next person is not prosecuted. I would say not wearing a seat belt or using a mobile phone should always result in points. I have to say that if I was facing points in a similar situation in Norfolk, it would seem a good opportunity to challenge both the law and the Chief Constable.
Not wearing a seat belt only attracts a fine, no points.

After such an accident it may be uncomfortable wearing a seat belt. Under such circumstances it might have been better not to drive.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2019, 09:07
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by BirdmanBerry View Post
According to an article this morning, not wearing a seat belt is just a fine and no PP in England.

However I thinks he's pig ignorant for getting back behind the wheel after potentially causing a fatal collision. Just because he's royalty should not make him above the law.
Every time anyone drives a car they could "potentially cause a fatal accident". This is a ridiculous thing to say and there is no law that prevents anyone, royalty or otherwise, from driving just because they had an accident the previous day.
PJD1 is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2019, 09:07
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 55
Posts: 567
Prince Philip may think he's above the law when driving, but he's not above the laws of physics. Princess Diana found that one out the hard way.

Last edited by Super VC-10; 20th Jan 2019 at 09:09. Reason: graviity--> physics
Super VC-10 is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2019, 09:41
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 53
Posts: 0
Strange that our local traffic police say different. I'll have to tell them tesco says they are wrong. Another of your many talents.
The traffic cops are not that hard to confuse, the engineers they use only slightly harder. I used to do the analysis for my boss for his professional witness stuff. He used to run rings round them.

What is true to say is its not cost effective these days to do it and its better when the person is only going to get a smack on the wrists and some points to not waste the cash.

If the person is doing 100 in a 50 then the results are pretty straight forward as its a Vsqr energy function . But when it comes to proving that some one was doing 40 in a 30 the measurement errors become more than the difference your trying to prove and that goes for normal brakes never mind ABS.

If its none fatal its a waste of cash to go through the process. Better to just tell everyone that they can't do it, below 40mph its debatable if your going to get a result which you can defend.

Last one I did was a lorry door swinging open while it was driving down a road which was a big dip between two rises at the bottom the chassis flexed enough due to it having a forklift fitted to the back for the door to come out of its rails and the deceleration as it started up the hill swung it outwards. This led to a pedestrian getting decapitated. I did the work to prove that the chassis could flex enough for the door to come out due to having a lump mass off the back while doing legal speeds. Which got the driver off the hook legally but not mentally. Then it became a case between the coachworks company that built the thing and Volvo the maker of the lorry. Think the coachworks company got done in the end, we were out of it after the driver was off the hook.

Another one was a Porsche went up the back of a fully loaded C+E with drill pipe on. The lorry driver was getting done for leaving the scene of an accident. The speed of the Porsche we calculated at 110mph when braking started and 85 mph when he hit the back end of the trailer which was moving at 50. Net effect of the hit on the lorry was the same as missing a gear and clipping a cog or hitting a pot hole. So within possibility that the driver never noticed. 2 dead in the Porsche due to it lifting the trailer and going under it then the trailer getting dragged off. That case is the one I learned about the capability's of measuring braking of cars with ABS, the driver had bent the steering wheel while pressing on the brake which actually required a super human level of strength but the forensic pathologist said was not unusual.

Both cases it was a 10k plus bill for me and my supervisor and a couple of days experimental with accelerometers. About 5 hours work for him including 3 hours in the court and 30 hours for me making models up and experimental. If it wasn't for the fact that people had died they were very fun engineering to be involved with. Easy to forget and then you see a door with brains splattered all over it.

So it really doesn't surprise me that the traffic cops say they can't do it. If some one wants to fight it then 1k will easily purchase the services of a Uni Professor for an afternoon, who will utterly destroy the Traffic Police Forensic person if they haven't taken into account experimental error.

This case proving the difference between 60 and 70+ is relatively simple because the braking distances change so much between the two speeds. But as there was nobody killed it will just be left to deal with as a civil matter.
tescoapp is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2019, 10:10
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,052
Originally Posted by ricardian View Post

97 years’ old and no need of corrective eyeglasses to drive?

What incredible eyesight he must have !
Uplinker is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2019, 10:31
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by Uplinker View Post
97 years’ old and no need of corrective eyeglasses to drive?

