|
UTLer in the news
In message op.upef3ik7haghkf@lucy, at 15:31:56 on Sun, 15 Feb 2009,
Duncan Wood remarked: Given that this whole debate is with the benefit of hindsight, shouldn't that also apply to the injury? It does. The injury was limb-threatening. And that's considered a high priority call. That's fair enough, but far from the "any call is an emergency life-threatening call" that has been much peddled. As a member of the public it seems to be the sensible assumption though. Assumptions are often dangerous. What was the need to beat up the vicar here? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7886331.stm Maybe there will be hindsight applied to that incident as well. -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
"Duncan Wood" wrote:
That's fair enough, but far from the "any call is an emergency life-threatening call" that has been much peddled. As a member of the public it seems to be the sensible assumption though. Both the law and the paramedic training demands that emergency calls are all taken seriously; in many case (including this one), the details availbale to the ambulance are often insufficient to decide the level of risk; people under stress get it wrong, panic, don't realise the magnitude, may be misinformed, may be drunk, etc., etc. That's why the law takes ALL calls seriously. And does the crew until they've made their own assessment. -- Andrew "She plays the tuba. It is the only instrument capable of imitating a distress call." |
UTLer in the news
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:49:25 -0000, Roland Perry
wrote: In message op.upef3ik7haghkf@lucy, at 15:31:56 on Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Duncan Wood remarked: Given that this whole debate is with the benefit of hindsight, shouldn't that also apply to the injury? It does. The injury was limb-threatening. And that's considered a high priority call. That's fair enough, but far from the "any call is an emergency life-threatening call" that has been much peddled. As a member of the public it seems to be the sensible assumption though. Assumptions are often dangerous. What was the need to beat up the vicar here? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7886331.stm Maybe there will be hindsight applied to that incident as well. I don't know & fail to see the connection. Assumption is a necessary part of life, one doesn't conduct a structural analysis of a road bridge before driving ones car over it, you don't obstruct emergency vehicles. |
UTLer in the news
On Feb 15, 3:55*pm, "Duncan Wood" wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:49:25 -0000, Roland Perry * wrote: In message op.upef3ik7haghkf@lucy, at 15:31:56 on Sun, 15 Feb 2009, * Duncan Wood remarked: Given that this whole debate is with the benefit of hindsight, * shouldn't that also apply to the injury? It does. The injury was limb-threatening. And that's considered a high priority call. That's fair enough, but far from the "any call is an emergency * life-threatening call" that has been much peddled. As a member of the public it seems to be the sensible assumption though. Assumptions are often dangerous. What was the need to beat up the vicar * here? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7886331.stm Maybe there will be hindsight applied to that incident as well. I don't know & fail to see the connection. Assumption is a necessary part * of life, one doesn't conduct a structural analysis of a road bridge before * driving ones car over it, you don't obstruct emergency vehicles. Although this Councillor does seem to be capable of following the similar rule "you don't respond to gratuitous abuse from trolls". (I don't refer to you of course, but there's one or two attempting such a wind-up here and dismally failing.) |
UTLer in the news
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:22:33 -0000, MIG
wrote: On Feb 15, 3:55*pm, "Duncan Wood" wrote: On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:49:25 -0000, Roland Perry * wrote: In message op.upef3ik7haghkf@lucy, at 15:31:56 on Sun, 15 Feb 2009, * Duncan Wood remarked: Given that this whole debate is with the benefit of hindsight, * shouldn't that also apply to the injury? It does. The injury was limb-threatening. And that's considered a high priority call. That's fair enough, but far from the "any call is an emergency * life-threatening call" that has been much peddled. As a member of the public it seems to be the sensible assumption though. Assumptions are often dangerous. What was the need to beat up the vicar * here? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7886331.stm Maybe there will be hindsight applied to that incident as well. I don't know & fail to see the connection. Assumption is a necessary part * of life, one doesn't conduct a structural analysis of a road bridge before * driving ones car over it, you don't obstruct emergency vehicles. Although this Councillor does seem to be capable of following the similar rule "you don't respond to gratuitous abuse from trolls". (I don't refer to you of course, but there's one or two attempting such a wind-up here and dismally failing.) Oh it does appear to be only Roland who thinks you ought to consult with your solicitor before getting out of the way, Colin did actually apologise for getting that wrong. |
UTLer in the news
In message op.upeg5zrfhaghkf@lucy, at 15:55:01 on Sun, 15 Feb 2009,
Duncan Wood remarked: Assumption is a necessary part of life, one doesn't conduct a structural analysis of a road bridge before driving ones car over it, you don't obstruct emergency vehicles. And you don't beat up vicars. Of course, first you have to realise they are a vicar, or that the vehicle is an ambulance on call. -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
In message op.upejhrr2haghkf@lucy, at 16:45:17 on Sun, 15 Feb 2009,
