Red Light - Emergency Vehicle Defence?

[speedking31]

The fact that the law is worded and enforced as it is shows that the authorities have weighed up the balance between a few people suffering more due to delayed ambulance journeys and a few people suffering more due to secondary collisions when illegally clearing a red light, and decided that the current legislation and enforcement gives the best overall outcome. If delayed ambulances were such an issue then the law would be rewritten or differently enforced with clarity for all.

[JumboBeef]

twoblacklines said:

Been driving for 17 odd years and I have NEVER come across an ambulance who sits at lights and turns their sirens off and waits.

They all bully / guilt trip people to move and if you or they don't other members of the public get involved too.

Not me.

Several times yesterday (in a RRV) I switched everything off when it was clear no one could go anywhere (safely).

As I've already said, anyone who feels they have been bullied by an ambulance to do something illegal or unsafe needs to report it to the ambulance trust for that area.

[richie99]

Gavia said:

JumboBeef said:

It is not acceptable for an ambulance to use lights and/or sirens when traffic ahead cannot move due to a red light.

Which area was this in? You should get in touch with ambulance trust for the area and lodge a complaint. The driving department will then have a word with the crew about intelligent use of lights and sirens.

I just don't understand comments like this. The ambulance could have someone close to death in the back and a minute could be the difference between life and death and you're suggesting getting the driver into bother. Whatever the law says (and I really think there would be a common sense aspect to this) your comments are pretty pathetic in my opinion.

It's very rare for a stop line on a multi lane dual carriageway to be do far forward that going over by a car length or two would put you into crossing traffic.

I just don't understand the position you have taken. The Government has deliberately arranged things so that taking the steps you seem to favour results in you committing an absolute offence. No common sense allowed there. If the Government gave a damn about someone arriving at hospital more quickly it is in its powers to rectify the situation. It chooses not too but you see to think that is the previous poster's fault and consequently his responsibility to rectify.

[Gavia]

richie99 said:

I just don't understand the position you have taken. The Government has deliberately arranged things so that taking the steps you seem to favour results in you committing an absolute offence. No common sense allowed there. If the Government gave a damn about someone arriving at hospital more quickly it is in its powers to rectify the situation. It chooses not too but you see to think that is the previous poster's fault and consequently his responsibility to rectify.

If I see an ambulance with sirens and lights, then it suggests to me it's either on the way to an emergency, or has a patient in the back in an emergency situation. I rate other people's lives higher than the negligible chance that I'd get caught and receive three points for creeping beyond a stop line. I speed virtually all the time when I'm driving. Speeding is an absolute offence too, but I don't let that stop me.

Red-light cameras are extremely rare, traffic police similarly. I don't believe for one second that a human being would charge me with jumping a red light to let an ambulance through, so we're left with the only issue being traffic lights with red light cameras. They are rare. Very rare.

I won't change anyone's mind, but nor will anyone change mine on this. I just hope that if I'm in the back of an ambulance, I never come across any of you lot who value your clean licence more than potentially others lives, even though the risk to your licence is miniscule.

[richie99]

Fair enough. If you are happy to break the law to,protect the rest of us when the Government thinks your efforts are so detrimental to the rest of us that they was to make them illegal then good on you.

As for getting caught, any ambulance with a dash cam fitted has video evidence of your law breaking as you go through a red light to get out of their way.

I don't disagree with you but we should be putting pressure on the cretins who make the law, not breaking the law because they are too stupid to change it.

[Gavia]

richie99 said:

Fair enough. If you are happy to break the law to,protect the rest of us when the Government thinks your efforts are so detrimental to the rest of us that they was to make them illegal then good on you.

As for getting caught, any ambulance with a dash cam fitted has video evidence of your law breaking as you go through a red light to get out of their way.

I don't disagree with you but we should be putting pressure on the cretins who make the law, not breaking the law because they are too stupid to change it.

Hyperbolic nonsense. I'm not outing anyone in danger, I'm sensible enough to be able to pull through a Red light and not plough into oncoming traffic, after all I manage it at every Give Way or Stop sign every time I drive. If there isn't the space to pull through the redlight, then I won't, but there normally is plenty of space.

And like all dash cam warriors, I'll ignore it. I can't really see an ambulance driver suddenly running to the police to hand over evidence of me getting out of their way.

Change the law, what a load of tosh, just have some confidence in your own ability to use common sense and stop fretting about pedantic absolutes that don't really exist.

[Second Best]

I used to own an old 4x4. One afternoon I was waiting at the lights and a police car came up behind me. I bumped the car up onto the pavement (just two wheels) and the police car went past quite happily.

I now drive an Aston Martin. I live in a fantastic part of London where the police are used regularly. Waiting at the same junction, a police car came up behind me. I had no intention of going on the pavement or crossing the red light. After one or two "siren" wails the police switched the siren off and waited until the lights went green, at which point I safely moved over and let them go past. The daggers from the passenger plod's eyes went straight through me.

I'd do the same again. Well done council for installing high kerbs to protect children (you'd think the 11 speed bumps on a short road would be enough) and a red light camera to help further.

[Retroman]

Gavia said:

Change the law, what a load of tosh, just have some confidence in your own ability to use common sense and stop fretting about pedantic absolutes that don't really exist.

Plenty have people have went through red lights to cater for emergency vehicles only to receive a fine and have their appeal for it to be dismissed declined.

[HantsRat]

Still waiting for some online proof someone has got done for this? Anyone?

[R0G]

InitialDave said:

On what basis are you able to offer this guarantee, and can you provide a reference to where the law says that I may do this? Or some other kind of legal precedent?

Show me something that 100% means I can go through a red light in order to make passage for an emergency vehicle and absolutely will not be prosecuted for it, and I'm happy to do it.

Reverse the question - show me examples of where drivers have been prosecuted but do not include the odd ones who could not be bothered to contest a camera NIP

The law is clear but like all laws exceptional circumstances are taken into consideration such as moving out of the way SAFELY for a blue lighter

[InitialDave]

No.

[HantsRat]

InitialDave said:

No.

Informative response. What you are saying is the same as you will never travel at 31mph in a 30 be because the law states you are wrong and there is nothing in law that will allow you to speed.

[InitialDave]

You are the one making the claim about something, the onus is on you to provide evidence that supports your claim.

If you're that interested in knowing how many drivers have been done for going through a red light despite responding to the NIP saying they did so to let an emergency vehicle past, then submit a freedom of information request to find out.

[InitialDave]

HantsRat said:

Informative response. What you are saying is the same as you will never travel at 31mph in a 30 be because the law states you are wrong and there is nothing in law that will allow you to speed.

No it isn't. It's the same as if I said I wouldn't travel more than 30 in a 30 limit, as I did not believe I could avoid the punishment if caught.

I am, however, NOT saying that.

[HantsRat]

Basically to cut a long story short and to save everyone time skimming this thread.

Yes it is illegal to go through a red light. However would a court convict someone of going through slightly to allow an emergency vehicle through on blues and would it be in the public interest to do so? No.

Are there any published articles of someone getting done for this in court? No.

Simply put, if you go through a red light with no camera, nothing will happen. If you go through one with a camera you will probably get an automated letter but appeal this with evidence and it'll most likely be binned.

[Gavia]

Retroman said:

Gavia said:

Change the law, what a load of tosh, just have some confidence in your own ability to use common sense and stop fretting about pedantic absolutes that don't really exist.

Plenty have people have went through red lights to cater for emergency vehicles only to receive a fine and have their appeal for it to be dismissed declined.

Can someone please provide just one example of this please. It's easy to make a claim like this, but you need to support it with evidence.

Side issue, but you've done someing amazing. It's very frustrating seeing people type "of" when the word is "have" e.g. Should of, when the phrase is should have, or should've. However, you've now won first prize by typing "plenty have people", when it's "plenty of people". I'll ignore the "went through" and assume your from Glasgow where they use went instead of gone all the time.

Typos I understand, especially in the age of autocorrect, but consciously choosing the wrong word is just bizarre.

[Dave Hedgehog]

HantsRat said:

Basically to cut a long story short and to save everyone time skimming this thread.

Yes it is illegal to go through a red light. However would a court convict someone of going through slightly to allow an emergency vehicle through on blues and would it be in the public interest to do so? No.

Are there any published articles of someone getting done for this in court? No.

Simply put, if you go through a red light with no camera, nothing will happen. If you go through one with a camera you will probably get an automated letter but appeal this with evidence and it'll most likely be binned.

a colleague was done for a red light in london a couple of years back after moving for an ambulance

the law is very clear, you do not break the rules of the road just because of an emergency service vehicle

[Gavia]

Dave Hedgehog said:

a colleague was done for a red light in london a couple of years back after moving for an ambulance

That's an anecdote not proof.

[HantsRat]

Dave Hedgehog said:

a colleague was done for a red light in london a couple of years back after moving for an ambulance

the law is very clear, you do not break the rules of the road just because of an emergency service vehicle

And did he contest this? Or was in just work hearsay like that heard in a pub?

[vonhosen]

Even if you do get let off at court (which can't be guaranteed) it of course assumes you are willing to put yourself through the personal aggro/cost of getting a NIP, Conditional offer & then submitting yourself to the court.

I can understand why people would take the easier personal option of staying put/observing signage & letting the emergency vehicle sort out their own path out.