What incredible eyesight he must have !
Above the age of 40 most people will begin to exhibit presbyopia which will make it more difficult to focus on things close up and will probably eventually result in them needing reading glasses. If someone has good distance vision then it is perfectly possible that this might remain the case into old age and they will not need glasses for driving.
PJD1 is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2019, 10:43
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 53
Posts: 0
My grandad at 80 didn't need distance glasses for driving. And I still get the odd comment about the day I was with him, with him driving and we must of had about 6 near misses in the space of 15 mins driving around town.

I just commented that he would be heart broken if he hurt anyone. On the way back he got me to drive and told me to keep the keys and never got behind the wheel again.

Major poo from the next generation up from me about it all.

Three weeks later he had sold his garage and I visited and took him to the pub for lunch up on the moors. He thanked me for prompting him. Said it was a lot less stressful now he didn't have to drive anywhere and had got rid of his garage, anyway what were grandsons for if not to take their granddad to the pub for lunch letting him look out the window and let him sleep on the way home.
tescoapp is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2019, 11:07
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Currently within the EU
Posts: 312
Originally Posted by Effluent Man View Post
There was a BBC series on a few months back about police investigating accidents and that showed measurements being taken. They did say it was possible to calculate speed, direction of travel and other factors from road markings. That was what my post was based on.
Yes I thought that was the case too. But a very experienced traffic sergeant told me that he treated the calculations with a great deal of caution.
Sallyann1234 is online now  
Old 20th Jan 2019, 11:24
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 53
Posts: 0
Traffic Sgt is not an Engineer. He can treat them how ever he likes. Although I must admit from the quality of Engineer that the Police are usually willing to pay for, his experience has more than likely been that the results are not worth the paper they are written on.

Police went through a period of upgrading there own by sending them to Breeze block Uni's to do degrees, Then they found out that they got ripped to pieces for calling themselves Engineers with out doing an accredited degree by one of the engineering councils. They then started sending them on accredited degree courses. I presume these days the fee's are to much and they have given up.

They used to have a unit in the Manchester area which knew their poo and also one in the London area. But both of them were forensic Engineering units, apart from accidents they did industrial accidents as well. The internal traffic police units that attempted it were pretty much universally destroyed in court when it was contested. Those two units mentioned above were not to be messed with according to my boss. But according to him they were pretty fair and did the job properly so if did get to court then it was more than likely the case was sound.
tescoapp is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2019, 11:36
  #92 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 11,976
A good few years ago I attended a formal dinner and sat next to a policeman who told me that he was the qualified traffic investigator for the local county police force. The subject of a recent fatal accident involving a motorcycle came up (I was aware of who it involved - a local rider was killed) and the conversation got quite technical. I asked the policeman how he accounted for the deceleration of a motorcycle which had fallen over and was skidding on plastic and metal, rather than being braked on it's wheels, due to the differences in friction coefficients. It seemed obvious to me that the deceleration rate would be far less than the normal tyre rubber on road. The answer I got was that this wasn't taken into account. I commented that this would surely make it appear that the motorcycle had been traveling faster than it actually had been. He looked a bit blank but didn't answer.
ShyTorque is online now  
Old 20th Jan 2019, 11:36
  #93 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 75
Posts: 16,486
We had a presentation by a retired police accident investigator. The fatal accident was 'clearly' caused by a speeding truck. Several witnesses attested to this.

The truck ended up on the right hand side of a left hand bend. The fatality car was on its side in front of the truck. The following car, a Ford was behind the subject car.

I can't remember the precise detail except that the subject car had a clear impression of the Ford badge on its tail gate in the 'wrong' position.

There was also evidence that the truck could not have been speeding.

The obvious is not always the answer.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2019, 12:01
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 53
Posts: 0
It seemed obvious to me that the deceleration rate would be far less than the normal tyre rubber on road. The answer I got was that this wasn't taken into account. I commented that this would surely make it appear that the motorcycle had been traveling faster than it actually had been. He looked a bit blank but didn't answer.
That's the problem with them, if the situation fits exactly to one of there previous worked problems they can just slot the variables into the various equations and out pops the answers. They have no feel for the engineering of what's going on to spot the none obvious.

