'getting t-boned' by pulling out of a junction without looking properly when aged 97
I think that fulfils all the criteria
(, Fri 18 Jan 2019, 11:57, Reply)
That's entirely conjecture.
But what is clear, is that to tip a Range Rover onto it's side requires a considerable amount of force, especially if it's an armoured one. The Kia would have had to have been travelling pretty fast to do that.
None of the details that would be required to establish fault have been made public as far as I am aware. If you're already attributing that fault to a specific party, either you're so much cleverer or more informed than the journalists on the scene, or you're simply demonstrating yet again just how biased and quick to judge you are.
(, Fri 18 Jan 2019, 13:06, Reply)
he was pulling out of the junction
there was a car coming
he didn't see it
he is 97
What's conjecture there?
(, Fri 18 Jan 2019, 13:12, Reply)
The conjecture is that it is his fault.
The conjecture is that he wasn't looking properly. You have no evidence for that. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, but you cannot say with any authority. You haven't spoken to either of the drivers. You haven't received eye witness statements. You haven't examined the damage to the vehicles, or any markings that might have been left on the road.
What you HAVE done, however, is assume that someone you hate bitterly did a bad thing... now we are all aware of just how much importance you place on your feelings when you're attempting objective judgements, but no-one else has quite the same confidence in them.
(, Fri 18 Jan 2019, 13:46, Reply)
he's 97 love. He can barely piss by himself let alone drive a tonne or two of steel about
Most people give up driving in their 70s or 80s simply because they dont trust themselves not to make errors like this anymore.
Even if she was doing 120mph on the wrong side of the road (unlikely given a) the car she was driving and b) she had her kid in the car), all 97 year old drivers are significantly impaired and therefore reckless and irresponsible.
Stop trying to apologise for him
(, Fri 18 Jan 2019, 14:05, Reply)
Here's the thing.
"all 97 year old drivers are significantly impaired and therefore reckless and irresponsible."
That's simply not true, but again it's another example of your black and white thinking. You also appear to literally be stating that "even if it was totally her fault, it was his fault", which completely undermines any argument from you.
(, Fri 18 Jan 2019, 14:26, Reply)
of course it is true
97 year olds cant see as well, they cant hear as well, their reactions are slower, their motor skills are reduced. It is just what happens when you get to 97 - you fade, then you die.
(, Fri 18 Jan 2019, 14:43, Reply)
You're talking about statistics,
which are completely irrelevant to individual cases. You are making blanket statements about every single member of a category of people, despite not having any evidence.
That's called prejudice, and it's the sort of thing that usually makes you very angry, though evidently not so angry when you're the one doing it, eh?
(, Fri 18 Jan 2019, 14:49, Reply)
you seem just as deluded as he clearly is
This does happen to very old intransigent people quite often. They generally take it as a wake up call and get off the road before they kill someone. Let's see what he does
(, Fri 18 Jan 2019, 15:04, Reply)
Delusional,
because I've suggested that judgement be suspended until an investigation can determine the facts, rather than leaping to a conclusion due to a well documented bias? OK then I'm delusional.
(, Fri 18 Jan 2019, 15:38, Reply)
Delusional because you'd rather blame the council
Or a woman who had right of way - regardless of her speed - than a 97 year old with a recent history of serious health problems
(, Fri 18 Jan 2019, 15:53, Reply)
I haven't blamed anyone at any point in time.
Only you have done this.
I have pretty clearly said that judgement should wait until the facts are known. You are interpreting my refusal to agree with your kneejerk reaction as though I hold the opposite opinion to you which I do not. Another of your classic straw men. Like I said... everything is always black and white with you.
As it happens I think that it is likely that he was at fault, but I do not know the facts so I cannot say. However, as soon as I saw the article I thought to myself "I bet if I go on b3ta links someone will have posted this, and benny will have wasted no time before being gleefully dickish about it." And here we are.
(, Fri 18 Jan 2019, 16:31, Reply)
The facts are not going to be known
The focus will shift to his recovery, if there's any more mention of the Kia driver it will be something along the lines of 'isnt she lucky to have been injured by royalty', then he'll die. As 97 year olds tend to. The investigation will be forgotten and quietly shelved. Then I'm a celebrity will start again
(, Fri 18 Jan 2019, 17:26, Reply)
Absolutely.
They're 'proper' off-road vehicles and have a very low centre of gravity as a result. You wouldn't roll one by driving into it with a Kia, not without killing all the people in the Kia.
He clearly tried to make some kind of evasive manoeuvre before the accident, and he was carrying enough momentum/inertia to help tip the Range Rover once the collision occurred.
Of course, it won't be Phil's fault. It'll likely be written off as an unavoidable set of circumstances brought about by adverse weather conditions and poor road planning. I guarantee if there had been a fatality, the blame would be shifted onto the Kia drivers.
(, Fri 18 Jan 2019, 13:15, Reply)
the sunshine and the council have already been given the blame
Doddery old man who nobody can say no to and has almost certainly never taken a test is obviously a saint
(, Fri 18 Jan 2019, 13:20, Reply)
if it hadnt been a mother and child in the Kia, they would have been to blame
Reading some of the headlines you'd think he'd rescued them rather than sent them to hospital
(, Fri 18 Jan 2019, 13:31, Reply)
Christ, imagine if she'd been a young male Muslim immigrant.
Upon refreshing the Reuters feed every Mail journo would have simultaneously shot their load.
(, Fri 18 Jan 2019, 19:27, Reply)
That road in question has had an unusual number of fatal accidents
and had campaigns to reduce it's speed limit, so it's likely that poor road planning was a contributing factor.
(, Fri 18 Jan 2019, 13:49, Reply)
imagine if you were the Kia driver, tootling along quite legally at 60mph or whatever she was doing
A 97 year old pulls out of a junction in front of you. You crash into him
Who is to blame? Is it him, or the council for letting you drive so fast
(, Fri 18 Jan 2019, 14:11, Reply)
Again, conjecture.
You have no idea what speed she was doing, or if the manner of her driving was legal or reckless.
I'm not gonna bother giving you an answer to an entirely hypothetical question constructed specifically for you to receive the answer which you wish to receive, unless you're prepared to answer the equal and opposite question based on exactly the same amount of conjecture.
Imagine if you were the Range Rover driver, pulling out from a junction quite legally onto a 60 mph road. A middle aged woman appears, going much faster than the legal limit and smashes into the side of you. Who is to blame?
(, Fri 18 Jan 2019, 14:27, Reply)
Citation needed.
I don't believe there is any legislation which states that.
(, Fri 18 Jan 2019, 14:46, Reply)
well, I pulled out in front of someone
from a normal give way junction (which it looks like here) and my insurance told me they wouldn't challenge the claim if the person who hit me made one because they have right of way. The only exception to this is if the person doing the hitting broke any laws immediately before or during the accident - like speeding. But without equipment, or the evidence of numerous witnesses speeding is a difficult one to prove.
(, Fri 18 Jan 2019, 15:01, Reply)
In the absence of any other evidence,
there is a general assumption that the person pulling out is at fault, but it is by no means certain.
(, Fri 18 Jan 2019, 15:35, Reply)