View Single Post
  #73   Report Post  
Old February 6th 09, 01:39 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 13:06:01 +0000,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message op.uoxkwnwjhaghkf@lucy, at 12:56:37 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009,
Duncan Wood remarked:
In other words (and ignoring people with illegally fitted lights) you
cannot use the presence of blue lights to tell whether or not the
vehicle has a statutory right not to be obstructed.

Yes, they completely muffed that Act.


Well only inasmuch as if people are intent on obstructing them then
they might not be commiting a criminal offense.


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".

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/