Duncan Wood remarked: Oh it does appear to be only Roland who thinks you ought to consult with your solicitor before getting out of the way, Did I really? Colin did actually apologise for getting that wrong. And I'm sure the police will apologise to the vicar. -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
In message , at 15:45:20 on Sun, 15
Feb 2009, Andrew Heenan remarked: 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. -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
Roland Perry gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: Of course, first you have to realise they are a vicar, or that the vehicle is an ambulance on call. As with vicars - except more so - ambulances on call tend to have some rather unsubtle clues visually identifying them. Not that the vicar's vocation was a particularly relevant factor in why the police shouldn't have kicked the **** out of him... |
UTLer in the news
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. |
UTLer in the news
Roland Perry pedanticised:
Of course, first you have to realise they are a vicar, or that the vehicle is an ambulance on call. Use your eyes, is my advice, use your eyes. Flailing around, ever more desperate, rather than admit he's talking out of his Harris. Why, Roland? Why defend a man against all the evidence? Even he admitted (with weasel words, granted) that he was wrong. Why can't you? Let me spell it out for you ... H-E W-A-S W-R-O-N-G Who gives computers to kids who'd do better with an Etch A Sketch? One day, we'll get back to London's transport issues, instead of 'how to defend council rage 101' -- Andrew "When 'Do no Evil' has been understood, then learn the harder, braver rule, Do Good." ~ Arthur Guiterman |
UTLer in the news
"Andrew Heenan" gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: One day, we'll get back to London's transport issues, instead of 'how to defend council rage 101' Liveliest this group's been for _ages_... |
UTLer in the news
In message , at 17:28:35 on Sun, 15
Feb 2009, Adrian remarked: Roland Perry gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Of course, first you have to realise they are a vicar, or that the vehicle is an ambulance on call. As with vicars - except more so - ambulances on call tend to have some rather unsubtle clues visually identifying them. In this case, the people on the day seem to accept that the ambulance (an estate car) wasn't as recognisable as you assume. Not that the vicar's vocation was a particularly relevant factor in why the police shouldn't have kicked the **** out of him... The penalty for photographing ones own children now. -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
Roland Perry gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: Of course, first you have to realise they are a vicar, or that the vehicle is an ambulance on call. As with vicars - except more so - ambulances on call tend to have some rather unsubtle clues visually identifying them. In this case, the people on the day seem to accept that the ambulance (an estate car) wasn't as recognisable as you assume. Have you actually read the 137 page PDF containing the statements? |
UTLer in the news
|
UTLer in the news
In message , at 17:34:15 on Sun, 15
Feb 2009, Adrian remarked: Did you read the same 137page PDF report, and the evidence contained within, that I did? It would seem not. Yes a couple of weeks ago. -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
In message , at 17:37:40 on Sun, 15
Feb 2009, Andrew Heenan remarked: Roland Perry pedanticised: Of course, first you have to realise they are a vicar, or that the vehicle is an ambulance on call. Let me spell it out for you ... H-E W-A-S W-R-O-N-G I haven't denied he was wrong. Just like those police are wrong. But immediate recognition (or the lack of it) probably played a part in both incidents. -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
In message , at 17:55:28 on Sun, 15
Feb 2009, Adrian remarked: Have you actually read the 137 page PDF containing the statements? Yes. -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
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? |
UTLer in the news
In article ,
(Adrian) wrote: 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? At the hearing the Standards Board solicitor accepted my suggested amendment to the wording of 5.5 as in my response to the report, the only challenge to the findings of the report that I made. It was also accepted by the hearing panel. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
UTLer in the news
In article ,
phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk (Phil W Lee) wrote: The only "people on the day" who seem to have accepted that are (sic) Colin. You seem to have overlooked the Standards Board's solicitor and the Standards Committee panel. The Standards Board's Ethical Standards Officer didn't determine the point either. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
UTLer in the news
"Duncan Wood" wrote in
news:op.upejhrr2haghkf@lucy: Oh it does appear to be only Roland who thinks you ought to consult with your solicitor before getting out of the way, Colin did actually apologise for getting that wrong. I'm forced to wonder what would have happened had he apologised promptly. |
UTLer in the news
Roland Perry wrote:
In message op.upeg5zrfhaghkf@lucy, at 15:55:01 on Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Duncan Wood remarked: Assumption is a necessary part of life, one doesn't conduct a structural analysis of a road bridge before driving ones car over it, you don't obstruct emergency vehicles. And you don't beat up vicars. Of course, first you have to realise they are a vicar, or that the vehicle is an ambulance on call. I am sure they thought he was a paedophile. Just like Colin became convined that paramedics were in fact nasty toffs or chavs in 4WD vehicles going where only Councillors have a right to Cycle. |
UTLer in the news
MIG wrote:
On Feb 15, 11:56 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote: MIG wrote: On Feb 14, 10:38 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote: MIG wrote: On Feb 14, 10:03 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote: MIG wrote: On Feb 14, 11:53 am, "Brian Watson" wrote: wrote in message ... Can I make it clear that this was no power-hungry grab. It was a (totally screwed up admittedly) attempt to deal with a problem that constituents have complained about vehemently and repeatedly for many years. I would never have met the ambulance driver if a constituent hadn't rung me up and told me that the gate had been broken open. If he had correctly reported that the gate had been left open by someone entitled to open it I wouldn't even have gone to look. I'd just have called the council officers and left them to it. That was where things went wrong and I lost it in frustration for the failure of people to do their jobs as promised. I'd say (as someone who doesn't actually live in the city and has no political or personal beef with Colin) that that looks like a perfectly reasonable statement about why he was there and why he did what he did. He got it wrong, but was not fully-acquainted with the facts. It doesn't excuse it but it explains it. I spot a parallel with the way in which people posting to this group, not acquainted with any facts, have behaved rather badly. The difference is that, rather than having been misinformed, they know that they have no facts and decide to make judgements nevertheless. (Or are simply pursuing an attempt at a wind-up and spectacularly failing to get the response they hoped for, which indicates an appropriate degree of restraint from the Councillor concerned.) Or is it that in a case of Usenet, being wrong doesn't actually risk peoples lives? Despite knowing nothing about the situation, apart from a newspaper report which was clearly nosensical and full of misleading hints which weren't backed up, you've decided that someone's life was risked. Where did you get this information? From the extremely clear and detailed evidence given by both Colin and the driver in the PDF of the hearing whose link was posted by Richard Kettlewell. Unlike the rest of you, I actually downloaded it and read it.- I assume that it's posted in a different group from the one that I have seen. So, sorry if I've included you among the people who are making their judgements purely on the article and what was posted in UTL, but I'd be interested to hear an explanation of where someone's life was risked. At the time, the Emergency call was that someone had dislocated or broken a leg. This - as was pointed out by the driver in his evidence - is at least a potentially limb threatening event, and, if an artery has been damaged, potentially life threatening. However since Colin appeared not to even accept the fact that it was an emergency vehicle on legitimate business, it might as easily been someone who had been stabbed, or suffering a drug overdose, heart attack, or choking on their vomit, (or someone else's), and the outcome would, it appears, have been no different. FWIW here is the link that Richard provided. http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/public/c...0211stds/3...- Thanks to both who repeated the link, and thank gawd for broadband. My impression of all this is kind of confirmed really. 1) We had a newspaper article which was clearly untrustworthy. 2) We have a lack of criminal investigation, which would presumably have taken place if lives had been threatened. A dangerous presumption. 3) We know that the injured person was treated. 4) We have an investigation with the purpose of deciding whether the paramedic was treated with respect and whether the office of Councillor was brought into dispute (and nothing more). Precisely. And *nothing more*. Its like Hutton. We have a situation that was extremely life threatening and cost many lives, but the only enquiry is into whether a certain person actually directly lied. 'case not proven' No investigation into whether they failed to ascertain the truth, or were economical with it, whether the judgement was sound, whether they should remain in a position of authority. No. As long as they didn't *demonstrably* lie, that's all right then. If there was EVER any criminal investigations into these matters, we wouldn't need to rant here. 5) The latter investigation took place so long after the event that both parties couldn't remember what time of day the incident had taken place. I think that log books of 999 calls are actually kept, and its unlikely they would be falsified. So in the circumstances, I think that some of the judgements and pronouncements that have been made here are somewhat excessive, and possibly less justified and more premeditated than any misjudgements that took place on the day (which was the point I was making a while back). You have to be kidding. |
UTLer in the news
On Feb 16, 3:07*am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
much cut FWIW here is the link that Richard provided. http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/public/c...009/0211stds/3.... Thanks to both who repeated the link, and thank gawd for broadband. My impression of all this is kind of confirmed really. 1) We had a newspaper article which was clearly untrustworthy. 2) We have a lack of criminal investigation, which would presumably have taken place if lives had been threatened. A dangerous presumption. 3) We know that the injured person was treated. 4) We have an investigation with the purpose of deciding whether the paramedic was treated with respect and whether the office of Councillor was brought into dispute (and nothing more). Precisely. And *nothing more*. Its like Hutton. We have a situation that was extremely life threatening and cost many lives, but the only enquiry is into whether a certain person actually directly lied. 'case not proven' No investigation into whether they failed to ascertain the truth, or were economical with it, whether the judgement was sound, whether they should remain in a position of authority. No. As long as they didn't *demonstrably* lie, that's all right then. If there was EVER any criminal investigations into these matters, we wouldn't need to rant here. So the evidence for criminal behaviour is the LACK of investigation? I don't know if there was or wasn't, but no relevant investigation seems to have been made at the time. 5) The latter investigation took place so long after the event that both parties couldn't remember what time of day the incident had taken place. I think that log books of 999 calls are actually kept, and its unlikely they would be falsified. Why on Earth would they be? I am noting that the amount of time elapsed was such that they didn't remember such a major detail. Only the log seems to have corrected both of them when they both remembered a different time of day. So in the circumstances, I think that some of the judgements and pronouncements that have been made here are somewhat excessive, and possibly less justified and more premeditated than any misjudgements that took place on the day (which was the point I was making a while back). You have to be kidding. No. I observed that people make wild accusations without knowing much about what actually happened. Maybe you are right and the relevant authorities failed to carry a criminal investigation into actions that deliberately put someone's life at risk. Or maybe someone was rude to a driver due to a misunderstanding and then allowed him to proceed without risk to anyone. Or maybe all sorts of other things. But the evidence is flimsy. No doubt it's a cover-up. |
UTLer in the news
|
UTLer in the news
In message , at 23:13:35 on
Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Phil W Lee remarked: Have you actually read the 137 page PDF containing the statements? Yes. And did you pass comprehension as part of your English Language at school? If so, you seem to need some revision. Did they teach you anything about throwing stones, and glass houses? -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
In message , at 23:12:25 on
Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Phil W Lee remarked: And I've never seen (or heard) one of those 4x4 suv type vehicles described as an "estate car" either. That's because it's not a 4x4 SUV in the style of a Range Rover, Jeep etc; it has a much lower profile. Here's one with a white bonnet (like the Cambridge ones): http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/ambulance/p1130756.jpg -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
Roland Perry gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: In message , at 23:12:25 on Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Phil W Lee remarked: And I've never seen (or heard) one of those 4x4 suv type vehicles described as an "estate car" either. That's because it's not a 4x4 SUV in the style of a Range Rover, Jeep etc; it has a much lower profile. Here's one with a white bonnet (like the Cambridge ones): http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/ambulance/p1130756.jpg No, it isn't. That's a VW Touran mini-people-carrier. Not only isn't it a Honda CR-V, it doesn't even have a white bonnet as you claim - that's silver. Really, Roland, you do seem to be determined to make yourself look an utter tit in this thread. This is a Honda CR-V, in ambulance livery. http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/ambulance/dsc10899.jpg Here's one in East-of-England ambulance livery... http://www.eastamb.nhs.uk/media/pict...AMB_240702.JPG (Large image - 1600x1200) |
UTLer in the news
"Adrian" wrote
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? He and Roland share Anton's syndrome, plus little respect for the truth. Weird, I know - but what else fits the facts (and we know what Holmes would say!). Of course, it could conceivably be psychosis - for Roland, anyway, who seems to determined to throw away whatever respect he'd earned by backing a total loser. -- Andrew "Cyclists of the world unite - you have nothing to lose but your ins" - Marx |
UTLer in the news
"Adrian" wrote in message ... Roland Perry gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: In message , at 23:12:25 on Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Phil W Lee remarked: And I've never seen (or heard) one of those 4x4 suv type vehicles described as an "estate car" either. That's because it's not a 4x4 SUV in the style of a Range Rover, Jeep etc; it has a much lower profile. Here's one with a white bonnet (like the Cambridge ones): http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/ambulance/p1130756.jpg No, it isn't. That's a VW Touran mini-people-carrier. Not only isn't it a Honda CR-V, it doesn't even have a white bonnet as you claim - that's silver. Really, Roland, you do seem to be determined to make yourself look an utter tit in this thread. This is a Honda CR-V, in ambulance livery. http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/ambulance/dsc10899.jpg Blimey! That looks JUST like an ambulance! runs for cover :-) -- Brian "Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman." |
UTLer in the news
"Brian Watson" gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying: That's because it's not a 4x4 SUV in the style of a Range Rover, Jeep etc; it has a much lower profile. Here's one with a white bonnet (like the Cambridge ones): http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/ambulance/p1130756.jpg No, it isn't. That's a VW Touran mini-people-carrier. Not only isn't it a Honda CR-V, it doesn't even have a white bonnet as you claim - that's silver. Really, Roland, you do seem to be determined to make yourself look an utter tit in this thread. This is a Honda CR-V, in ambulance livery. http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/ambulance/dsc10899.jpg Blimey! That looks JUST like an ambulance! Is the word "AMBULANCE" on the bonnet a clue? Just like, with the VW Roland posted, the word "PARAMEDIC" would be a clue? |
UTLer in the news
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 10:16:28PM +0000, Adrian wrote:
your evidence says that you don't "recall" if they were flashing or not ... 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? Looks like someone needs to learn the difference between seeing something and remembering it. -- David Cantrell | Hero of the Information Age Please stop rolling your Jargon Dice and explain the problem you are having to me in plain English, using small words. -- John Hardin, in the Monastery |
UTLer in the news
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:28:17 +0000, Adrian wrote:
This is a Honda CR-V, in ambulance livery. http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/ambulance/dsc10899.jpg Blimey! That looks JUST like an ambulance! Is the word "AMBULANCE" on the bonnet a clue? Although I believe they've gone and written it backwards... :-) .... although it does say it the correct way round on the side, albeit in letters that seem disproportionally small to the size of the vehicle, and toward the rear where you might not happen to glance down and see them if approaching the driver's window from the front-quarter. Hard to miss the blue lights on that one, of course - but I believe they were far further back on the Cambridge example, so again perhaps not so obvious from the front (particularly if sitting on a bike)? |
UTLer in the news
Jules gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying: This is a Honda CR-V, in ambulance livery. http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/ambulance/dsc10899.jpg Blimey! That looks JUST like an ambulance! Is the word "AMBULANCE" on the bonnet a clue? Although I believe they've gone and written it backwards... :-) ... although it does say it the correct way round on the side, albeit in letters that seem disproportionally small to the size of the vehicle, and toward the rear where you might not happen to glance down and see them if approaching the driver's window from the front-quarter. Hard to miss the blue lights on that one, of course - but I believe they were far further back on the Cambridge example, so again perhaps not so obvious from the front (particularly if sitting on a bike)? I believe the wig-wag flashing headlights were in the same place on the vehicle, though. |
UTLer in the news
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:21:08 +0000, Adrian wrote:
Jules gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: This is a Honda CR-V, in ambulance livery. http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/ambulance/dsc10899.jpg Blimey! That looks JUST like an ambulance! Is the word "AMBULANCE" on the bonnet a clue? Although I believe they've gone and written it backwards... :-) ... although it does say it the correct way round on the side, albeit in letters that seem disproportionally small to the size of the vehicle, and toward the rear where you might not happen to glance down and see them if approaching the driver's window from the front-quarter. Hard to miss the blue lights on that one, of course - but I believe they were far further back on the Cambridge example, so again perhaps not so obvious from the front (particularly if sitting on a bike)? I believe the wig-wag flashing headlights were in the same place on the vehicle, though. Agreed. I've not waded through the entire report - I assume there was independent witness that they were indeed working. They do seem like something that would be hard to miss, even if direct sunlight was falling on the front of the vehicle. The other aspects though... well, I think I can convince myself that it'd be possible to not take them on board. Unlikely, but possible. |
UTLer in the news
Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying: Hard to miss the blue lights on that one, of course - but I believe they were far further back on the Cambridge example, so again perhaps not so obvious from the front (particularly if sitting on a bike)? I believe the wig-wag flashing headlights were in the same place on the vehicle, though. And of course there's the flashing blue lights each side of the front number plate and just above it. Well, quite. And - since it got snipped a little further up the subthread - here's a pic of an East-of-England paramedic CR-V. http://www.eastamb.nhs.uk/media/pict...AMB_240702.JPG In fact, that CR-V bears the same registration as the one shown in the poor b&w copy of a photo in the PDF report - p44 - and described as "same make, model & colour scheme" |
UTLer in the news
UTLer in the news
Her her her. That's made my day that has, Utler! Go on...Get that bus aht! |
UTLer in the news
In article . com, Jules wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:21:08 +0000, Adrian wrote: I believe the wig-wag flashing headlights were in the same place on the vehicle, though. Agreed. I've not waded through the entire report - I assume there was independent witness that they were indeed working. I don't think the report mentioned any. They do seem like something that would be hard to miss, even if direct sunlight was falling on the front of the vehicle. The other aspects though... well, I think I can convince myself that it'd be possible to not take them on board. What "other aspects" distinguish an ambulance on an emergency call from an ambulance not on an emergency call? (No-one has suggested that the sirens were on.) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk