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