Ladyman, ambulances, and driving through a red light
Discussion
Got my reply from Mr Ladyman, in respect of changing the law so that a motorist who travels through a red light will not be prosecuted if they are moving to permit an ambulance go.
He says, He HOPES the Police and CPS won't prosecute, but sees no reason to change the law. The Twunt.
Now, shall we get the papers involved? This Govt clearly think it better to prevent someone travelling through a red light when it may save someone's life, than to change a stupid law. If this is advertised, I wonder how many people actually realise they may get prosecuted.
Can anyone who has been prosecuted please let us know.. I would like a case citation so I can get back to this tw*t anyways.
He says, He HOPES the Police and CPS won't prosecute, but sees no reason to change the law. The Twunt.
Now, shall we get the papers involved? This Govt clearly think it better to prevent someone travelling through a red light when it may save someone's life, than to change a stupid law. If this is advertised, I wonder how many people actually realise they may get prosecuted.
Can anyone who has been prosecuted please let us know.. I would like a case citation so I can get back to this tw*t anyways.
There was reader's letter in Autocar this week. Reader read comment by a Chief Constable saying it was illegal to go through light at red "just becasue emergency was coming up behind as they are trained" (Lieber von.. 
Ist he this CC 
as he did say something similar on here ..)
But the reader says that fortunately he was not prosecuted nor was there a red light cam. But.. he hesitated to move und
the driver in the ambulance bullied him into moving beyond the traffic lights und put his head out of the window und bellowed at him as well.
The Autocar reader commented that after reading the CC's article... ambulance chap can "bellow as much as he likes because he ist not going to risk 3 up to 6 points on licence for red light jumping."
I think there is every need for Ladylad to make decision on this as if you do not move und someone dies because ambulance could not get the person to A&E quickly enough or some one dies in a fire because no one moved for the fire engine or someone ist killed because the police cannot get to break up the drunken punch up... or whatever... ist perhaps a bda conscience,.
As you - it need to be looked at. We ae not talking of following the ambualnce across to jump lights - but simply inching forwards to make a safe space for him to pass with his lights und sirens. Ist what they are there for und green does not mean automatic right to go.. it means GO if SAFE or clear enough ahead to do so.
Ist he this CC as he did say something similar on here ..) But the reader says that fortunately he was not prosecuted nor was there a red light cam. But.. he hesitated to move und
the driver in the ambulance bullied him into moving beyond the traffic lights und put his head out of the window und bellowed at him as well.
The Autocar reader commented that after reading the CC's article... ambulance chap can "bellow as much as he likes because he ist not going to risk 3 up to 6 points on licence for red light jumping."
I think there is every need for Ladylad to make decision on this as if you do not move und someone dies because ambulance could not get the person to A&E quickly enough or some one dies in a fire because no one moved for the fire engine or someone ist killed because the police cannot get to break up the drunken punch up... or whatever... ist perhaps a bda conscience,.
As you - it need to be looked at. We ae not talking of following the ambualnce across to jump lights - but simply inching forwards to make a safe space for him to pass with his lights und sirens. Ist what they are there for und green does not mean automatic right to go.. it means GO if SAFE or clear enough ahead to do so.
What you dont seem to realise is that if it becomes legal to travel through a red traffic light when an emergency vehicle is behind you then this sets a precedent. Every time someone gets caught thru a red they will use the excuse there was an emergency vehicle. At most junctions there is sufficient space to move over the line without crossing the junction and this will not trigger the camera. It seems that you will try and find an excuse to break every rule in the book.
Major Bloodnok said:
But if you get caught by a red light camera, then won't the following ambulance also be snapped? The camera would also show you moving out of the way, rather than crossing the junction.
Person was prosecuted for this ages ago. Ambulance was shown to be following him. I think it got thrown out only after media got involved.
Major Bloodnok said:
But if you get caught by a red light camera, then won't the following ambulance also be snapped?
That isn't always guaranteed. Let's say you're an alert motorist who, whilst sat at the stop line patiently waiting for the lights to turn green, becomes aware of an incoming emergency services vehicle long before it ends up right on your rear bumper. You want to absolutely minimise the delay to the ESV, so you pull forwards and tuck yourself out the way whilst the ESV is still several seconds away.
*flash... flash*
Unfortunately for you, just after you trip the RLC, the lights begin changing, such that in those few seconds it takes for the ESV to cross the line, they've just turned green...
OK, in *most* cases the ESV will go through on red as well, but there is a small risk that a good samaritan will end up without any photos of the following ESV to back up their appeal.
twister said:
Major Bloodnok said:
But if you get caught by a red light camera, then won't the following ambulance also be snapped?
That isn't always guaranteed. Let's say you're an alert motorist who, whilst sat at the stop line patiently waiting for the lights to turn green, becomes aware of an incoming emergency services vehicle long before it ends up right on your rear bumper. You want to absolutely minimise the delay to the ESV, so you pull forwards and tuck yourself out the way whilst the ESV is still several seconds away.
*flash... flash*
Unfortunately for you, just after you trip the RLC, the lights begin changing, such that in those few seconds it takes for the ESV to cross the line, they've just turned green...
OK, in *most* cases the ESV will go through on red as well, but there is a small risk that a good samaritan will end up without any photos of the following ESV to back up their appeal.
Further to that there has also been at least one case I remember being reported on here where the magistrates did not doubt that the reason that the redlight infringement happened was due to an ambulance passing, but was convicted anyway.
Major Bloodnok said:
But if you get caught by a red light camera, then won't the following ambulance also be snapped? The camera would also show you moving out of the way, rather than crossing the junction.
It seems that would still be breaking the law strictly speaking, and it seems to be being left to individual discretion to decide whether you will be prosecuted. It would be interesting to know what the Roadcraft position is on this.
My solution to this is not to cross but to tuck in at a sharp angle. Any camera picture then reveals a manouvre that cannot be interpretated as attempting to run the light.
You may get honked at when the lights change as you'll have to undo the turn you just made but thats better than more points.
You may get honked at when the lights change as you'll have to undo the turn you just made but thats better than more points.
cymtriks said:
My solution to this is not to cross but to tuck in at a sharp angle. Any camera picture then reveals a manouvre that cannot be interpretated as attempting to run the light.
You may get honked at when the lights change as you'll have to undo the turn you just made but thats better than more points.
You may get honked at when the lights change as you'll have to undo the turn you just made but thats better than more points.
I agree with this - if the position of your car shows you are obviously moving out of the way of something then it shouldn't go anywhere ..... when I spoke to the guys who do the red light cameras in the Met they said they would not be interested in doing anyone who is obviously moving/pulling out of the way of an emergency vehicle as that is not what they are there for.
This is insane. Any offence in statute even of the stricktest liablity can be overruled if what transpires creates such an absurdity.
However as mentioned previous this would form a valid defence. But materially thinking is is it not true primarily the purpost of RTA is to save lives.
Take this to court, argue the point. The intention of this law is to stop people going through red lights which are meant to regulate traffic. However if an ambulance or other Emergency vehicle requires to break this law they will not be prosecuted bar training it would be so absurd to say they cannot do it. Thus proving that this offence is not of absolute liability and in circumstances of necessity the most prudent course of action is utterly obvious.
However the question is wheater or not this should be pardoned. Well in the view of any resonable person it must be put forth that you acted with diligence is moving your car which reduced danger to the persons in the ambulance and the injured party and that you were certain that your actions would not cause so much more danger. Any court which would convict would have lost the plot.
Good luck with this one man, this is a complete s*it.
However as mentioned previous this would form a valid defence. But materially thinking is is it not true primarily the purpost of RTA is to save lives.
Take this to court, argue the point. The intention of this law is to stop people going through red lights which are meant to regulate traffic. However if an ambulance or other Emergency vehicle requires to break this law they will not be prosecuted bar training it would be so absurd to say they cannot do it. Thus proving that this offence is not of absolute liability and in circumstances of necessity the most prudent course of action is utterly obvious.
However the question is wheater or not this should be pardoned. Well in the view of any resonable person it must be put forth that you acted with diligence is moving your car which reduced danger to the persons in the ambulance and the injured party and that you were certain that your actions would not cause so much more danger. Any court which would convict would have lost the plot.
Good luck with this one man, this is a complete s*it.
bi9_jk said:
This is insane. Any offence in statute even of the stricktest liablity can be overruled if what transpires creates such an absurdity.
However as mentioned previous this would form a valid defence. But materially thinking is is it not true primarily the purpost of RTA is to save lives.
Take this to court, argue the point. The intention of this law is to stop people going through red lights which are meant to regulate traffic. However if an ambulance or other Emergency vehicle requires to break this law they will not be prosecuted bar training it would be so absurd to say they cannot do it. Thus proving that this offence is not of absolute liability and in circumstances of necessity the most prudent course of action is utterly obvious.
However the question is wheater or not this should be pardoned. Well in the view of any resonable person it must be put forth that you acted with diligence is moving your car which reduced danger to the persons in the ambulance and the injured party and that you were certain that your actions would not cause so much more danger. Any court which would convict would have lost the plot.
Good luck with this one man, this is a complete s*it.
However as mentioned previous this would form a valid defence. But materially thinking is is it not true primarily the purpost of RTA is to save lives.
Take this to court, argue the point. The intention of this law is to stop people going through red lights which are meant to regulate traffic. However if an ambulance or other Emergency vehicle requires to break this law they will not be prosecuted bar training it would be so absurd to say they cannot do it. Thus proving that this offence is not of absolute liability and in circumstances of necessity the most prudent course of action is utterly obvious.
However the question is wheater or not this should be pardoned. Well in the view of any resonable person it must be put forth that you acted with diligence is moving your car which reduced danger to the persons in the ambulance and the injured party and that you were certain that your actions would not cause so much more danger. Any court which would convict would have lost the plot.
Good luck with this one man, this is a complete s*it.
I am not so sure, running a red light is like speeding, it is an absolute offence.
If the magistrates are ruling on law then a person in this situation is guilty.
And the magistrates have to rule on law, an absolute offence does not offer a grey area, apart from some particular very rare situations, for example if there is a threat to your own personal safety.
This is what the OP is geting at. In effect the magistrates hands are tied - the law at the moment does not offer them the chance to give exemption for this scenario.
jasandjules said:
Got my reply from Mr Ladyman, in respect of changing the law so that a motorist who travels through a red light will not be prosecuted if they are moving to permit an ambulance go.
He says, He HOPES the Police and CPS won't prosecute, but sees no reason to change the law. The Twunt.
He says, He HOPES the Police and CPS won't prosecute, but sees no reason to change the law. The Twunt.
Can I see a copy of the Ladyman letter please?
psmith@safespeed.org.uk
jasandjules said:
Got my reply from Mr Ladyman, in respect of changing the law so that a motorist who travels through a red light will not be prosecuted if they are moving to permit an ambulance go.
He says, He HOPES the Police and CPS won't prosecute, but sees no reason to change the law. The Twunt.
Now, shall we get the papers involved? This Govt clearly think it better to prevent someone travelling through a red light when it may save someone's life, than to change a stupid law. If this is advertised, I wonder how many people actually realise they may get prosecuted.
Can anyone who has been prosecuted please let us know.. I would like a case citation so I can get back to this tw*t anyways.
He says, He HOPES the Police and CPS won't prosecute, but sees no reason to change the law. The Twunt.
Now, shall we get the papers involved? This Govt clearly think it better to prevent someone travelling through a red light when it may save someone's life, than to change a stupid law. If this is advertised, I wonder how many people actually realise they may get prosecuted.
Can anyone who has been prosecuted please let us know.. I would like a case citation so I can get back to this tw*t anyways.
Why not start an online petition at the Number 10 websire. here's the link, anybody can create a petition and then we can all sign up to it. http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/
As above's have said, the magistrates hands are tied. The case I remember is the guy in Doncaster (about a year ago I think) who was pursued relentlesly by the cpa, even though they had evidence that he moved out of the way for an amulance on an emergency call. After being forced to go to court, he eventually gave up and pleaded guilty, as of course the idiots in charge of the cpa were telling him how many £1000's of pounds etc it will cost him if he dare to contest it.
The mags said as he pleaded guilty, (they knew he had moved over the line for an amblance), they could do nothing but apply the minimum fine/points.
The mags said as he pleaded guilty, (they knew he had moved over the line for an amblance), they could do nothing but apply the minimum fine/points.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff