Re: SAT NAV stupidity
- From: Charles Ellson <charles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 23:43:51 +0100
On Wed, 16 May 2007 22:34:24 +0100, "Mortimer" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Charles Ellson" <charles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messageHe should not have to if the relevant Traffic Order has been worded
news:khqm43hdpmgf6pr0av54cd60sn2nsr8a9m@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 16 May 2007 20:56:49 +0100, "Mortimer" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Is it true or a myth that police cars have greater rights than ambulancesAmbulance and fire personnel do not have a specific power to direct
or
fire engines to ignore traffic regs when they are on their way to an
emergency?
traffic. A policeman in uniform generally has that power so in some
circumstances that will enable them to actively direct other traffic
(rather than just hope that other motorists will do the right thing in
response to the vehicle's lights and music) and thus allow them to use
their vehicle in a manner that fire and ambulance personnel would in
practice not be able to do without police assistance. The other tale
told by some policeman is that their assistant in the passenger seat
can give them permission to ignore banned turns, etc. but a driver of
an ambulance or fire vehicle runs the risk of proving the necessity of
such a manoeuvre (if the Traffic Order relating to the sign does not
allow for it) if done without permission or direction from a PC.
So even a police driver, driving solo, can't authorise himself, but his
colleague can?
properly. I have overheard a sergeant giving directions for a
non-emergency call use the words ".. and I'll give you permission to
ignore the "no right turn" " to which some wag responded "Have you got
your uniform on ?."
Do the rules for all emergency vehicles say anything aboutISTR that has been a matter mentioned in assorted accidents over the
the need for the vehicle to warn other traffic with lights and preferably
siren rather than assuming that he has right of way even as a "plain clothes
car" as the one did in my incident?
years when unmarked cars have had accidents, usually IIRC with siren
but not always with lights. Most "exceptions" merely seem to define
the use or ownership (but not always both) of the vehicle.
And what proof does an ambulance or fire engine driver need to give that heInitially the mere record of a "shout" requiring the use of that route
needed to break a speed limit or drive (safely) through a red light
(assuming it's not a flashing one)?
it would seem. That seems to have been the decider when nicking police
caught by Gatsos (e.g. "no record was found of the vehicle being used
for an emergency call at the time")
Fire engines usually carry driver's-eye video cameras, don't they?Pass. I've only seen those menyioned in the context of attacks upon
firefighters.
Can they be used to back up the assertion "theThey are presumably as admissable as any other item of evidence if the
lights were against me and had just turned red as I approached so I was
facing a long wait; having slowed down to X mph and satisfied myself that my
blues and twos had caused all other traffic to stop, I judged that it was
safe to drive through the red lights".
record is appropriately and/or necessarily time-marked.
Do ambulances have similar cameras to back up the driver in these cases?As above for fire vehicles.
I heard it said that even police cars don't have permission to go throughITYF someone else has already answered that in the context of the
red pedestrian (Pelican) lights because a deaf/blind pedestrian may be
trying to cross and may be unaware of the emergency vehicle. Is this the
case? Or is there only a problem if there is anyone waiting to cross and a
deserted crossing is OK?
general conditional permission for certain vehicles to proceeed past
signs and signals subject to due care being exercised.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: SAT NAV stupidity
- From: Sue McNaughton
- Re: SAT NAV stupidity
- From: Mortimer
- Re: SAT NAV stupidity
- References:
- Re: SAT NAV stupidity
- From: MB
- Re: SAT NAV stupidity
- From: Charles Ellson
- Re: SAT NAV stupidity
- Prev by Date: Re: Fort William sleeper
- Next by Date: Re: GNER Jobsworth Charges Woman For Being On Right Train
- Previous by thread: Re: SAT NAV stupidity
- Next by thread: Re: SAT NAV stupidity
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|