Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Driving Standards

I seem to recall her husband serving a drink drive ban some time back not to mention the antics of her grandfather. A danger to all of us that lot.
I suspect she gets it from her mother...The Latin Times has amazingly detailed list:

1972 (Age 22): Written Warning

Princess Anne was caught speeding on the M1 in November 1972. The Thames Valley Police decided not to prosecute, instead opting to let the Princess Royal off with a written warning.

1977 (Age 26): Fine Of £40

Unfortunately for the free-spirited young royal, she was caught once again speeding on the previously mentioned road in January almost five years later. She hit over 90mph in a 70mph zone, which cost her a fine of £40 at the Alfreton Magistrates in Derbyshire.

1990 (Age 40): Fine Of £150 And Driving Ban For 1 Month

Things escalated in 1990 when the then 40-year-old royal had once again been caught speeding. The Princess Royal pled guilty to two speeding offences in a Stow-on-the-Wold Magistrates court in Gloucestershire. Not only was she fined £150, but the royal also was banned from driving for almost a month. At that time, she claimed that she was “late for an engagement.”

2000 (Age 50): Fine Of £400, £30 For Cost And Five Points On Her License

The temporary ban had not seen the last of Anne’s mishaps with driving. In 2000, she was fined for doing 93mph on a 70mph dual carriageway — all while a police car was tailing her. The princess explained that she thought that the police car was an escort for her as she was heading to an engagement at that time. She was fined £400, ordered to pay £30 for costs and was marked five points on her license after pleading guilty.
 
I suspect she gets it from her mother...The Latin Times has amazingly detailed list:

1972 (Age 22): Written Warning

Princess Anne was caught speeding on the M1 in November 1972. The Thames Valley Police decided not to prosecute, instead opting to let the Princess Royal off with a written warning.

1977 (Age 26): Fine Of £40

Unfortunately for the free-spirited young royal, she was caught once again speeding on the previously mentioned road in January almost five years later. She hit over 90mph in a 70mph zone, which cost her a fine of £40 at the Alfreton Magistrates in Derbyshire.

1990 (Age 40): Fine Of £150 And Driving Ban For 1 Month

Things escalated in 1990 when the then 40-year-old royal had once again been caught speeding. The Princess Royal pled guilty to two speeding offences in a Stow-on-the-Wold Magistrates court in Gloucestershire. Not only was she fined £150, but the royal also was banned from driving for almost a month. At that time, she claimed that she was “late for an engagement.”

2000 (Age 50): Fine Of £400, £30 For Cost And Five Points On Her License

The temporary ban had not seen the last of Anne’s mishaps with driving. In 2000, she was fined for doing 93mph on a 70mph dual carriageway — all while a police car was tailing her. The princess explained that she thought that the police car was an escort for her as she was heading to an engagement at that time. She was fined £400, ordered to pay £30 for costs and was marked five points on her license after pleading guilty.
TBF, and apart from the level of fines (and the degree of speeding, to some extent), that doesn't look massively different from my own driving record.
 
Absolutely dreadful driving to exit that bend on the wrong side of the road. He's done exactly the opposite of what he should have.
 
I saw that in the news the other day. The driver presumably failed to identify or comprehend the bend, didn't slow down, and then understeered into the opposing lane as a result. Possibly some target fixation too, though there's not much time to do something better like go off. The biker reacts much better. It's curious that the following car also has a dashcam. I know they're common but not that common. Maybe it was a club drive or something.
 
Florian Pratt, 70 MPH, wrong side of road, jailed for 16 months Horror moment biker thrown into air and suffers life changing injuries in crash


That's shocking, both the crash & the short jail term. :(

"Thankfully, the motorcyclist was wearing a full leather, air bag suit which activated and inflated as he was propelled off his bike. Without it, in a collision at this speed, he would most likely have died.”

BIB, I've not heard of them before.
 
Air bag suit? Only slightly heard of them, if it helped I bet their sales are up now.

The biker seemed to be doing a stoppie as the collision was imminent, if it was intentional it probably saved his legs from getting tangled in his handlebars.

Pretty nightmare accident, amazing the biker survived.
 
Air bag suit? Only slightly heard of them, if it helped I bet their sales are up now.

The biker seemed to be doing a stoppie as the collision was imminent, if it was intentional it probably saved his legs from getting tangled in his handlebars.

Pretty nightmare accident, amazing the biker survived.
Not intentional. There's no way he had time to think that through. He's hauled on the front brake out of sheer terror and got lucky (for a certain value of "lucky").
 
