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)