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.

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

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/

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

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.

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

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?

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

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 00:26:29 -0000, Phil W Lee phil lee-family me "uk"
wrote:

"Duncan Wood" considered Fri, 06 Feb 2009
16:56:33 -0000 the perfect time to write:

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.

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.


Regina vs Martin, 1989.

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.

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 01:15:17 -0000, Phil W Lee phil lee-family me "uk"
wrote:

"Duncan Wood" considered Sat, 07 Feb 2009
17:41:41 -0000 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 00:26:29 -0000, Phil W Lee phil lee-family me
"uk"
wrote:

"Duncan Wood" considered Fri, 06 Feb 2009
16:56:33 -0000 the perfect time to write:

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.

Where does that belief 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.


Regina vs Martin, 1989.

That was driving whilst disqualified though, wasn't it?
The fact that the disqualification was for drink driving doesn't seem
all that relevant.


There's quite a few for drink driving, AFAIK they all involved a very
immediate threat of violence to the driver and it's only worked where they
drove a short distance.