London Banter - View Single Post

Adrian · February 15th 09, 09:16 PM posted to uk.transport.london

gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

In article ,
(Adrian) wrote:

Roland Perry gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

instead of defending his idiocy, the councillor should be demanding
psychic 999 services, and outsourcing to any country that can promise
them.

Ones that are recognisable might help. The various investigations
seem to have concluded that the lack of recognition on the day was a
factor.

Did you read the same 137page PDF report, and the evidence contained
within, that I did? It would seem not.

Whatever. It was agreed between the parties at the hearing that the
paramedic's vehicle might not have had its lights flashing so as to
substantiate my statement that I did not at first appreciate it was on
an emergency call. If you read the Ethical Standards Officer's report,
paragraph 5.5 on page 12 of the committee agenda you will see that she
didn't determine this matter as fact either.

There's a little bit more to that paragraph than that, though, isn't
there?

That paragraph clearly states that the paramedic says the blue roof
lights AND headlights definitely were flashing, whilst your evidence says
that you don't "recall" if they were flashing or not - and the Ethical
Standards Officer explicitly says that your evidence isn't "credible in
this respect". The officer also explicitly says that the ambulance "could
only be" an emergency vehicle and this "could be seen at some distance",
which kinda shoots Roland's theory down, too.

May I suggest that if your eyesight is so poor that you can't determine
if the headlights and roof lights are flashing from 1m away you probably
shouldn't be cycling?