Red Light - Emergency Vehicle Defence?

[Gavia]

vonhosen said:

I'm addressing the point that you fail to understand & showing it's even wider than your failure to comprehend.
You can't see how people can be banned when they aren't driving. Plain and simple you are wrong in your assumption.


With respect to failing to provide a sample.

http://drinkdrivesolicitors.com/representation/sen...

At no point have I made that assertion, other than in relation to this specific story that reetroman is referencing. I want proof that it happened, not something else. Please don't quote the comment I made "that's a bit more mainstream than a story about a bloke who got banned from driving even though he wasn't in a car", as that relates to the two earlier comments about this specific story.

I've noted that you seem to enjoy jumping on people one at a time with your pedantry, so I'll give you a wide berth from now on.

Failing to provide is fine when driving, but not when not in the car at all.

[vonhosen]

Gavia said:

vonhosen said:

I'm addressing the point that you fail to understand & showing it's even wider than your failure to comprehend.
You can't see how people can be banned when they aren't driving. Plain and simple you are wrong in your assumption.


With respect to failing to provide a sample.

http://drinkdrivesolicitors.com/representation/sen...

At no point have I made that assertion, other than in relation to this specific story that reetroman is referencing. I want proof that it happened, not something else. Please don't quote the comment I made "that's a bit more mainstream than a story about a bloke who got banned from driving even though he wasn't in a car", as that relates to the two earlier comments about this specific story.

I've noted that you seem to enjoy jumping on people one at a time with your pedantry, so I'll give you a wide berth from now on.

Failing to provide is fine when driving, but not when not in the car at all.

It's not pedantry, just illustrating you are wrong.

You are legally required to provide a sample where Police 'suspect' you have been driving. You may not infact have been driving & that's something that can come to light later, but at that point you are legally required to provide & failure to is an offence. That is separate from whether you are actually drink/driving or not.

https://thedrivingsolicitor.co.uk/frequently-asked...

http://www.thefirmsolicitors.co.uk/pwpcontrol.php?...

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 20th April 15:34

[Gavia]

vonhosen said:

It's not pedantry, just illustrating you are wrong.

You are legally required to provide a sample where Police 'suspect' you have been driving. You may not infact have been driving & that's something that can come to light later, but at that point you are legally required to provide & failure to is an offence. That is separate from whether you are actually drink/driving or not.

http://www.thefirmsolicitors.co.uk/pwpcontrol.php?...

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 20th April 15:32

It's pedantic to the extreme. The police do not simply wander round thinking "ooo look at that drunk person walking home, I think he's been driving, I'll breathalyse him". So either he. Was driving and trying to,pull a fast one, or wasn't and the story is BS. I don't believe I'm wrong. You're not a solicitor, but you love to act on technicalities on this stuff.

I seem to remember someone saying you were retired plod. If so, how many times did you breathalyse someone who you purely suspected of driving in your career?

We've gone fromthe sublime tomthe rodoculous on this thread and I'm. Now expecting someone to start a thread saying "someone was injured in a crash outside my house, but as I'd had a drink four weeks ago, I didn't dare risk helping them, as the police might have suspected me of driving. Sadly the crash victim died before the ambulance got here as it was stuck at every red light by drivers refusing to move because the ambulance had a dash cam and they were going to hand over to the police so that all of those drivers could've been prosecuted for jumping a red light."

I don't believe anyone would lose their licence for the scenario that retroman has claimed. Was he even insured to drive the neighbour's car? Here comes a load of driving other cars claptrap now.

[vonhosen]

Gavia said:

vonhosen said:

It's not pedantry, just illustrating you are wrong.

You are legally required to provide a sample where Police 'suspect' you have been driving. You may not infact have been driving & that's something that can come to light later, but at that point you are legally required to provide & failure to is an offence. That is separate from whether you are actually drink/driving or not.

http://www.thefirmsolicitors.co.uk/pwpcontrol.php?...

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 20th April 15:32

It's pedantic to the extreme. The police do not simply wander round thinking "ooo look at that drunk person walking home, I think he's been driving, I'll breathalyse him". So either he. Was driving and trying to,pull a fast one, or wasn't and the story is BS. I don't believe I'm wrong. You're not a solicitor, but you love to act on technicalities on this stuff.

I seem to remember someone saying you were retired plod. If so, how many times did you breathalyse someone who you purely suspected of driving in your career?

We've gone fromthe sublime tomthe rodoculous on this thread and I'm. Now expecting someone to start a thread saying "someone was injured in a crash outside my house, but as I'd had a drink four weeks ago, I didn't dare risk helping them, as the police might have suspected me of driving. Sadly the crash victim died before the ambulance got here as it was stuck at every red light by drivers refusing to move because the ambulance had a dash cam and they were going to hand over to the police so that all of those drivers could've been prosecuted for jumping a red light."

I don't believe anyone would lose their licence for the scenario that retroman has claimed. Was he even insured to drive the neighbour's car? Here comes a load of driving other cars claptrap now.

Who has said anything about just picking on anyone wandering in the street who looks a bit tipsy?
<strawman>


I suspect Retroman's story is this one.
http://www.devonlive.com/christmas-day-crash-good-...

He was convicted of failing to provide but received points not a ban.
Even though it was accepted he wasn't driving.

[Gavia]

vonhosen said:

Who has said anything about just picking on anyone wandering in the street who looks a bit tipsy?
<strawman>


I suspect Retroman's story is this one.
http://www.devonlive.com/christmas-day-crash-good-...

He was convicted of failing to provide but received points not a ban.
Even though it was established he had not been in the car & had merely gone to help.

That's the inference of what you're suggesting. Again, the constant obsession on here with shouting "strawman" at every opportunity is frustrating.

The key point for me in that incident is that the driver had been at the good samaritan's house drinking and had just left when he crashed 250 yards later. The way that the Good Samaritan was acting was what led to him being arrested and charged. It's a far cry from someone just helping a crash victim outside their house with no connection other than being neighbours.

That story doesn't match what retroman claimed. I've quoted it below. His story involves a ban. It also claims both people explained what happened, rather than not being forthcoming and so on.

There are more differences than similarities, but I guess urban myths have that aspect to them.

Retroman said:

1. It might not be also
2. You assume trying to get a hold of that information is both possible and easy.
3. See above.

The reason people don't challenge them is there is a real risk of getting done as the only real deffence is proving you didn't run a red light.

I read a story recently where an elderly gentleman crashed his car. A neighbour, who had been drinking rushed out to help him out the car. Police arrived and asked what happened. Both explained.
Police wanted to breathalyse the guy who had been drinking despite not being a passenger in the car, let alone driving.
He refused on the basis he wasn't trying so was charged with failing to provide.
In court he was able to prove he wasn't driving but because he was guilty for failing to provide and it being an absolute offence he still lost his license

[mickmcpaddy]

I cant be arsed reading through all 7 pages of drivel if its anything like the dash cam thread but surely if you contribute in even the minutest way to save some one else's life then nothing else matters. If you get 3 points and £100 fine but someone else gets to live, seriously, how can there be any comparison?

I would gladly call a magistrate a wker to his face if he gave me points in this situation, because even me getting sent down pales into insignificance compared to someone being dead, you really cant compare the two.

If I was an ambulance driver and I knew I would get sacked for not following protocol with my driving but I could save someone by getting them to hospital in time then I would go for it, every time. Maybe my new career would be cleaning toilets but what does that matter when someone else has a chance of life they would never have got otherwise.

I was going to type this should ring true all the way up to sacrificing your own life to save someone else but I'm not sure I would, not for a stranger anyway, I would for a child or a loved one but everything has its limits though. I would still gladly knock a jobsworths teeth down his throat though for putting "safety" before lives.

[Retroman]

Gavia said:

The key point for me in that incident is that the driver had been at the good samaritan's house drinking and had just left when he crashed 250 yards later. The way that the Good Samaritan was acting was what led to him being arrested and charged. It's a far cry from someone just helping a crash victim outside their house with no connection other than being neighbours.

That story doesn't match what retroman claimed. I've quoted it below. His story involves a ban. It also claims both people explained what happened, rather than not being forthcoming and so on.

There are more differences than similarities, but I guess urban myths have that aspect to them.

The difference being i had read it on Pepipoo, several months ago from the person who was being charged from failing to provide. The poster on Pepipoo seeking advice, never stated the person was at his house previously.

He claimed he was arrested for refusing to give a breath test and he refused to give a breath test because he knew he wasn't driving.
The point i'm making is despite the court accepting he wasn't driving, he was still charged and given points.
Although he wasn't driving, the failure to provide offence is absolute and the only real defence is to prove you did give a sample.

As with red lights. The only true defence when being charged of running a red light is to prove you didn't.
Some prosecution offices will certainly drop charges for sure and use common sense when an emergency vehicle is involved, but not all police officers / prosecution offices / are equal when it comes to discretion

[Retroman]

How often do you think people die each year as a result of ambulances getting stuck behind people for a few moments whilst they wait for lights to change?

[Engineer792]

How often do you think people die each year as a result of people pulling across the line at a red light to allow an ambulance to pass?

[exelero]

Engineer792 said:

How often do you think people die each year as a result of people pulling across the line at a red light to allow an ambulance to pass?

I didn't die last time I did it

[Engineer792]

Retroman said:

Although he wasn't driving, the failure to provide offence is absolute and the only real defence is to prove you did give a sample.

Although the offence is absolute, the charges against him really ought to have been dropped as soon as it became clear that he wasn't driving.
Neither was it in the public interest to pursue it, nor was justice served.

With the increasing prevalence of 'policing by numbers' nowadays, sooner or later we'll reach a point where we no longer need to spend money on police training.

Edited by Engineer792 on Friday 21st April 09:14

[Retroman]

Oh, look at this one.

Didn't run a red light to let the ambulance past, but exceeded the speed limit briefly to let the ambulance past

Does anyone think the police will drop this one?
After all, he was helping the ambulance make progress by getting out of it's way faster and we know how crucial every second is.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=1131...