Car going up the bum of a stationary object they can manage by just running a 1d solution to and it will work 99% of the time. Things going 2d and they still get it right most of the time. 3d ie things get airborne then they are going for semi educated guesses to try and simplify things down to 2d or 1d which they can work with. The example Shy has of the friction coefficient varying part way through the deceleration process requires calculus to sort out. nae chance comes to mind of plod being able to work it out unless its one of the graduate entry with a clue but they tend to get promoted through the stage of investigating that sort of stuff relatively quickly or don't get near it because its not on the career path to bigger things.
tescoapp is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2019, 12:25
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London
Posts: 418
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator View Post
Not wearing a seat belt only attracts a fine, no points.

After such an accident it may be uncomfortable wearing a seat belt. Under such circumstances it might would have been better not to drive.
Corrected that for you.
stagger is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2019, 13:36
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Balikpapan, INDONESIA
Age: 66
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by PJD1 View Post
Above the age of 40 most people will begin to exhibit presbyopia which will make it more difficult to focus on things close up and will probably eventually result in them needing reading glasses. If someone has good distance vision then it is perfectly possible that this might remain the case into old age and they will not need glasses for driving.
From experience I can say that you are quite right about retaining adequate long range vision.
But without my multi-focals I had no chance of reading the instruments; eg speedo.

Thanks to recent addition of a new intra-ocular lens in my left eye, I can once again see my instruments without the aid of spectacles.
WingNut60 is online now  
Old 20th Jan 2019, 13:40
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,594
Preicatbly one of the people in the other vehicle has popped up in a Sunday tabloid (The Mirror) whining about how Prince Philip hasn't contacted them and apologised. Well, in my experience the one thing you should never do is apologise for a road traffic accident as in doing so you are admitting fault, and insurance companies don't like that!

Perhaps they can all expect honours in the Queen's Birthday list as some sort of bribe for not taking a private prosecution for dangerous / careless driving, or driving without due care and attention.

Not defending Prince Philip's driving in this at all, frankly I don't believe anyone over the are of 80 should be driving without regular health tests on their eyesight, reactions and a brief road test, perhaps every 2 years.
ATNotts is online now  
Old 20th Jan 2019, 14:00
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 53
Posts: 0
Apparently they got a card but it was "the Royal family wish to be remembered by you" or something like that.

I won't attempt to translate that, because I don't have my Army Etiquette and letter writing precise any more. It has a meaning, which is appropriate to this situation but the technicalities I have zero clue about.

I don't believe anyone over the are of 80 should be driving without regular health tests on their eyesight, reactions and a brief road test, perhaps every 2 years.
Fully agree, down to every year after 90.
tescoapp is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2019, 15:00
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 71
Posts: 639
The piece I read on the seat belt thing this morning said the police spoke to the Duke after someone photographed him "on the Sandringham estate". If correct, then surely there is no need for police involvement?
From what I have seen so far, I have been assuming he pulled out of a side road and onto the A road and, presumably, into the path of the oncoming car. It also seems that this particular stretch of road is prone to speed related accidents, hence the council's movement to reduce the speed limit along that stretch. If so, one has to wonder what sort of speed the Kia was making in order to cause a Land Rover to roll at least a full 180. And what on earth eyesight has to do with it puzzles me. I have been short sighted since, presumably, for ever. Being short sighted doesn't stop you from seeing anything but what it does do is to distort one's idea of distance. I hadn't realised this until taking part in school sports. I was never able to quite manage the high jump. Years later it was explained to me that this was because I was taking off too soon as a result of the duff distance perception.
KelvinD is online now  
Old 20th Jan 2019, 15:40
  #100 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Liverpool
Age: 43
Posts: 457
Apparently they got a card but it was "the Royal family wish to be remembered by you" or something like that.
Painfully embarrassing. They don't have a clue how to deal with this sort of issue. The younger royals need to step up and offer some firm advice on how to deal with this. If I were Harry, I'd stick Phil in the car, drive round there and show him how it should be done.
clareprop is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.