On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 00:26:29 -0000, Phil W Lee phil lee-family me "uk"
wrote:

"Duncan Wood" considered Fri, 06 Feb 2009
16:56:33 -0000 the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 06 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.


Why? Duress is accepted as a defence even for drink driving.

Where does that beleif come from?
I happen to know of a case where that defence was rejected, despite
strong evidence that he would not have been driving (having already
had a drink) without the necessity to save a life.


Regina vs Martin, 1989.

If you're
operating under the reasonable belief tht failing to do something may be
life threatening then you're allowed to use that as a defense. If tyou
then follow the emergency vehicle through the lights then you're going
to
have more difficulty convincing anyone that that was your belief.