Discussion
BBC News have posted a little more information:
Speeding ambulance driver 'doing his job'
Mike Ferguson was taking an organ for transplant
An ambulance driver facing prosecution for speeding while transporting vital transplant organs says he would do the same again.
Mike Ferguson, from Bradford, was rushing a liver from Leeds to Cambridge for an emergency transplant when he was clocked at 104mph.
Crown prosecutors say a vehicle carrying vital transplant organs does not qualify as an ambulance.
But Mr Ferguson told BBC News Online: "I was just doing my job, but the police have a differing point of view."
"I was asked to move an organ as soon as possible - I didn't know the condition of the organ, or the recipient.
Both the West Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service and GMB union are supporting Mr Ferguson.
He said: "In reality, if I lose my licence or have a ban then the possibility is that I could lose my job as well."
But when asked if he would repeat his actions if called upon, Mr Ferguson, who has a 36-year unblemished driving record, was categoric.
"Yes. At the moment, I would - while I've got a licence. I'm conscious of the fact I may have saved somebody's life."
Both Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire Police recorded the ambulance speeding on the A1 in the early hours of the morning of 16 January.
Mr Ferguson, a senior ambulance driver, was in an official vehicle with blue lights flashing. Traffic was light and road conditions were understood to be good.
While Cambridgeshire officers have not taken any action, their counterparts in Lincolnshire charged Mr Ferguson.
Alison Kerr, the chief crown prosecutor for Lincolnshire told BBC News Online: "Having looked at all the facts, the CPS believes that this was not a medical emergency, and therefore should be put before the court for them to decide.
"As the law stands a vehicle does not qualify as an ambulance if it is carrying transplant organs."
Union spokesman John Durkin said the case could set a dangerous precedent.
He said: "If certain police forces say that drivers risk prosecution, then do they have the right to say who will survive these life-saving operations?
"I don't want that on my conscience."
Mr Ferguson believes the real losers in the case could be the patients waiting for life-saving operations.
He said: "I can't help but feel that it's the UK Transplant Service that could suffer from this.
"I wouldn't dream of speeding unless it was an emergency but with some organ transplants, time really is of the essence.
"I'm not the kind to lose my temper - you've got to be level-headed to do my job - but I wasn't happy when I got the letter saying they were taking me to court."
Unison, the biggest union representing ambulance workers, has called for an urgent review of legislation to take the burden of responsibility off individuals in life-or-death situations.
Deadly Dog said: There is a video update on the BBC website.
According to the video, under the Road Traffic Act, ambulances are allowed to exceed the speed limit when responding to a medical emergency. However Lincolnshire Police argue that the delivery of human organs for an emergency transplant operation does not constitute "a medical emergency."
Mr Ferguson was apparently caught by a Gatso so all the evidence of this alleged "crime" comes from an unmanned camera. He could lose his job if the prosecution is successful.
Q. When is an ambulance an ambulance?
A. Only with a patient in the back.
Look forward to a long wait when you dial 999 but at least it will be quick ride to hospital.
I heard on the 5 news this morning that he had had a clean licence for 30 years...
I would be interested to know if he has been caught previously by GATSO's etc... while working...
I agree with madcop we don't know all the facts but I have to say that a major weekness in the CPS case is that one force let him off an the other force didn't... any way this goes it will and has exsposed a weekness in the CPS...
I would be interested to know if he has been caught previously by GATSO's etc... while working...
I agree with madcop we don't know all the facts but I have to say that a major weekness in the CPS case is that one force let him off an the other force didn't... any way this goes it will and has exsposed a weekness in the CPS...
Here's a couple of "facts":-
Mr Ferguson, a senior ambulance driver, was in an official vehicle with blue lights flashing. Traffic was light and road conditions were understood to be good.
And
Alison Kerr, the chief crown prosecutor for Lincolnshire told BBC News Online: "Having looked at all the facts, the CPS believes that this was not a medical emergency, and therefore should be put before the court for them to decide.
"As the law stands a vehicle does not qualify as an ambulance if it is carrying transplant organs."
Well Ms Kerr I hope that neither you nor your loved ones are in that situation
>> Edited by MoJocvh on Tuesday 27th May 19:24
Mr Ferguson, a senior ambulance driver, was in an official vehicle with blue lights flashing. Traffic was light and road conditions were understood to be good.
And
Alison Kerr, the chief crown prosecutor for Lincolnshire told BBC News Online: "Having looked at all the facts, the CPS believes that this was not a medical emergency, and therefore should be put before the court for them to decide.
"As the law stands a vehicle does not qualify as an ambulance if it is carrying transplant organs."
