In article , magwitch wrote:

Red/green colour-blindness?

I imagine the paramedic driver knows what colour his vehicle is even
if he is colour blind.

Elsewhere in the report he says that it is green and yellow down the
side, red and yellow check to the rear end, and that it displays the
word ambulance (in unspecified colours).


Should Colin have a test?

Why should Colin have a test because someone else wrote a misleading
description of the vehicle?

The description of the vehicle as marked "in bold red and green colouring"
is in the section headed "Mr Austine's evidence", not the section headed
"Councillor Rosenstiel's evidence", and it appears to be the investigator's
summary of the paramedic's more accurate description.

In message , at 17:44:07 on
Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Alan Braggins remarked:
Elsewhere in the report he says that it is green and yellow down the
side, red and yellow check to the rear end, and that it displays the
word ambulance (in unspecified colours).

http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/ambulance/dcp01118.jpg

The description of the vehicle as marked "in bold red and green colouring"

I suppose you could interpret the vehicle pictured above as "White and
Yellow" with "Red and Green markings", but it wouldn't be my most
intuitive way of expressing it.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 18:09:00 -0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 17:44:07 on
Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Alan Braggins remarked:
Elsewhere in the report he says that it is green and yellow down the
side, red and yellow check to the rear end, and that it displays the
word ambulance (in unspecified colours).

http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/ambulance/dcp01118.jpg

The description of the vehicle as marked "in bold red and green
colouring"

I suppose you could interpret the vehicle pictured above as "White and
Yellow" with "Red and Green markings", but it wouldn't be my most
intuitive way of expressing it.


Yup, most of us would refer to it as an ambulance:-)

In article op.uov5p4nehaghkf@lucy, Duncan Wood wrote:
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 18:09:00 -0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 17:44:07 on
Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Alan Braggins remarked:
Elsewhere in the report he says that it is green and yellow down the
side, red and yellow check to the rear end, and that it displays the
word ambulance (in unspecified colours).

http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/ambulance/dcp01118.jpg

The description of the vehicle as marked "in bold red and green
colouring"

I suppose you could interpret the vehicle pictured above as "White and
Yellow" with "Red and Green markings", but it wouldn't be my most
intuitive way of expressing it.

Yup, most of us would refer to it as an ambulance:-)

So does the report of course. The word "ambulance" being in bold red on
the back and bold green on the front might be what was being referred to
in that bit of the description. (Assuming the back of the CR-V involved
has similar coloured lettering to The A-class in Roland's photo.
Possibly "red and yellow check" actually refers to a similar pattern to
the photo too. Not that it's relevent.)

Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , magwitch wrote:
Red/green colour-blindness?

I imagine the paramedic driver knows what colour his vehicle is even
if he is colour blind.

Elsewhere in the report he says that it is green and yellow down the
side, red and yellow check to the rear end, and that it displays the
word ambulance (in unspecified colours).


Should Colin have a test?

Why should Colin have a test because someone else wrote a misleading
description of the vehicle?

The description of the vehicle as marked "in bold red and green colouring"
is in the section headed "Mr Austine's evidence", not the section headed
"Councillor Rosenstiel's evidence", and it appears to be the investigator's
summary of the paramedic's more accurate description.

The plot thickens.

I must say I rather think the 'Ambulance' sign on the vehicle is most
compelling evidence... in fact on reflection, the colour combination
perhaps might be a red herring after all.

On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:28:32 +0000, magwitch wrote:
The description of the vehicle as marked "in bold red and green colouring"
is in the section headed "Mr Austine's evidence", not the section headed
"Councillor Rosenstiel's evidence", and it appears to be the investigator's
summary of the paramedic's more accurate description.

The plot thickens.

I must say I rather think the 'Ambulance' sign on the vehicle is most
compelling evidence... in fact on reflection, the colour combination
perhaps might be a red herring after all.

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 appeared to be something stuck in the rear
passenger windows, but that could be missed if point of contact was
initally from the front (and then presumably front-quarter to have a word
with the driver).

If any ambulance sign was present up by the lights then it seems
reasonable that if the lights were missed then so was this sign.

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
--
Roland Perry

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

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'.

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