People seem to suspect it will be 6 points and a court visit

[Gavia]

Retroman said:

Oh, look at this one.

Didn't run a red light to let the ambulance past, but exceeded the speed limit briefly to let the ambulance past

Does anyone think the police will drop this one?
After all, he was helping the ambulance make progress by getting out of it's way faster and we know how crucial every second is.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=1131...

People seem to suspect it will be 6 points and a court visit

Bull story is bull. He's on a motorbike pulling left to let an ambulance past is an absolute doddle.

[cmaguire]

Retroman said:

Oh, look at this one.

Didn't run a red light to let the ambulance past, but exceeded the speed limit briefly to let the ambulance past

Does anyone think the police will drop this one?
After all, he was helping the ambulance make progress by getting out of it's way faster and we know how crucial every second is.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=1131...

People seem to suspect it will be 6 points and a court visit

Moving forward a few metres at a light is not 'running a red light light' is it though? You're over-egging that to support your argument.

And the offence you have linked isn't comparable to moving forward slowly a few metres on a red light either. I have plenty of sympathy with the rider though as the concept of being expected to do 20mph on a two-lane road that was probably a 40 not so long ago is just ridiculous.

[Ninja59]

cmaguire said:

Moving forward a few metres at a light is not 'running a red light light' is it though? You're over-egging that to support your argument.

And the offence you have linked isn't comparable to moving forward slowly a few metres on a red light either. I have plenty of sympathy with the rider though as the concept of being expected to do 20mph on a two-lane road that was probably a 40 not so long ago is just ridiculous.

So where does running a red light begin and end in your view?

If you are planning well you would have a little space to the line left anyway without crossing the line.

[Retroman]

cmaguire said:

Moving forward a few metres at a light is not 'running a red light light' is it though? You're over-egging that to support your argument.

And the offence you have linked isn't comparable to moving forward slowly a few metres on a red light either. I have plenty of sympathy with the rider though as the concept of being expected to do 20mph on a two-lane road that was probably a 40 not so long ago is just ridiculous.

My only argument is that if you break the law there is always the risk of a real prosecution, regardless of excuse or reason.

On top of that i don't think many people die as a result of ambulances being held up at red lights. Otherwise legislation or guidance would be changed.

If someone wants to go through a red light or some other illegal maneuver to assist, that's up to them and i'm cool with it

Merely pointing out there is no guarantee you won't get points and a fine and that risk isn't worth it for everyone.

[LudaMusser]

Do ambulance drivers have any sort of training more than holding a car licence?

I live less than a mile from a hospital and on more than one occasion I've seen some very questionable driving. The incident that springs to mind the most is when I was at the front of a queue waiting at traffic lights for a green light. Lights go to green and just as I was about to pull away an ambulance came from my right on a red light without the siren on. Luckily I was able to notice it in time but people with slower reactions may not have been so lucky. Not to mention pedestrians slowly crossing the road

[Ki3r]

LudaMusser said:

Do ambulance drivers have any sort of training more than holding a car licence?

I live less than a mile from a hospital and on more than one occasion I've seen some very questionable driving. The incident that springs to mind the most is when I was at the front of a queue waiting at traffic lights for a green light. Lights go to green and just as I was about to pull away an ambulance came from my right on a red light without the siren on. Luckily I was able to notice it in time but people with slower reactions may not have been so lucky. Not to mention pedestrians slowly crossing the road

Yes, they have a three week course to drive on response.

[Countdown]

Retroman said:

Oh, look at this one.

Didn't run a red light to let the ambulance past, but exceeded the speed limit briefly to let the ambulance past

Does anyone think the police will drop this one?
After all, he was helping the ambulance make progress by getting out of it's way faster and we know how crucial every second is.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=1131...

People seem to suspect it will be 6 points and a court visit

He had to do 43mph in a 20mph limit and didnt realise because he had a broken speedo?

Exactly how far did he need to go in order to make room for the ambulance? And given he was on a motorbike surely he could have made room fairly easily without needing to travel THAT far?

More likely a plank who got caught speeding and chooses to blame the Ambulance rather than accepting it was his own fault.

[cmaguire]

Countdown said:

He had to do 43mph in a 20mph limit and didnt realise because he had a broken speedo?

Exactly how far did he need to go in order to make room for the ambulance? And given he was on a motorbike surely he could have made room fairly easily without needing to travel THAT far?

More likely a plank who got caught speeding and chooses to blame the Ambulance rather than accepting it was his own fault.

Not exceeding the limit in a 20 is hard work, particularly on a road with 3 lanes in one direction.
Coming back from London city at night a few weeks back after 10pm the A12 after the Blackwall tunnel was closed. I ended up going through what was the Olympic regeneration area near the West Ham stadium. 20mph limits everywhere, barely any vehicles or people about, and all on new roads with decent visibilty and no residential housing close to the roads. I had no idea what level of spying/observation/enforcement was in place so couldn't risk ignoring these idiotic limits. It was absolute torture, and absolutely pointless and unnecessary. Second gear and barely touching the throttle, and for what?