Well Ms Kerr I hope that neither you nor your loved ones are in that situation
>> Edited by MoJocvh on Tuesday 27th May 19:24
Safety camera kills man in ambulance.......
Pensioner dies en route to hospital,"safety" camera blamed....
Mother to be dies, child lost also, speed humps at fault....
Hero Police officer dies in hospital,transplant vehicle slowed by speed cameras......
War veteran loses battle for life, vital organs delayed...
Is this to be the scenario for the future?
Is it?
Is this what the "safety"camera partnerships" want?
Does Brake, and Transport 2000 want this?
They dont?
Well the solution is simple: Just ffffffffffffade away and leave drivers the hell alone.
You notice i have NOT included officers of the law in this, and thats because they are just as much pawns in this sick game as we are.
Bliar, and all your "ministers" should be thoroughly ashamed of what youve accomplished in Britain 2003...
I know i am. Im sickened by this shit.
Pensioner dies en route to hospital,"safety" camera blamed....
Mother to be dies, child lost also, speed humps at fault....
Hero Police officer dies in hospital,transplant vehicle slowed by speed cameras......
War veteran loses battle for life, vital organs delayed...
Is this to be the scenario for the future?
Is it?
Is this what the "safety"camera partnerships" want?
Does Brake, and Transport 2000 want this?
They dont?
Well the solution is simple: Just ffffffffffffade away and leave drivers the hell alone.
You notice i have NOT included officers of the law in this, and thats because they are just as much pawns in this sick game as we are.
Bliar, and all your "ministers" should be thoroughly ashamed of what youve accomplished in Britain 2003...
I know i am. Im sickened by this shit.
As part of my undergraduate training I spent several shifts with the paramedic service in Liverpool which left a lasting impression;
Excellent to a (wo)man.
Terrible hours.
Even worse pay (often doing extra shifts to increase their salary.)
And you wouldn't believe the amount of sh!t they have to put up with from (some) members of the public - no really you wouldn't.
And they still provide a caring and compasionate service.
It is impossible to be certain without further information, however, my gut reaction is to give this guy my support and to bemoan the people who are trying to make a very difficult job bl@@dy impossible.
Perhaps we could send organs by second class post?
Excellent to a (wo)man.
Terrible hours.
Even worse pay (often doing extra shifts to increase their salary.)
And you wouldn't believe the amount of sh!t they have to put up with from (some) members of the public - no really you wouldn't.
And they still provide a caring and compasionate service.
It is impossible to be certain without further information, however, my gut reaction is to give this guy my support and to bemoan the people who are trying to make a very difficult job bl@@dy impossible.
Perhaps we could send organs by second class post?
The act regarding speed limits and emergency vehicles (around 1984 I think), states that speed limits do not apply to a vehicle being used for ambulance purposes (as well as fire and police).
Surely this is clear cut, the ambulance driver has no problem, he is within the law - maybe a transplant is not considered "ambulance purposes".
Importantly, and my main point, it would also seem that the act implies that ANY vehicle being used for ambulance purposes, even a private car, can ignore speed limits and be within the law.
I don't know whether there is a later point of law, or whether I understand the full picture - does anyone else know more?
Surely this is clear cut, the ambulance driver has no problem, he is within the law - maybe a transplant is not considered "ambulance purposes".
Importantly, and my main point, it would also seem that the act implies that ANY vehicle being used for ambulance purposes, even a private car, can ignore speed limits and be within the law.
I don't know whether there is a later point of law, or whether I understand the full picture - does anyone else know more?
james_j said: The act regarding speed limits and emergency vehicles (around 1984 I think), states that speed limits do not apply to a vehicle being used for ambulance purposes (as well as fire and police).
Section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 states that when a vehicle is being used for police, fire brigade, or ambulance purposes and the observance of the speed limit would hinder the purpose for which the vehicle is being used, the speed limit shall not apply to that vehicle...or similar. I can't lay my hands on the exact wording at the moment but you get the idea.
Surely this is clear cut, the ambulance driver has no problem, he is within the law - maybe a transplant is not considered "ambulance purposes".
Bingo. Note that National Blood Service vehicles can use blue lights, but are NOT entitled to claim exemptions. Me, I think that sucks - if one of my loved ones was waiting on a theatre table I'd want the transplant tissue there pretty damn pronto.
Importantly, and my main point, it would also seem that the act implies that ANY vehicle being used for ambulance purposes, even a private car, can ignore speed limits and be within the law.
Indeed, this is the case. There is case law to back this up - Yarwood vs. Somebodyelse, quite a few years back, I think - bobthebench/madcop/999 help? - anyway, the case went something like this: a copper on his way to court to give prosecution evidence was late, put his toe down, and got caught speeding (in his own car); he claimed the exemption on the basis that although giving evidence was not a police purpose, the case would have been thrown out had he not been available to give evidence, and therefore a police purpose existed.
>> Edited by loaf on Friday 30th May 11:33
It does open up interesting scenarios this.
Does this mean that the paramedic cars and bikes used by East Sussex Ambulance service amongst others are not ambulances as they don't carry patients?
Does this mean that an emergency ambulance will have to be used to carry organs in future?
If this case is being used as a test case then that is ridiculous. After all if the guy is found guilty that means organ movement around the country will be in chaos. The government will have to spend time and money changeing the law etc.
On the facts so far available it looks as though common sense should mean no prosecution. However as Madcop said we don't know all the facts so my mind could change!
Does this mean that the paramedic cars and bikes used by East Sussex Ambulance service amongst others are not ambulances as they don't carry patients?
Does this mean that an emergency ambulance will have to be used to carry organs in future?
If this case is being used as a test case then that is ridiculous. After all if the guy is found guilty that means organ movement around the country will be in chaos. The government will have to spend time and money changeing the law etc.
On the facts so far available it looks as though common sense should mean no prosecution. However as Madcop said we don't know all the facts so my mind could change!
This is definately true. Two of my friends were out for a drive and the passenger had a heart attack. Driver booted it to local hospital and later worried about speed cameras etc. Went to local plod shop and explain the situation. Was told he could claim the ambulance emergency thing if he got a ticket (he didn't).
james_j said: The act regarding speed limits and emergency vehicles (around 1984 I think), states that speed limits do not apply to a vehicle being used for ambulance purposes (as well as fire and police).
Surely this is clear cut, the ambulance driver has no problem, he is within the law - maybe a transplant is not considered "ambulance purposes".
Importantly, and my main point, it would also seem that the act implies that ANY vehicle being used for ambulance purposes, even a private car, can ignore speed limits and be within the law.
I don't know whether there is a later point of law, or whether I understand the full picture - does anyone else know more?
MoJocvh said: As the law stands a vehicle does not qualify as an ambulance if it is carrying transplant organs
I remember quite well travelling from Gloucester to Bristol on the old A38 at speeds well in excess of 120mph (on a bike) carrying blood, to have 3 police outriders meet me at Cribbs Causeway to "escort" me to the BRI..... I crossed the Downs and went down Whiteladies at 90mph with the full co-peration of the BiB!!!! Mind you that was 1966!!!!! All blood in those days were carried by volunteers who had the full and best co-operation from BiB.. THEY knew what we were doing.....
JMGS4 said:
MoJocvh said: As the law stands a vehicle does not qualify as an ambulance if it is carrying transplant organs
I remember quite well travelling from Gloucester to Bristol on the old A38 at speeds well in excess of 120mph (on a bike) carrying blood, to have 3 police outriders meet me at Cribbs Causeway to "escort" me to the BRI..... I crossed the Downs and went down Whiteladies at 90mph with the full co-peration of the BiB!!!! Mind you that was 1966!!!!! All blood in those days were carried by volunteers who had the full and best co-operation from BiB.. THEY knew what we were doing.....
you're a braver man than me sir :salutesmiley: you can't even ride down whiteladies at 30mph on a bike nowadays!
chrisgr31 said:
Does this mean that the paramedic cars and bikes used by East Sussex Ambulance service amongst others are not ambulances as they don't carry patients?
Technically, that is correct. An ambulance is described in law as 'a vehicle constructed or adapted for the carriage of a sick, injured, or disabled person (or persons)'. Thus the RRVs you mention are not ambulances per se, but are allowed to be classed as ambulances for VED purposes (i.e. pay a zero rate of VED) as they aid the overall 'ambulance purpose', viz. the transport of suitably trained and qualified personnel to a location where the ambulance purpose (treating the sick or injured) is to be carried out.
Does this mean that an emergency ambulance will have to be used to carry organs in future?
The National Blood Service will doubtless have something to say about this, and none of it particularly polite. The issue in this case is not the type of vehicle, it's the type of job - if he had been driving an emergency ambulance it would have made no difference, according to the logic - I use the term loosely - of the CPS case.
If this case is being used as a test case then that is ridiculous. After all if the guy is found guilty that means organ movement around the country will be in chaos. The government will have to spend time and money changeing the law etc.
Lawyers and politicians together, a vile combination. Especially when you get a politician who is also a lawyer...the only thing I can think of that would be worse is a policitian who is a lawyer and a journalist in his spare time as well. Bring me my shotgun...
loaf said:
Section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 states that when a vehicle is being used for police, fire brigade, or ambulance purposes and the observance of the speed limit would hinder the purpose for which the vehicle is being used, the speed limit shall not apply to that vehicle...or similar. I can't lay my hands on the exact wording at the moment but you get the idea.
That includes any vehicle being used for those purposes. Taking your partner to hospital whilst she is in labour is enough to turn your car into an ambulance. It is the use of the vehicle and not its physical appearance that determines what it is.
Surely this is clear cut, the ambulance driver has no problem, he is within the law - maybe a transplant is not considered "ambulance purposes".
A transplant organ transit vehicle is not strictly speaking an ambulance. The ambulance driver can use his blue lights and siren to make progress through traffic congestion, but under the strict interpretaion of the Act, it does not have ambulance exemptions.
Bingo. Note that National Blood Service vehicles can use blue lights, but are NOT entitled to claim exemptions. Me, I think that sucks - if one of my loved ones was waiting on a theatre
The same applies to this as in the above quote.
Importantly, and my main point, it would also seem that the act implies that ANY vehicle being used for ambulance purposes, even a private car, can ignore speed limits and be within the law.
Yes it can if it is being used as an ambulance at that particular point.
Indeed, this is the case. There is case law to back this up - Yarwood vs. Somebodyelse, quite a few years back, I think - bobthebench/madcop/999 help? - anyway, the case went something like this: a copper on his way to court to give prosecution evidence was late, put his toe down, and got caught speeding (in his own car); he claimed the exemption on the basis that although giving evidence was not a police purpose, the case would have been thrown out had he not been available to give evidence, and therefore a police purpose existed.
Spot on. This was the ruling that officer's late for Court for whatever reason, may use the exemption of 'Police Purpose' if they are reported for the offence of speeding or red light!
I might add that anyone running a red light without the appropriate warning equipment would be foolish in the extreme.
loaf said: Technically, that is correct. An ambulance is described in law as 'a vehicle constructed or adapted for the carriage of a sick, injured, or disabled person (or persons)'. Thus the RRVs you mention are not ambulances per se, but are allowed to be classed as ambulances for VED purposes (i.e. pay a zero rate of VED) as they aid the overall 'ambulance purpose', viz. the transport of suitably trained and qualified personnel to a location where the ambulance purpose (treating the sick or injured) is to be carried out.
So therefore it must be time to write to every safety camera partnership asking how many of these non-exempt vehicles they have let off in error.
Come to that we will also be able to say that Scameras do cause lives as paramedics and organs will, if they win, have to be driven around the country at legal speeds.
All it really proves is why people are so anti cameras in the first place. If this driver had been spotted by a police patrol I doubt he would have been stopped. Indeed might even have been offered an escort.
However as it was camera he faces charges. Where is the discretion which we all want?
madcop said: How can you make such sweeping judgements and statements about a small piece of information taken from a local rag without knowing THE FULL CIRCUMSTANCES?
As is often the way on PH, a large majority condemn situations on the absolute briefest of information.
Madcop: I appreciate your view, and have no doubt that there *will* be more to this case than meets the eye.
However the police can't, and shouldn't expect a fair hearing from the public when we're all constantly in fear of our driving licences from totting up due to speeding offences.
In my office over 75 per cent of drivers have a least one conviction. Everyone in my immediate family has at least one conviction.
I had a clean license until last saturday when I got two NIPs for the *same time* and one 7 minutes later. Will probably have to go to court and ask them to be considered one offence.
Perhaps the police should wake up and smell the coffee. Enforcement of speeding has destroyed your popularity with the public.
Ambulancemen and Firemen aren't hated by middle England? Why? Because they help the public. The police could be national heros if they stopped prosecuting nearly everyone for speeding and caught a few more burglars.
BTW this isn't personal. I've never met a Rozzer I didn't like. It's just with a potential 9 points on the way for eight minutes of speeding I'm not going to be sympathetic to Gwent, or any other police force. Even where I feel they're being treated unfairly.
I saw on Crime watch last night a guy who was killed by a brick thrown from a motorway bride. Shocking. Is it really to much to ask for the resources that go into speeding to go into that sort of crime?
Anyway respect Madcop 'cos I have a feeling most of your day *isn't* spent with camera in hand.
toad_oftoadhall said: However the police can't, and shouldn't expect a fair hearing from the public when we're all constantly in fear of our driving licences from totting up due to speeding offences.
Then pay more attention to what you are doing. If you must take a risk, then do it where you are less likely to get captured!
In my office over 75 per cent of drivers have a least one conviction. Everyone in my immediate family has at least one conviction.
Do you think that is any different in any profession?
Police officers get points too you know!
I had a clean license until last saturday when I got two NIPs for the *same time* and one 7 minutes later. Will probably have to go to court and ask them to be considered one offence.
Now that is just plain careless
Perhaps the police should wake up and smell the coffee. Enforcement of speeding has destroyed your popularity with the public.
Believe me when I tell you, we smell the coffee good and strong Every minute of every day dealing with the public and our political direction makes it pungent to say the least.
Unfortunately the Police are driven by Political motivation, not just from Parliament and the Home Office but from Chief Officers that have to make Political decisions to keep their masters in Govt departments from removing their leadership and sending in the hit squads to improve targets set in the puzzle palaces attached to New Labour.
Ambulancemen and Firemen aren't hated by middle England? Why?
Ambulance and Fire brigade staff do not interfere with what people want to do (In fact Fire brigade staff actually don't do much at all really, believe me, I spent enough time covering their dispute over Christmas)
Easy to see why. No meams of conflict therefore no reason to have opinions of hatred
So the Public hate the Police then? Hmmmm thats quite a dramatic statement to make and I would actually stick my neck out to say that you are in fact wrong.
I think you would find that even if the Police were to down tools for just one day and let everyone get on with things, there would be a little more appreciation of what the Police actually do.
Because they help the public.
And the Police don't?
The police could be national heros if they stopped prosecuting nearly everyone for speeding and caught a few more burglars.
But we do catch most of the burglars. The problem is that the system lets them go to do it again and again.
The system is moulded by what 'the public' are willing to accept. Until 'the public' start to put pressure on Politicians that they are not going to put up with burglars any longer and are truly fed up to the back teeth with speed cameras, then they will continue to flourish. This is not the fault of the Police
BTW this isn't personal. I've never met a Rozzer I didn't like.
Niether is this. I have never met a Toad I didn't like
(unless it happened to be climbing out of someone elses window at 3 in the morning with a TV under its arm)
It's just with a potential 9 points on the way for eight minutes of speeding
And who's fault is this?
Is it the fault of the Police?
I don't think so. I take it you are aware of the rules but either decided to ignore them or happened to be driving with your thumb up your ar5e during that particular 8 minutes
I'm not going to be sympathetic to Gwent, or any other police force. Even where I feel they're being treated unfairly.
And I suspect that they will not be sympathetic to you even though you feel that you are being unfairly treated.
P.S. It is not the Police that prosecute anyone. This is done by CPS. They are the body that decides on who goes to court or not as do the public if they are given tan opportunity under the FPT system.
The Police are purely providers and collators of information which they pass onto public individuals or the CPS to decide which course to take (a driver issued with a FPT has the option to request to be heard by a court). This has been the way it works for over 20 years now when the CPS were devised by Govt.
Hate the Police by all means, just as the scumbag burglar/car thief does but if so, when a personal situation needs the help of the Police to resolve such as an assault or some other personal problem, then remember your principles and do not be a hypocrit. I have seen it many times. Scum bags that despise and cause the Police all sorts of problems who eventually get their comeuppance. They are then straight on the phone demanding that action is taken to right their wrong.
Situation, No and Win come to mind
I saw on Crime watch last night a guy who was killed by a brick thrown from a motorway bride. Shocking. Is it really to much to ask for the resources that go into speeding to go into that sort of crime?
And believe me it is. The perpetrators will eventually be tracked down at huge cost in financial and manpower resources, but there are not enough Policemen/women in the world to stand watching over every motorway bridge to stop this sort of crass stupidity by undoubtedly a 'Yoof (or group of yooves) having a bit of a laugh after 3 bottles of Stella'
Anyway respect Madcop 'cos I have a feeling most of your day *isn't* spent with camera in hand.
Thanks. You are right. In fact in the last 8 years, I think I have only issued about 3 FPT tickets and none of them were for speeding and none were awarded to 'Toads'
I hope you are successful in getting 2 of your offences dealt with as one. Don't do it where you are likely to get caught and if you do, remove thumb from ar5e
>> Edited by madcop on Thursday 29th May 11:44
BTW this isn't personal. I've never met a Rozzer I didn't like.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Niether is this. I have never met a Toad I didn't like
(unless it happened to be climbing out of someone elses window at 3 in the morning with a TV under its arm)
Lol Madcop, made me hoot that did! Cheers for the giggle.
Have a better day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Niether is this. I have never met a Toad I didn't like
(unless it happened to be climbing out of someone elses window at 3 in the morning with a TV under its arm)
Lol Madcop, made me hoot that did! Cheers for the giggle.
Have a better day. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff