Medical Mitigation against a speeding conviction

[GlenMH]

All

Last Friday, my other half fell down the stairs and broke her ankle. She was in a significant amount of pain and went in to shock. We got her in the car and then I drove her to hospital. The leg is now in plaster and she has another appointment next week when they will decide if an operation is needed. All this information is verfiable by the hospital and I have pictures of the casts and a copy of the sick certificate for her work.

Unfortunately, whilst on my way there, I got the dreaded double flash in the mirror and this morning I got the letter from Avon and Somerset partnership stating that my car was doing 40 in a 30 zone at 0130 last Saturday morning.

Now I have a couple of options:

i) Go down the PACE letter route and see what happens and pepipoo is very helpful about this

ii) Claim medical mitigation and that I was using the vehicle as an ambulance. My question is this: is a broken ankle and someone in pain/shock sufficient to go to court and claim medical mitigation? I have not been able to find any guidance on this anywhere. If so, how do I do it?

Can anyone on here help?

Thanks

Glen

[safespeed]

I personally would go down the ambulance exemption route. The law appears to be crystal clear. Here it is:

RTRA 1984, S87:

87 Exemption of fire brigade, ambulance and police vehicles from speed limits

No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply
to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire brigade, ambulance
or police purposes, if the observance of that provision would be likely to
hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that
occasion.

If you were unlucky enough to lose in court, we could get national press coverage out of it, so it's heads you win, tails they lose.

If I were you, I would delay returning the NIP for the 28 days allowed, and take the time to investigate and decide what YOU want to do.

IANAL.

[Fats25]

A bit different, but similar circumstances.

About 5 years ago, my girlfriend and her sister both receive a phone call to say that there Grandmother has been taken seriously ill, and admitted to hospital, and they should get to the hospital as soon as possible.

Girlfriend gets a taxi there from London to Orpington, but unfortunately never got there before she passed away. Her sister made it on time, but triggered a speed camera on the way to hospital.

After sorting everything out and completing paperwork etc, they leave hospital together and head home. She is now rushing to get back to pick up 2 year old boy from nursery. Same stretch of road - she gets flashed again.

One offence caught at 58 in a 50, and one of 60 in a 50......

I have no idea of the legality, and challenges, but when she described the above, all she received was a standard letter that there was nothing that could be done.

[Hollywood Wheels]

Did you phone an ambulance Glen? If not why not? It'll probably be the first question any Court will ask. I'm not making any judgements here, but i think you're going to be hard pushed fighting this one. And to be honest, forget the PACE letter because that's a big which the Court won't take kindly to at all.. Again, for the record before any flaming, i'n not making any judgements here....

>> Edited by Hollywood Wheels on Saturday 8th April 21:46

[GlenMH]

Thanks for the thoughts above. A useful extract of the law!

Hollywood Wheels said:

Did you phone an ambulance Glen? If not why not? It'll probably be the first question any Court will ask. I'm not making any judgements here, but i think you're going to be hard pushed fighting this one. And to be honest, forget the PACE letter because that's a big which the Court won't take kindly to at all..

You raise 2 very good points there. I have already decided not to go down the PACE route as there is no doubt about this and I am keener to investigate the other "ambulance" route now that I know about it.

We didn't call an ambulance for 2 reasons:
i) she obviously was not going to die (and when we got to A&E and saw what 4 ambulance crews, 2 police transit vans and 3 cars were dealing with, I am pleased we didn't...) and went for the standard help ourselves rather than rely on government help - stupid, I know, but decisions you make when under stress... Also we know the amount of work the emergency services have on at around midnight on a Friday....
ii) The second one is that we were half way between Bath and Bristol at the time and did not want to end up in Bath.... BRI in Bristol is only 10 minutes away from the house. I asked her where she wanted to go and BRI was the answer.

I will give the partnership a call on Monday and see what they say.

Glen

[Robfow]

How can you compare driving over the speed limit to driving whilst drunk?
Whilst I have no idea what the road in question is like, chances are it's not going to have been full of people at 0130 in the morning, and depending on other circumstances, 40mph is perfectly safe....

[GlenMH]

sean5302 said:

Glen, Would it have been acceptable to drive her to A&E if you'd just drunk 10 pints? What if you were high as a kite on drugs? Would it be reasonable to ignore red traffic lights on the way, or drive the wrong way around roundabouts or one-way streets? As you wrote, she wasn't going to die. So, why on earth do you think it's OK to break the speed limit?

A provocative post and it will be interesting to see the reaction you get from others bearing in mind the relative risks of those activities! I wonder if someone can give us the figures: increase in chance of crashing after 10 pints, increase in chance of crashing high as a kite and increase in chance of crashing on a wide 4 lane road with very little traffic on a clear night but travelling at 40mph.... I think figures will illustrate why I exceeded the speed limit at that point.

I hadn't drunk or taken anything so the first 2 are irrelevant. High or drunk: then ring 999. But if she had started bleeding in a life threatening way, then it would have been lights on full beam and I would have done all of the things in your third point, if necessary, and traffic allowed to get her there!! At 0130 in the morning, there is very very little traffic about on the roads I was using.

If I had been tugged by a trafpol, then we could have had the chat, but the camera operates on absolutes.


Glen

[vonhosen]

GlenMH said:

sean5302 said: Glen, Would it have been acceptable to drive her to A&E if you'd just drunk 10 pints? What if you were high as a kite on drugs? Would it be reasonable to ignore red traffic lights on the way, or drive the wrong way around roundabouts or one-way streets? As you wrote, she wasn't going to die. So, why on earth do you think it's OK to break the speed limit? A provocative post and it will be interesting to see the reaction you get from others bearing in mind the relative risks of those activities! I wonder if someone can give us the figures: increase in chance of crashing after 10 pints, increase in chance of crashing high as a kite and increase in chance of crashing on a wide 4 lane road with very little traffic on a clear night but travelling at 40mph.... I think figures will illustrate why I exceeded the speed limit at that point. I hadn't drunk or taken anything so the first 2 are irrelevant. High or drunk: then ring 999. But if she had started bleeding in a life threatening way, then it would have been lights on full beam and I would have done all of the things in your third point, if necessary, and traffic allowed to get her there!! At 0130 in the morning, there is very very little traffic about on the roads I was using. If I had been tugged by a trafpol, then we could have had the chat, but the camera operates on absolutes. Glen

The point is still valid though.
Although a police officer for example may claim an exemption, they will have to justify it's claim under scrutiny, they can't just say because it's a Police purpose. Claiming that banner isn't enough in itself.
The question is, was it necessary to speed ?
OK you were taking her, but that doesn't mean it's necessary to break the limit just because you are.

[Parrot of Doom]

I'd just like to point out that people can actually die from broken bones - internal bleeding anyone?

[vonhosen]

Parrot of Doom said:

I'd just like to point out that people can actually die from broken bones - internal bleeding anyone?

But if you think they were going to die, is it not better to phone for an ambulance & tell them that so that they can grade their response accordingly ?
Medical help may have only been one minute away after all.
Ambulances don't so often speed to the hospital, only to the patient.



>> Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 8th April 23:34

[s2art]

Consider the precautionary principle. You dont actually know what the medical situation is. You dont know how long it would take to get an ambulance. You do know you are a few minutes away by car. You do know that a few miles an hour over the limit, with the prevailing driving conditions, are of minimal/zero risk to you or anyone else.
Common sense, games theory, minimal intelligence all indicate the best course of action. That a jobsworth will try and prosecute you for making the best decision is merely a commentary on the stupidity of the current laws and law enforcers.

[vonhosen]

s2art said:

Consider the precautionary principle. You dont actually know what the medical situation is. You dont know how long it would take to get an ambulance. You do know you are a few minutes away by car. You do know that a few miles an hour over the limit, with the prevailing driving conditions, are of minimal/zero risk to you or anyone else. Common sense, games theory, minimal intelligence all indicate the best course of action. That a jobsworth will try and prosecute you for making the best decision is merely a commentary on the stupidity of the current laws and law enforcers.

These are rules that the emergency services have to operate under. They have to be able to justify their actions under scrutiny. Where found to be wanting, they risk prosecution just like anyone else, if that action is deemed to be not justifiable.

With more serious matters it is reasonable to expect that you would have at least tried calling for medical assistance (if that was honestly your belief) & in less serious matters you wouldn't need to be breaking the limit anyway.





>> Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 9th April 00:49

[countryboy]

sean5302 said:

I cannot understand the logic. Someone 10 minutes away from the hospital at 30mph means 5 miles away. To travel 5 miles at 40mph takes about 8 minutes, so you saved 2 minutes. What happened when you got to A&E? Did the staff drop everything in a mad panic to treat her, or was it the usual several hours waiting for X-rays etc? Makes saving 2 minutes seem rather daft, doesn't it?

Ok so you're at home with your mother and she suddenly cuts herself badly enough that she needs urgent hospital treatment. You know that hospital is only a few miles away and that it's quicker to drive straight there than wait for an ambulance.

Are you honestly going to help her into the car and then, with her in severe pain, say to yourself, "yes she's in lots of pain but I'll still be a good boy/girl and not break the speed limit even by a bit"?

Sometimes, obviosuly depending on circumstances, 2 minutes can make a difference.


Now please, if you can't help the OP, leave him/her alone or start a separate thread about it.

[justinp1]

The answer to that is simple:

If your mother was bleeding that badly and the situation was that bad that you speeding there would make a real difference, then if the 3 points and £60 comes through that would be the *last* thing you would worry about.

I would gladly write out a cheque in that situation the money and points wouldnt matter to me. If I really felt that badly then I would opt to have my day in court to tell them so.

The law is quite exact, speeding is an absolute offence. But, magistrates are renowned for pretty much making up their decisions on the spot, and the decision changes day to day and court to court. Common sense might prevail.

That, or just hire Nick Freeman. He will cook a story up for you so you wont even need a real one.

As mentioned before, there are two ways to look at this. It was obviously a stressful and emotional moment, and under that pressure and trying to look after someone, these are not the best conditions for observation of the dangers of the road and driving safely. You could have made the choice to call an ambulance but jumped in the car. Either the trip did make a difference to your other half's comfort, and so the £60 should be by the by, or as you have mentioned things like which hospital you wanted her to go to had some sway to your decision as well.

Here is an interesting thought; as you have mentioned your mind was obviously on other things which were happening, enough so you didnt see a big yellow box by the side of the road. If someone walked into the road and you ran them over, would/should you be looking for the same kind of legal exemption from punishment? Or in the circumstances would the punishment be harsher?

>> Edited by justinp1 on Sunday 9th April 01:24

[gilbertd]

vonhosen said:

These are rules that the emergency services have to operate under. They have to be able to justify their actions under scrutiny. Where found to be wanting, they risk prosecution just like anyone else, if that action is deemed to be not justifiable. With more serious matters it is reasonable to expect that you would have at least tried calling for medical assistance (if that was honestly your belief) & in less serious matters you wouldn't need to be breaking the limit anyway.

I have tried my best to ignore most of the holier than thou, self righteous claptrap you have posted but this one takes the biscuit. Read the wording of the Act, vehicles used for Fire, Police or Ambulance PURPOSES so the OP is perfectly justified. Had he not been flashed by a tax collecting machine but been pulled by Trafpol, once the situation became clear he would almost certainly have got himself a police escort under blues and twos and been able to exceed the speed limits by a far greater margin.

Think about it. A member of your family injures themselves and you know you are 10 minutes drive from the hospital, what do you do? Call for an ambulance and hang around for an hour or so while they deal with the aftermath of a few beers too many in a nightclub for them to then take the 10 minutes to get to the hospital. Or do you do as any right minded, compassionate, caring partner would do and get them to the hospital as quickly as possible. The injury may be minor but it could be serious, it needs a qualified medical person to ascertain that. The person may be a paramedic in an ambulance, who could take an hour to get there, or the medical staff at A&E who can be examining them within 10 minutes.

vonhosen, if you honestly believe your stance under these circumstances is right, there is no place for you anywhere other than in a police state. We may be getting close but we haven't got there yet. In an ideal world, the OP could write to the scamera partnerhip explaining the circumstances and no further action would be taken. However, discretion is not something they understand so it would make no difference. I suspect that if the OP pleads not guilty, appears in court and explains the circumstances to the bench (carefully explaining that he did not knowingly exceed the speed limit, but, at the time, the health of his partner was of paramount importance), there is a pretty good chance that they would find him not guilty. But, speeding is an absolute offence, I hear you say. Yes it is, but if a Trafpol can exercise a little discretion, so can a magistrate and declare that the vehicle was being used for ambulance PURPOSES.



>> Edited by gilbertd on Sunday 9th April 02:47

>> Edited by gilbertd on Sunday 9th April 02:49

[TOPTON]

gilbertd said:

vonhosen said: These are rules that the emergency services have to operate under. They have to be able to justify their actions under scrutiny. Where found to be wanting, they risk prosecution just like anyone else, if that action is deemed to be not justifiable. With more serious matters it is reasonable to expect that you would have at least tried calling for medical assistance (if that was honestly your belief) & in less serious matters you wouldn't need to be breaking the limit anyway. I have tried my best to ignore most of the holier than thou, self righteous claptrap you have posted but this one takes the biscuit. Read the wording of the Act, vehicles used for Fire, Police or Ambulance PURPOSES so the OP is perfectly justified. Had he not been flashed by a tax collecting machine but been pulled by Trafpol, once the situation became clear he would almost certainly have got himself a police escort under blues and twos and been able to exceed the speed limits by a far greater margin. Think about it. A member of your family injures themselves and you know you are 10 minutes drive from the hospital, what do you do? Call for an ambulance and hang around for an hour or so while they deal with the aftermath of a few beers too many in a nightclub for them to then take the 10 minutes to get to the hospital. Or do you do as any right minded, compassionate, caring partner would do and get them to the hospital as quickly as possible. The injury may be minor but it could be serious, it needs a qualified medical person to ascertain that. The person may be a paramedic in an ambulance, who could take an hour to get there, or the medical staff at A&E who can be examining them within 10 minutes. vonhosen, if you honestly believe your stance under these circumstances is right, there is no place for you anywhere other than in a police state. We may be getting close but we haven't got there yet. In an ideal world, the OP could write to the scamera partnerhip explaining the circumstances and no further action would be taken. However, discretion is not something they understand so it would make no difference. I suspect that if the OP pleads not guilty, appears in court and explains the circumstances to the bench (carefully explaining that he did not knowingly exceed the speed limit, but, at the time, the health of his partner was of paramount importance), there is a pretty good chance that they would find him not guilty. But, speeding is an absolute offence, I hear you say. Yes it is, but if a Trafpol can exercise a little discretion, so can a magistrate and declare that the vehicle was being used for ambulance PURPOSES. >> Edited by gilbertd on Sunday 9th April 02:47 >> Edited by gilbertd on Sunday 9th April 02:49

[dcb]

Parrot of Doom said:

I'd just like to point out that people can actually die from broken bones - internal bleeding anyone?

Exactly - the driver isn't a doctor or qualified in any way
to professionally judge the injuries.

In my view, it was reasonable judgement, on the basis of the
then known facts, to rush to the hospital as soon as possible.

Any jury that convicts on the basis that we should be slow
in driving to hospital for an emergency is wrong.

I would have thought that this would make a few paragraphs
in the local newspaper.

[Dwight VanDriver]

Unfortunately the term 'ambulance purposes' is not defined under the Act.
The definition of an 'Ambulance' (OED) is a vehicle for conveying wounded.
Whilst the lady was not 'wounded - skin broken' a normal person would say that she was injured and as such required fairly rapid hospital treatment. But was a broken bone an emergency?

Having called an Ambulance and a problem with a call out would have helped in this incident.

IMHO then by all means try, with all the evidence to hand, to get SCP to see that the run fell within the exemption, but I fear it may well fall on deaf ears.

If so then I would consider running it before the Magistrates, again with all the evidence for a more sensible and compassionate decision than SCP. However they may well not wish to open the flood gates so that this exemption is abused.

Law on this is strange:

Fire Officer 'on-call' using his car to go to a fire can put his foot down, but not when returning hime from a fire.

Doctor on his rounds going to a sick person is not exempt but on arrival major illness, he takes that person to Hospital can claim the exemption.

dvd

[vonhosen]

gilbertd said:

I have tried my best to ignore most of the holier than thou, self righteous claptrap you have posted but this one takes the biscuit. Read the wording of the Act, vehicles used for Fire, Police or Ambulance PURPOSES so the OP is perfectly justified. Had he not been flashed by a tax collecting machine but been pulled by Trafpol, once the situation became clear he would almost certainly have got himself a police escort under blues and twos and been able to exceed the speed limits by a far greater margin.

I am quite aware of the law on it (probably a lot better than most). You have to justify the PURPOSE required the use of the exemption, just claiming the PURPOSE doesn't do that. It is not just the wording you have to look at, but how the wording is interpreted & rulings that courts make around it. They clearly show that just claiming an exemption for purpose is not enough.

Any trafpol would have to get permission for an "escort" & you are assuming that permission would be granted. Not likely to escort a MOP for someone on board with a broken ankle.

Dwight VanDriver said:

Unfortunately the term 'ambulance purposes' is not defined under the Act. The definition of an 'Ambulance' (OED) is a vehicle for conveying wounded. Whilst the lady was not 'wounded - skin broken' a normal person would say that she was injured and as such required fairly rapid hospital treatment. But was a broken bone an emergency? Having called an Ambulance and a problem with a call out would have helped in this incident. IMHO then by all means try, with all the evidence to hand, to get SCP to see that the run fell within the exemption, but I fear it may well fall on deaf ears. If so then I would consider running it before the Magistrates, again with all the evidence for a more sensible and compassionate decision than SCP. However they may well not wish to open the flood gates so that this exemption is abused. Law on this is strange: Fire Officer 'on-call' using his car to go to a fire can put his foot down, but not when returning hime from a fire. Doctor on his rounds going to a sick person is not exempt but on arrival major illness, he takes that person to Hospital can claim the exemption. dvd

Exactly.

Taking someone home from the hospital who has already been treated is still an ambulance PURPOSE but wouldn't require use of an exemption. The fact is that an ambulance PURPOSE is not enough, you still have to justify the emergency use of the exemption at that time for that PURPOSE. That is a subjective test & the whole circumstances would be looked at.

i.e. Was it really necessary, was there no other way, was it justifiable ?






>> Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 9th April 09:25

[turbobloke]

vonhosen said:

I am quite aware of the law on it (probably a lot better than most). You have to justify the PURPOSE required the use of the exemption, just claiming the PURPOSE doesn't do that

Apparently Nick Freeman knows the law even better than you, he got Sir Alec Ferguson off a speeding charge on the basis of a medical problem with the driver rather than a passenger, to wit, a bowel condition that merely required urgent access to a public convenience.