In the public interest. Really?
Discussion
Once again some jobsworth has decided that their opinion is more important, ie the Procurator Fiscal in Edinburgh (CPS to you south of the border)has decided to prosecute an organ transplant ambulance driver for speeding.
I despair at the lack of common sense. I only hope that one day his heart transplant is delayed because the ambulance driver refused to break the speed limit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-ea...
I despair at the lack of common sense. I only hope that one day his heart transplant is delayed because the ambulance driver refused to break the speed limit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-ea...
I think what it shows is L&B's suspicion of 'private' ambulances, something I think I can understand.
FWIW I have (in the past) delivered various human organs for transplant, all over the UK, in nothing more than a 1.8D Escort van - unmarked, and without the benefit/temptation of the trappings of a faux emergency service. All organs were delivered on time and without incident. Anything really urgent went via NHS ambulance, police or air.
FWIW I have (in the past) delivered various human organs for transplant, all over the UK, in nothing more than a 1.8D Escort van - unmarked, and without the benefit/temptation of the trappings of a faux emergency service. All organs were delivered on time and without incident. Anything really urgent went via NHS ambulance, police or air.
After reading the story I reckon it's pretty fair to do him.
Edinburgh to Leeds is about 4 hours by road (at legal speeds). If it was so urgent that he was asked to do the whole run with lights & sirens then perhaps something other than road transport would have been more appropriate?
He was also not taking the fastest route. Cross country to M74/M6 would have allowed him to drive flat out and be there a lot quicker than trying to speed down the A1.
Clearly it wasn't that urgent and he was simply caught speeding and thought he could get off by being a private ambulance driver.
Edinburgh to Leeds is about 4 hours by road (at legal speeds). If it was so urgent that he was asked to do the whole run with lights & sirens then perhaps something other than road transport would have been more appropriate?
He was also not taking the fastest route. Cross country to M74/M6 would have allowed him to drive flat out and be there a lot quicker than trying to speed down the A1.
Clearly it wasn't that urgent and he was simply caught speeding and thought he could get off by being a private ambulance driver.
tex200 said:
Clearly it wasn't that urgent and he was simply caught speeding and thought he could get off by being a private ambulance driver.
My conclusion too. We only have one side of the story there.THere is a mechanism in place to cancel the speed charge in appropriate circumstances and armed with all the facts they chose not to.
tex200 said:
He was also not taking the fastest route. Cross country to M74/M6 would have allowed him to drive flat out and be there a lot quicker than trying to speed down the A1.
I disagree as you've missed out the M8 from Edinburgh to Glasgow.If he took your route, it would be much longer. Edinburgh to Glasgow along the M8 is about 45 minutes. Glasgow to English border down the M74/A74(M) is about 2 hours. Then he'd need to go down the M6 to J40 and along the A66 heading for the A1(M). You're looking at atleast 4 hours provided the traffic is light.
The organ taxi driver said "The good news is I was able to deliver the organ in time for a successful operation later that day".
It may well be reasonable in some circumstances to drive in excess of teh sped limit to deliver an organ, of course it is. Doctors and organ taxi firms should, be handing the delivery over to an authorised vehicle and driver in those cases while they lobby for an exemption to do the same. When they get the legislation changed then they can be their drivers to undertake the same training as emergency service drivers do now.
It may be a mistake calling the vehicles an ambulance as it gives the people running and driving them the wrong idea of what exemptions they may or may not have.
At the moment, there is no exemption.
....and yes, I would like my spare parts delivered at full speed please.
It may well be reasonable in some circumstances to drive in excess of teh sped limit to deliver an organ, of course it is. Doctors and organ taxi firms should, be handing the delivery over to an authorised vehicle and driver in those cases while they lobby for an exemption to do the same. When they get the legislation changed then they can be their drivers to undertake the same training as emergency service drivers do now.
It may be a mistake calling the vehicles an ambulance as it gives the people running and driving them the wrong idea of what exemptions they may or may not have.
At the moment, there is no exemption.
....and yes, I would like my spare parts delivered at full speed please.
tex200 said:
He was also not taking the fastest route. Cross country to M74/M6 would have allowed him to drive flat out and be there a lot quicker than trying to speed down the A1.
In a driven car scenario, by far the fastest route from Edinburgh to Leeds is down the A1.As for the organ delivery, unless it's an emergency, and the driver is using a genuine exemption, I don't see why he should be able to escape prosecution?
Jasandjules said:
pitmansboots said:
....and yes, I would like my spare parts delivered at full speed please.
But, but, speed kills........... So surely better not to risk killing thousands of children and rabbits just to save you!!? I think it is perfectly reasonable to have trained and authorised drivers to use speed that is higher than the speed limit when it is in the public interest and justified. it is not in the public interest to have everyone at liberty to use speed in excess of that regulated when they deem it safe to do so.
That's the difference between you and I. I am able to think of complex concepts while you may only be able to do one-at-a-time.
A while back someone did an FoI request to find out the number of drivers with more than 12 points on their licence and still allowed to drive. There were lots, some with 30+. IIRC the discussion involved that some of were organ delivery drivers and so could basically clock up points with a degree of impunity. Is this any different?
trashbat said:
A while back someone did an FoI request to find out the number of drivers with more than 12 points on their licence and still allowed to drive. There were lots, some with 30+. IIRC the discussion involved that some of were organ delivery drivers and so could basically clock up points with a degree of impunity. Is this any different?
Out of thousands of people driving with 12+ points some are bound to be organ delivery drivers.It seems like more of an employment law issue to me.
His employers (presumably) gave him assurances regarding the legal status of blue light runs, and it appears that he didn't have the authority that somebody assumed he did have.
Is it likely that the driver can seek recompense fron his employer for the conviction and subsequent losses (insurance etc)?
His employers (presumably) gave him assurances regarding the legal status of blue light runs, and it appears that he didn't have the authority that somebody assumed he did have.
Is it likely that the driver can seek recompense fron his employer for the conviction and subsequent losses (insurance etc)?
Rockatansky said:
It seems like more of an employment law issue to me.
His employers (presumably) gave him assurances regarding the legal status of blue light runs, and it appears that he didn't have the authority that somebody assumed he did have.
Is it likely that the driver can seek recompense fron his employer for the conviction and subsequent losses (insurance etc)?
I think likely to be that if you break the law it's your fault. (IANARL)His employers (presumably) gave him assurances regarding the legal status of blue light runs, and it appears that he didn't have the authority that somebody assumed he did have.
Is it likely that the driver can seek recompense fron his employer for the conviction and subsequent losses (insurance etc)?
Perhaps you're confusing with the insurance situation? I.E. if you have every reason to believe the employer's vehicle is insured (because it was yesterday, they said so, etc)
simoid said:
pitmansboots said:
....and yes, I would like my spare parts delivered at full speed please.
But it has to be in the public interest to exceed the limit...CBR JGWRR said:
What about if you are a professional road racer?
There are times when the employers of such people will pay to have the road closed when they can then ply their trade in a relatively safe manner.Quite frankly, I wouldn't like to share the road with professional road racers in normal traffic, would you, really?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff