In message op.uoxw6zr2haghkf@lucy, at 17:22:01 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009,
Duncan Wood remarked:
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?

You pull forward through the lights, then to one side. The emergency
vehicle then follows you through.

What happens next is the interesting bit. Do you stop in the middle of
the x-roads, perhaps sat on a yellow box, with traffic attacking you
from both sides, or make a gracious exit?

The latter will usually be safer, but does the law recognise that - from
your other remarks you clearly think the law would prefer you to do the
safer thing, even if it's ostensibly prohibited.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:33:19 -0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message op.uoxw6zr2haghkf@lucy, at 17:22:01 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009,
Duncan Wood remarked:
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?

You pull forward through the lights, then to one side. The emergency
vehicle then follows you through.

What happens next is the interesting bit. Do you stop in the middle of
the x-roads, perhaps sat on a yellow box, with traffic attacking you
from both sides, or make a gracious exit?

The latter will usually be safer, but does the law recognise that - from
your other remarks you clearly think the law would prefer you to do the
safer thing, even if it's ostensibly prohibited.


Well the only example given is of somebody who was doing 16mph when
photographed

"gm, bury says...
11:54am Thu 27 Sep 07
if any of you were at this junction when it happened as i was you would of
seen that he moved to the inside lane just passed the lights from the
middle lane, the emergency vehicle passed with no problem, he was not in
the middle of the junction or obstructing anything, and there was no need
for him to then follow the vehicle thru the lights, he was already out of
the way if any other vehicle came, had he still been blocking the way then
the 1st vehicle would not of got thru, there was a few second gap before
he followed, it was dangerous and unwarranted"

tony sayer wrote:
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?..

They weren't looking in their rear view mirrors were they?

Not much overtakes you at 130mph..

In message , at 17:47:24
on Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Brian Morrison remarked:
The law is rarely designed to recognise the sensible things in life,
it's designed to establish the superiority of the legislature over the
public at large.

Which is exactly why jumping red traffic lights, even if provoked, is a
risky occupation.
--
Roland Perry

In message op.uoxx5dpghaghkf@lucy, at 17:42:39 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009,
Duncan Wood remarked:
What happens next is the interesting bit. Do you stop in the middle
of the x-roads, perhaps sat on a yellow box, with traffic attacking
you from both sides, or make a gracious exit?

The latter will usually be safer, but does the law recognise that -
from your other remarks you clearly think the law would prefer you
to do the safer thing, even if it's ostensibly prohibited.

Well the only example given is of somebody who was doing 16mph when
photographed

"gm, bury says...
11:54am Thu 27 Sep 07
if any of you were at this junction when it happened as i was you would
of seen that he moved to the inside lane just passed the lights

Ah! So he didn't follow the emergency vehicle through the lights, he was
past by then.

from the middle lane, the emergency vehicle passed with no problem, he
was not in the middle of the junction or obstructing anything,

He apparently did feel he was.

and there was no need for him to then follow the vehicle thru the
lights,

err, we've established he didn't follow the emergency vehicle through -
the emergency vehicle followed *him*.

he was already out of the way if any other vehicle came, had he still
been blocking the way then the 1st vehicle would not of got thru,

There's a difference between blocking the way *through* (which we all
probably agree he wasn't) and blocking the crosswise traffic.

there was a few second gap before he followed, it was dangerous and
unwarranted"

In one person's opinion. Although as he was past the stop line the
traffic lights don't apply any more.
--
Roland Perry

In article , The Natural
Philosopher scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
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?..

They weren't looking in their rear view mirrors were they?

Not much overtakes you at 130mph..

Good job they didn't stop suddenly..
--
Tony Sayer

In message , at 00:26:29 on
Sat, 7 Feb 2009, Phil W Lee remarked:
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.

One of the first motoring offences I remember hearing about (in the
mid-60's before I got my licence) was my GP who was banned from driving
after going out one night on an emergency call when over the limit.
--
Roland Perry

Brian Morrison wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 18:11:16 +0000
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Wasn't chasing a load of Old Bill @ 120 odd on country road asking for a
bit of bovver?..
They weren't looking in their rear view mirrors were they?

Not much overtakes you at 130mph..

It does in Germany...

Not on a single carriage country road.

tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural
Philosopher scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
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?..
They weren't looking in their rear view mirrors were they?

Not much overtakes you at 130mph..

Good job they didn't stop suddenly..

I lost em after a mile or two.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

The initial reaction for someone as stupid and officious as Colin appears,
is possible.

The subsequent events are inexcusable.

Bearing in mind how often these things are misreported in the interests of
some publication sensationalising to sell more tree parts, it might be wise
to see what actually gets revealed at the enquiry.

--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."