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 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"

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 , 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.