View Single Post
  #75   Report Post  
Old February 6th 09, 02:08 PM posted to uk.transport.london,cam.misc
Tim Woodall Tim Woodall is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2006
Posts: 112
Default UTLer in the news

On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 14:51:20 +0000,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
14:39:19 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Tim Woodall
remarked:
It's been suggested that people might rely upon the Emergency Workers
Act as a defence for running a red light.

This is clearly a very poor strategy, when you can't be sure that the
vehicle you are giving way to is actually covered by that Act.


Surely all you need is an "honest belief" that it was an emergency
vehicle (could even be an unmarked, unlit car behind you) and the police
wouldn't even bother to charge, let alone it going to court even if your
belief was completely wrong and it was difficult for others to
understand how you might have come into your "honest belief".


No, that's the problem. It's too great of an assumption to make that
this defence will work.


I'll remember to include sarcasm tags next time.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://www.woodall.me.uk/