Not intentional. There's no way he had time to think that through. He's hauled on the front brake out of sheer terror and got lucky (for a certain value of "lucky").
You might be surprised how many micro moments there are in an accident scenario in which you can take decisions. I hit a car head on on my motorbike (closing speed only 50 - 60mph though) and I was able to take a decision which may well have saved me.

Although neither of them seem to have had the time or possibility to swerve for the side of the road which might have avoided the initial crash, for another. The biker probably couldn't have made such a change in direction but the car might have.
 
You might be surprised how many micro moments there are in an accident scenario in which you can take decisions. I hit a car head on on my motorbike (closing speed only 50 - 60mph though) and I was able to take a decision which may well have saved me.

Although neither of them seem to have had the time or possibility to swerve for the side of the road which might have avoided the initial crash, for another. The biker probably couldn't have made such a change in direction but the car might have.
The car driver could have run off the right side but he shouldn't have been there in the first place, of course. Horrible, horrible, crash.
 
The biker seemed to be doing a stoppie as the collision was imminent, if it was intentional it probably saved his legs from getting tangled in his handlebars.
It definitely wasn't intentional. He grabbed a handful of brake, and it was sheer luck that he didn't do it a fraction of a second sooner, or things would have been a lot worse for him.
 
Do a hit and run and leave someone to die?. That’ll be nine points and a fine of £115.


There's not enough detail in that report, it happened in the 'early hours' near a Asda store on a 'A' road, no mention of what the speed limit was, although the photo shows 'national speed limit' signs & no pedestrian walkways, and there's no suggestion the driver was speeding. :hmm:

It's possible the victim was pissed, staggered out onto a busy/fast road, got clipped by the car, causing enough damage for them to die later, but perhaps not enough of an impact to alert the driver they had hit a person, rather than a fox or dog.

The only charges were failing to stop and failing to report the incident, none for dangerous driving or causing death by dangerous driving.

Yet many of the comments under the article are calling it 'manslaughter', despite nothing suggesting it was.
 
There's not enough detail in that report, it happened in the 'early hours' near a Asda store on a 'A' road, no mention of what the speed limit was, although the photo shows 'national speed limit' signs & no pedestrian walkways, and there's no suggestion the driver was speeding. :hmm:

It's possible the victim was pissed, staggered out onto a busy/fast road, got clipped by the car, causing enough damage for them to die later, but perhaps not enough of an impact to alert the driver they had hit a person, rather than a fox or dog.

The only charges were failing to stop and failing to report the incident, none for dangerous driving or causing death by dangerous driving.

Yet many of the comments under the article are calling it 'manslaughter', despite nothing suggesting it was.

Testified that she could only see 'two feet' in front in fog but drove at 40mph. All a bit of a shitshow.
 

Testified that she could only see 'two feet' in front in fog but drove at 40mph. All a bit of a shitshow.

A shitsnow indeed, but your link provides better detail, like the other driver saying visibility was only about 15m.

She said she thought she’d hit an animal and was too frightened to get out and look because of the foggy and pitch black conditions.

The victim had been drinking into the early hours, which probably explains why he was in the road, a 60mph toad, in foggy and pitch black conditions.

With no evidence suggesting otherwise, it can only be put down as a sad accident.
 
That implies he died at the scene, he didn't, he was making a recovery in hospital, he died a month later from a heart attack caused by an infection, not the injuries caused by the accident.
He was there until someone found him in the morning. Maybe if she had stopped he would have recovered, but I guess she had to get calpol for her kid with a cold...

Not really sure why you’re defending her.
 
He was there until someone found him in the morning. Maybe if she had stopped he would have recovered, but I guess she had to get calpol for her kid with a cold...

Not really sure why you’re defending her.

WTF?

The report says he left his drinking mates round 3am, and was hit 'around 4am', and time the driver that spotted him did so was 'just after 4am', so a matter of minutes. He died a month later from a heart attack caused by an infection he got in hospital, not from the injuries caused by the accident.

Although there's no pavement, he shouldn't have been staggering along on a 60mph road in fog & darkest, he should have been on the grass verge, she only clipped him, and had no reason to to think she had hit a person.

I am all for better sentencing for drivers that have acted recklessly, and esp. if the recklessness results in serious injury or death, but that doesn't seem to the the case here - nothing suggests she was driving recklessly, and nothing suggests she directly caused his death.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom