|
UTLer in the news
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, MIG wrote:
On Feb 5, 2:48*pm, magwitch wrote: Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 13:21:35 on Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Tom Anderson remarked: * The 4 x 4 vehicle was marked clearly as a paramedic vehicle in bold * red and green colouring Huh. It does rather look like that's an error in the report, then. Haven't found any red and green yet. Red/green colour-blindness? Should Colin have a test? This sounds increasingly like a plausible Rumpole-style defence. There was an episode about a defendant who was belatedly found to be illiterate and hence unable to have read and signed his police confession.- "I was approaching the red traffic light, so the Doppler effect made it appear green." I have a feeling that one may actually have been tried. Then they'd just do you for speeding, though. tom -- GOLDIE LOOKIN' CHAIN [...] will ultimately make all other forms of music both redundant and unnecessary -- NTK |
UTLer in the news
Duncan Wood wrote:
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:46:19 -0000, magwitch wrote: Duncan Wood wrote: On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:56:12 -0000, Alan Braggins wrote: Well it's sitting in Milton during the rush hour & seems to attend the middle of town fairly often & most of the large scale events. Are you one of those ambulance chasers then? Not according to my tax return :-) I meant as a hobby. |
UTLer in the news
In message , at
20:46:39 on Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Tom Anderson remarked: It's the newspapers that are claiming the paramedic's car was red and green. It was the official council investigating commissar's report that did. Possibly the papers did too, but i haven't looked at those. The papers quoting the commissar, then. -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
In article , magwitch wrote:
Yeah but if he can't read... see what I'm getting (doggedly) at? Have you considered a reading test? (And no, not for Colin.) |
UTLer in the news
In article , Espen Koht wrote:
A Honda based ambulance matching the general description today passed me earlier today and I noted that the primary markings really are the yellow and green on the right and left sides. The rear and front retain mostly the underlying silver/grey colour of the vehicle, and the low-profile light-bar could easily be confused with some arbitrary roof-mount unless lit. Basically, more like this: http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/ambulance/P1150231.jpg without the yellow bonnet. An earlier post http://groups.google.co.uk/group/cam...872659b40f31de (which has X-No-Archive so will expire soon) linked to http://www.eastanglianambulance.com/...iew_fullscreen "Which differs only in the registration number." |
UTLer in the news
MIG wrote:
"I was approaching the red traffic light, so the Doppler effect made it appear green." I have a feeling that one may actually have been tried. That was Sir Hermann Bondi's joke (in case you're interested). |
UTLer in the news
On Feb 5, 10:52*pm, Alex Selby wrote:
MIG wrote: "I was approaching the red traffic light, so the Doppler effect made it appear green." *I have a feeling that one may actually have been tried. That was Sir Hermann Bondi's joke (in case you're interested). Not now that Tom has pointed out the flaw in the defence. |
UTLer in the news
Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , magwitch wrote: Yeah but if he can't read... see what I'm getting (doggedly) at? Have you considered a reading test? (And no, not for Colin.) Careful Alan. Perhaps you ought to take a short course in etiquette. I haven't forgotten your no show a couple of years ago, (those *free* logs remember?) waited in all day with... |
UTLer in the news
magwitch wrote:
Alan Braggins wrote: In article , magwitch wrote: Yeah but if he can't read... see what I'm getting (doggedly) at? Have you considered a reading test? (And no, not for Colin.) Careful Alan. Perhaps you ought to take a short course in etiquette. I haven't forgotten your no show a couple of years ago, (those *free* logs remember?) waited in all day with... cat hit the send key :-/ increasing irritation on some people's appalling manners these days. |
UTLer in the news
In article ,
(Alan Braggins) wrote: In article , Espen Koht wrote: A Honda based ambulance matching the general description today passed me earlier today and I noted that the primary markings really are the yellow and green on the right and left sides. The rear and front retain mostly the underlying silver/grey colour of the vehicle, and the low-profile light-bar could easily be confused with some arbitrary roof-mount unless lit. Basically, more like this: http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/ambulance/P1150231.jpg without the yellow bonnet. An earlier post http://groups.google.co.uk/group/cam...872659b40f31de (which has X-No-Archive so will expire soon) linked to http://www.eastanglianambulance.com/...EAAMB_240702.J PG/image_view_fullscreen "Which differs only in the registration number." That's a good match (I hadn't paid much attention until I saw the potential vehicle myself). From standing 1m in front of this I would be more willing to assume some benefit of doubt IF the lights weren't running at the time (or you were Leonardo da Vinci). Anything post the initial encounter (which the driver does appear to describe as a minor altercation in his initial complaint) shows a very poor show of judgement which (in all honesty was no longer an emergency situation) clearly aggravated the situation, which doesn't entirely surprise me given Colin's general pig-headedness when he think he is right even when proven wrong. However, apart from a well warranted reprimand, as an elected official I feel the final verdict should be left to the voters in this case, rather than some potentially politicised process. |
UTLer in the news
Espen Koht wrote:
In article , (Alan Braggins) wrote: In article , Espen Koht wrote: A Honda based ambulance matching the general description today passed me earlier today and I noted that the primary markings really are the yellow and green on the right and left sides. The rear and front retain mostly the underlying silver/grey colour of the vehicle, and the low-profile light-bar could easily be confused with some arbitrary roof-mount unless lit. Basically, more like this: http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/ambulance/P1150231.jpg without the yellow bonnet. An earlier post http://groups.google.co.uk/group/cam...872659b40f31de (which has X-No-Archive so will expire soon) linked to http://www.eastanglianambulance.com/...EAAMB_240702.J PG/image_view_fullscreen "Which differs only in the registration number." That's a good match (I hadn't paid much attention until I saw the potential vehicle myself). From standing 1m in front of this I would be more willing to assume some benefit of doubt Exactly. For a brief moment, that vehicle would have looked like the next in a sequence of bullying Chelsea tractor drivers trying to elbow their way on to the grass to save themselves a couple of quid parking fee and 5 minutes walking time at the expense of the vast majority of law-abiding attendees. deep breath IF the lights weren't running at the time Even if they were. Consider which direction Colin would have been facing at just after 2 o'clock on that blazing summer's afternoon. Into sun? Also consider that the ambulance driver had said that he'd turned off his siren. Might he have inadvertantly turned the lights off as well? (or you were Leonardo da Vinci). Anything post the initial encounter (which the driver does appear to describe as a minor altercation in his initial complaint) shows a very poor show of judgement which (in all honesty was no longer an emergency situation) clearly aggravated the situation, which doesn't entirely surprise me given Colin's general pig-headedness when he think he is right even when proven wrong. People with firm convictions do often stick with them when they shouldn't. I guess that's why they're called, y'know... 'firm'. g But, do we want vacillators as our officials? Swaying with the wind? Bowing to whichever pressure group is the flavour of the month? However, apart from a well warranted reprimand, as an elected official I feel the final verdict should be left to the voters in this case, rather than some potentially politicised process. A referendum? Gosh, that would be interesting! -- -blj- |
UTLer in the news
"Brian L Johnson" wrote in message news:op.uow9x51m0v1caa@thedell... That's a good match (I hadn't paid much attention until I saw the potential vehicle myself). From standing 1m in front of this I would be more willing to assume some benefit of doubt Exactly. For a brief moment, that vehicle would have looked like the next in a sequence of bullying Chelsea tractor drivers trying to elbow their way on to the grass to save themselves a couple of quid parking fee and 5 minutes walking time at the expense of the vast majority of law-abiding attendees. All very well but the incident happened at about 8.00pm and to be facing the traffic entering Jesus Green he would have had is back to the sun Ian |
UTLer in the news
In article , Roland Perry
scribeth thus In message . com, at 13:33:51 on Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Jules remarked: Right... I've not read the report, but I did look at the photo of the vehicle - and it wasn't obvious that there *was* an ambulance sign on the bonnet or sides. There's also a certain degree of function creep in the use of the word "Ambulance". Is this a Fire Engine: http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/fire/dcp00999.jpg Perhaps it's intended or frying pan fires;?.. -- Tony Sayer |
UTLer in the news
In article op.uow9x51m0v1caa@thedell,
"Brian L Johnson" wrote: Even if they were. Consider which direction Colin would have been facing at just after 2 o'clock on that blazing summer's afternoon. Into sun? I think it has been established the even took place much later in the day, contrary to the drivers initial report, but either way I don't think the sun would make a meaningful difference. Also consider that the ambulance driver had said that he'd turned off his siren. Might he have inadvertantly turned the lights off as well? I guess it is possible, but it is also highly speculative. (or you were Leonardo da Vinci). Anything post the initial encounter (which the driver does appear to describe as a minor altercation in his initial complaint) shows a very poor show of judgement which (in all honesty was no longer an emergency situation) clearly aggravated the situation, which doesn't entirely surprise me given Colin's general pig-headedness when he think he is right even when proven wrong. People with firm convictions do often stick with them when they shouldn't. I guess that's why they're called, y'know... 'firm'. g There seems to have been a belief in the former US administration that 'firm' trumps 'wrong'; it doesn't. A referendum? Gosh, that would be interesting! What I had in mind was the normal process of elections. |
UTLer in the news
In article , magwitch wrote:
magwitch wrote: Alan Braggins wrote: In article , magwitch wrote: Yeah but if he can't read... see what I'm getting (doggedly) at? Have you considered a reading test? (And no, not for Colin.) Careful Alan. Perhaps you ought to take a short course in etiquette. I haven't forgotten your no show a couple of years ago, (those *free* logs remember?) waited in all day with... cat hit the send key :-/ increasing irritation on some people's appalling manners these days. I'm glad I phoned and emailed you beforehand to say I wasn't going to be able to make it then, though I was sorry for the short notice, but fixing the heating had to take priority. |
UTLer in the news
Brian L Johnson wrote:
Espen Koht wrote: In article , (Alan Braggins) wrote: In article , Espen Koht wrote: A Honda based ambulance matching the general description today passed me earlier today and I noted that the primary markings really are the yellow and green on the right and left sides. The rear and front retain mostly the underlying silver/grey colour of the vehicle, and the low-profile light-bar could easily be confused with some arbitrary roof-mount unless lit. Basically, more like this: http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/ambulance/P1150231.jpg without the yellow bonnet. An earlier post http://groups.google.co.uk/group/cam...872659b40f31de (which has X-No-Archive so will expire soon) linked to http://www.eastanglianambulance.com/...EAAMB_240702.J PG/image_view_fullscreen "Which differs only in the registration number." That's a good match (I hadn't paid much attention until I saw the potential vehicle myself). From standing 1m in front of this I would be more willing to assume some benefit of doubt Exactly. For a brief moment, that vehicle would have looked like the next in a sequence of bullying Chelsea tractor drivers trying to elbow their way on to the grass to save themselves a couple of quid parking fee and 5 minutes walking time at the expense of the vast majority of law-abiding attendees. For a brief moment. The initial reaction for someone as stupid and officious as Colin appears, is possible. The subsequent events are inexcusable. |
UTLer in the news
Ian Bidwell wrote:
"Brian L Johnson" wrote in message news:op.uow9x51m0v1caa@thedell... That's a good match (I hadn't paid much attention until I saw the potential vehicle myself). From standing 1m in front of this I would be more willing to assume some benefit of doubt Exactly. For a brief moment, that vehicle would have looked like the next in a sequence of bullying Chelsea tractor drivers trying to elbow their way on to the grass to save themselves a couple of quid parking fee and 5 minutes walking time at the expense of the vast majority of law-abiding attendees. All very well but the incident happened at about 8.00pm and to be facing the traffic entering Jesus Green he would have had is back to the sun Not to mention his head in cloud cuckoo land. Ian |
UTLer in the news
Espen Koht wrote:
In article op.uow9x51m0v1caa@thedell, "Brian L Johnson" wrote: Even if they were. Consider which direction Colin would have been facing at just after 2 o'clock on that blazing summer's afternoon. Into sun? I think it has been established the even took place much later in the day, contrary to the drivers initial report, but either way I don't think the sun would make a meaningful difference. Ah, yes. My confusion. If anything, of course, it might have meant that the sun was reflecting off the windscreen into Colin's eyes. Also consider that the ambulance driver had said that he'd turned off his siren. Might he have inadvertantly turned the lights off as well? I guess it is possible, but it is also highly speculative. Phil Lee seems to know the layout of the converted Honda CRV quite well and he rules out any chance of turning the lights off by accident. (or you were Leonardo da Vinci). Anything post the initial encounter (which the driver does appear to describe as a minor altercation in his initial complaint) shows a very poor show of judgement which (in all honesty was no longer an emergency situation) clearly aggravated the situation, which doesn't entirely surprise me given Colin's general pig-headedness when he think he is right even when proven wrong. People with firm convictions do often stick with them when they shouldn't. I guess that's why they're called, y'know... 'firm'. g There seems to have been a belief in the former US administration that 'firm' trumps 'wrong'; it doesn't. But you can be 'firm' and 'wrong' or 'firm' and 'right': they're not mutually exclusive attributes. -- -blj- |
UTLer in the news
Roland Perry wrote:
In message . com, at 13:33:51 on Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Jules remarked: Right... I've not read the report, but I did look at the photo of the vehicle - and it wasn't obvious that there *was* an ambulance sign on the bonnet or sides. There's also a certain degree of function creep in the use of the word "Ambulance". Is this a Fire Engine: http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/fire/dcp00999.jpg No, it's a fire services vehicle. A very good friend of mine in the States is a part-time firefighter. His Subaru (his own car, by the way), has blue lights fitted front and rear, and is officially a fire truck, so that he can get to the scene of a fire at or before the pump engines do, which is quicker and more efficient than holding back the pump while he makes his way to the fire house. I have precisely no problems with that idea. I also have no problems with the idea that in the case of questionable calls, a small fast car can get to the scene of a reported incident and report back whether it requires attendance by the big (and costly to drive) engines and firefighters. Jon -- SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam' with 'green-lines'. |
UTLer in the news
Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , magwitch wrote: magwitch wrote: Alan Braggins wrote: In article , magwitch wrote: Yeah but if he can't read... see what I'm getting (doggedly) at? Have you considered a reading test? (And no, not for Colin.) Careful Alan. Perhaps you ought to take a short course in etiquette. I haven't forgotten your no show a couple of years ago, (those *free* logs remember?) waited in all day with... cat hit the send key :-/ increasing irritation on some people's appalling manners these days. I'm glad I phoned and emailed you beforehand to say I wasn't going to be able to make it then, though I was sorry for the short notice, but fixing the heating had to take priority. No Alan in your last email on Saturday 24/11/07 at 18:02, you say, "It's not looking good for an early start - I'll try and call you in the morning. (I've got to go out to a previous engagement this evening.)" You didn't bother to call the next morning. We'd turned down Sunday lunch with friends to wait in for you. |
UTLer in the news
In message , at 11:41:42 on
Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Jon Green remarked: There's also a certain degree of function creep in the use of the word "Ambulance". Is this a Fire Engine: http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/fire/dcp00999.jpg No, it's a fire services vehicle. Good. And is this a vehicle you are required to "not obstruct"? http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/DSC04085.jpg [1] Or this one: http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/dscd0950.jpg [2] And: http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/dscd0314.jpg [1] again. or even: http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/dsc08465.jpg [3] http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/dscd0918.jpg [4] http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/ambulance/dscd0552.jpg [5] [1] Not unless it's operated by the NHS, which I can't tell from that photo, but seems unlikely. [2] Only if he's an NHS doctor [3] Definitely not, I'd say. Department of transport [4] Ditto, London Underground [5] Not NHS -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:01:11 -0000, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 11:41:42 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Jon Green remarked: There's also a certain degree of function creep in the use of the word "Ambulance". Is this a Fire Engine: http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/fire/dcp00999.jpg No, it's a fire services vehicle. Good. And is this a vehicle you are required to "not obstruct"? http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/DSC04085.jpg [1] Or this one: http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/dscd0950.jpg [2] And: http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/dscd0314.jpg [1] again. or even: http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/dsc08465.jpg [3] http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/dscd0918.jpg [4] http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/ambulance/dscd0552.jpg [5] [1] Not unless it's operated by the NHS, which I can't tell from that photo, but seems unlikely. So you think it would be morally acceptable to obstruct it? [2] Only if he's an NHS doctor [3] Definitely not, I'd say. Department of transport [4] Ditto, London Underground [5] Not NHS |
UTLer in the news
In message op.uoxip7ishaghkf@lucy, at 12:09:33 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009,
Duncan Wood remarked: http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/DSC04085.jpg [1] [1] Not unless it's operated by the NHS, which I can't tell from that photo, but seems unlikely. So you think it would be morally acceptable to obstruct it? Not unless it was unavoidable, such as a red traffic light (where you wouldn't even have the excuse that the Emergency Workers Act had led you to believe it was OK). Normally I give a wide range of public service vehicles precedence, including buses and refuse trucks. But we are discussing the *legal* situation. -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:25:45 -0000, Roland Perry
wrote: In message op.uoxip7ishaghkf@lucy, at 12:09:33 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Duncan Wood remarked: http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/DSC04085.jpg [1] [1] Not unless it's operated by the NHS, which I can't tell from that photo, but seems unlikely. So you think it would be morally acceptable to obstruct it? Not unless it was unavoidable, such as a red traffic light (where you wouldn't even have the excuse that the Emergency Workers Act had led you to believe it was OK). Normally I give a wide range of public service vehicles precedence, including buses and refuse trucks. But we are discussing the *legal* situation. Well you can validly calim you thought it was a mine rescue vehicle, which is an emergency vehicle. If it isn't then it's breaking the law by having blue flashing lights fitted. |
UTLer in the news
Roland Perry wrote:
In message op.uoxip7ishaghkf@lucy, at 12:09:33 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Duncan Wood remarked: http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/DSC04085.jpg [1] [1] Not unless it's operated by the NHS, which I can't tell from that photo, but seems unlikely. So you think it would be morally acceptable to obstruct it? Not unless it was unavoidable, such as a red traffic light (where you wouldn't even have the excuse that the Emergency Workers Act had led you to believe it was OK). Normally I give a wide range of public service vehicles precedence, including buses and refuse trucks. But we are discussing the *legal* situation. No need to defer to Buses. They simply barge their way past without considering other users. I have always found vehicles with 'twos and blues' VERY well driven by comparison. Even the police, normally total disregarders of the law*, seem to be a bit more careful. *I once tried to keep up with an unmarked jaguar full of uniforms that overtook me on the Sandy road. I lost him at 120mph. As fast as I could go. Single lane road of course. |
UTLer in the news
In message op.uoxj38f9haghkf@lucy, at 12:39:34 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009,
Duncan Wood remarked: http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/DSC04085.jpg [1] [1] Not unless it's operated by the NHS, which I can't tell from that photo, but seems unlikely. So you think it would be morally acceptable to obstruct it? Not unless it was unavoidable, such as a red traffic light (where you wouldn't even have the excuse that the Emergency Workers Act had led you to believe it was OK). Normally I give a wide range of public service vehicles precedence, including buses and refuse trucks. But we are discussing the *legal* situation. Well you can validly calim you thought it was a mine rescue vehicle, which is an emergency vehicle. If it isn't then it's breaking the law by having blue flashing lights fitted. Ah, I think you've fallen into the trap I have been trying to highlight here. There are *many* vehicles which are allowed blue lights, but which *do not* come under the Emergency Workers Act. 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. -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:48:57 -0000, Roland Perry
wrote: In message op.uoxj38f9haghkf@lucy, at 12:39:34 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Duncan Wood remarked: http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/DSC04085.jpg [1] [1] Not unless it's operated by the NHS, which I can't tell from that photo, but seems unlikely. So you think it would be morally acceptable to obstruct it? Not unless it was unavoidable, such as a red traffic light (where you wouldn't even have the excuse that the Emergency Workers Act had led you to believe it was OK). Normally I give a wide range of public service vehicles precedence, including buses and refuse trucks. But we are discussing the *legal* situation. Well you can validly calim you thought it was a mine rescue vehicle, which is an emergency vehicle. If it isn't then it's breaking the law by having blue flashing lights fitted. Ah, I think you've fallen into the trap I have been trying to highlight here. There are *many* vehicles which are allowed blue lights, but which *do not* come under the Emergency Workers Act. 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. |
UTLer in the news
In message , at 12:43:39 on
Fri, 6 Feb 2009, The Natural Philosopher remarked: Normally I give a wide range of public service vehicles precedence, including buses and refuse trucks. But we are discussing the *legal* situation. No need to defer to Buses. They simply barge their way past without considering other users. Not round here they don't. And I often get a cheery wave from them when I let them through. Maybe NCT is a better employer than Stagecoach. -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
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. -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
In article , magwitch wrote:
Alan Braggins wrote: I'm glad I phoned and emailed you beforehand to say I wasn't going to be able to make it then, though I was sorry for the short notice, but fixing the heating had to take priority. No Alan in your last email on Saturday 24/11/07 at 18:02, you say, "It's not looking good for an early start - I'll try and call you in the morning. You didn't bother to call the next morning. I tried phoning, and when I didn't get an answer I sent another email as well. I'm sorry if it ended up in your spam filter or something. (Maybe this would be more appropriate taken to email, but since it appears that isn't as reliable as it might be.....) |
UTLer in the news
Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , magwitch wrote: Alan Braggins wrote: I'm glad I phoned and emailed you beforehand to say I wasn't going to be able to make it then, though I was sorry for the short notice, but fixing the heating had to take priority. No Alan in your last email on Saturday 24/11/07 at 18:02, you say, "It's not looking good for an early start - I'll try and call you in the morning. You didn't bother to call the next morning. I tried phoning, and when I didn't get an answer I sent another email as well. I'm sorry if it ended up in your spam filter or something. (Maybe this would be more appropriate taken to email, but since it appears that isn't as reliable as it might be.....) Must have been well on for midday as that's when we went out to start felling. It was an irritation as I had to ok it with the farmer as they were to come down on his track. My spam filter always gives me the option to 'mark as junk' before it goes in there, I've got a mac so don't get that much. No hard feelings mate. Looking out the window I'm really rather glad we didn't give any away, they've seasoned up beautifully and it looks like we'll need them for the next few weeks - got some weather coming that makes today look like a picnic. |
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/ |
UTLer in the news
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. -- Roland Perry |
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/ |
UTLer in the news
In article op.uoxgyh0w0v1caa@dell,
"Brian L Johnson" wrote: People with firm convictions do often stick with them when they shouldn't. I guess that's why they're called, y'know... 'firm'. g There seems to have been a belief in the former US administration that 'firm' trumps 'wrong'; it doesn't. But you can be 'firm' and 'wrong' or 'firm' and 'right': they're not mutually exclusive attributes. There a many possible permutations and nuances, but sticking to your guns on something which has been proven wrong to merely "prove that you are firm" is foolish, if not delusional. |
UTLer in the news
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. 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. |
UTLer in the news
In message op.uoxv0jxthaghkf@lucy, at 16:56:33 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009,
Duncan Wood remarked: 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. That's a new angle. Any precedents for that wrt red traffic lights? 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. The emergency vehicle will be following you through, actually. -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:15:22 -0000, Roland Perry
wrote: In message op.uoxv0jxthaghkf@lucy, at 16:56:33 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Duncan Wood remarked: 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. That's a new angle. Any precedents for that wrt red traffic lights? Well it's worked for reckless, dangerous & drink driving & driving whilst disqualified. Whether or not you'd be believed is a different question 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. The emergency vehicle will be following you through, actually. Well normally you'd pull over to let it past, isn't that the point of pulling forward? |
UTLer in the news
In article , The Natural
Philosopher scribeth thus Roland Perry wrote: In message op.uoxip7ishaghkf@lucy, at 12:09:33 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Duncan Wood remarked: http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/DSC04085.jpg [1] [1] Not unless it's operated by the NHS, which I can't tell from that photo, but seems unlikely. So you think it would be morally acceptable to obstruct it? Not unless it was unavoidable, such as a red traffic light (where you wouldn't even have the excuse that the Emergency Workers Act had led you to believe it was OK). Normally I give a wide range of public service vehicles precedence, including buses and refuse trucks. But we are discussing the *legal* situation. No need to defer to Buses. They simply barge their way past without considering other users. I have always found vehicles with 'twos and blues' VERY well driven by comparison. Even the police, normally total disregarders of the law*, seem to be a bit more careful. *I once tried to keep up with an unmarked jaguar full of uniforms that overtook me on the Sandy road. I lost him at 120mph. As fast as I could go. Single lane road of course. Wasn't chasing a load of Old Bill @ 120 odd on country road asking for a bit of bovver?.. -- Tony Sayer |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:28 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk