In message , at 11:00:41 on Sun, 8
Feb 2009, Roy Stilling remarked:
MIG wrote:
I would take "ambulance" to mean a vehicle which carries sick or
injured people.
The word "ambulance" on this vehicle more likely relates to the fact
that it belongs to the ambulance service, just as it would if it was
written on a bicycle or a building. (And such buildings or bicycles
would need to be treated with appropriate respect, and not
obstructed.)

If a vehicle falls under the legal definition that allows it to bear
the designation "Ambulance" and does so, then it is legally an
ambulance and entitled to various legal privileges that don't apply to
ordinary vehicles.

Not all of the protections. Only "NHS" ambulances are covered by the
recent Emergency Workers obstruction law [1], for example.

Years ago, my father, then a London bus driver, used to be a volunteer
ambulance driver for a disabled ex-servicemen's charity. The ambulance
was a Bedford coach converted to carry wheelchairs but it was legally
an ambulance and bore the designation. Sometimes if he was doing a
trip that started early, he'd collect the ambulance the night before
from the bus garage where it was stored and park it outside our house.
Some neighbours complained to the council that we were parking a bus on
the street so the council put up a "Buses prohibited" sign outside our
house. The next time my father parked the ambulance outside the
council threatened to prosecute. We pointed out that the vehicle was
legally an ambulance, bore the designation "Ambulance" and therefore
could be parked on the street and we never heard any more about it.

I think you successfully bluffed them.

My understanding is that "Ambulance" is a protected designation and
it's an offence to apply it to a vehicle that doesn't meet the
definition.

Given that there are "animal ambulances", I doubt that very much.

http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/ambulance/dscd0552.jpg

[1] "a person employed by a relevant NHS body in the provision of
ambulance services (including air ambulance services), or of a
person providing such services pursuant to arrangements made by, or
at the request of, a relevant NHS body;"

"a person providing services for the transport of organs, blood,
equipment or personnel pursuant to arrangements made by, or at
the request of, a relevant NHS body;"

The latter is interesting because there have been cases of people
transporting organs being nicked for speeding. It's not clear that a
policeman nicking someone for speeding counts as obstructing an
emergency worker - because there's a 'reasonable cause' exemption for
the policeman...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/w...re/2949904.stm

--
Roland Perry

On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 11:22:46AM +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:00:41 on Sun, 8
Feb 2009, Roy Stilling remarked:
If a vehicle falls under the legal definition that allows it to bear
the designation "Ambulance" and does so, then it is legally an
ambulance and entitled to various legal privileges that don't apply to
ordinary vehicles.
Not all of the protections. Only "NHS" ambulances are covered by the
recent Emergency Workers obstruction law [1], for example.

There are (or were) also Responsibilities.

Back when I drove a Landrover 101, I believe that the owners' club's
advice to owners of the Ambulance version was that when driving on
public roads, they should cover up the gigantic red cross and the word
"ambulance" because if they didn't they would be required to stop and
assist at any accident and could be prosecuted if they hadn't had the
necessary training.

Thankfully, the army were aware of this and the vehicles all had
convenient metal flaps for covering up the insignia, so that squaddie
medics wouldn't have had to help civilians when the vehicles were in
service.

--
David Cantrell | A machine for turning tea into grumpiness

Eye have a spelling chequer / It came with my pea sea
It planely marques four my revue / Miss Steaks eye kin knot sea.
Eye strike a quay and type a word / And weight for it to say
Weather eye am wrong oar write / It shows me strait a weigh.

In message , at 12:34:38
on Tue, 10 Feb 2009, David Cantrell remarked:
Back when I drove a Landrover 101, I believe that the owners' club's
advice to owners of the Ambulance version was that when driving on
public roads, they should cover up the gigantic red cross and the word
"ambulance" because if they didn't they would be required to stop and
assist at any accident and could be prosecuted if they hadn't had the
necessary training.

That sounds like the French law about giving assistance that we heard
about after princess Diana's crash. Is there really an equivalent in the
UK?
--
Roland Perry

David Cantrell wrote in
k:

Back when I drove a Landrover 101, I believe that the owners' club's
advice to owners of the Ambulance version was that when driving on
public roads, they should cover up the gigantic red cross and the word
"ambulance" because if they didn't they would be required to stop and
assist at any accident and could be prosecuted if they hadn't had the
necessary training.

I am a little doubtful that there is any such requirement, but I am
aware - from driving a similarly marked vehicle - that the red cross is
claimed as a trademark by the Red Cross, who told us (this was 40 years
ago) to remove it from the vehicle. However, I see via Google that the
position is far from straightforward or undisputed even though the
symbol is now protected under the Geneva Convention.

So far as I know there is no restriction on using the word 'ambulance'
on a vehicle. At least one local care home near me uses such a vehicle
to ferry its clients to the local shops.

Peter

--
Peter Campbell Smith ~ London ~ pjcs00 (a) gmail.com

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Peter Campbell Smith wrote:

David Cantrell wrote in
k:

Back when I drove a Landrover 101, I believe that the owners' club's
advice to owners of the Ambulance version was that when driving on
public roads, they should cover up the gigantic red cross and the word
"ambulance" because if they didn't they would be required to stop and
assist at any accident and could be prosecuted if they hadn't had the
necessary training.

I am a little doubtful that there is any such requirement, but I am
aware - from driving a similarly marked vehicle - that the red cross is
claimed as a trademark by the Red Cross, who told us (this was 40 years
ago) to remove it from the vehicle.

There was as big fuss a while ago about the use of the red cross in video
games: many fighting-related games have medical packs you can pick up to
restore some of your character's health, and the red cross is pretty much
universally used to label them. The ICRC were understandably not happy
about their logo being used in warlike games!

tom

--
I was employed by a Lacanian and, believe me, you don't want to see what
a postmodern approach to cashflow entails. -- G'

On 10 Feb, 16:53, Tom Anderson wrote:
There was as big fuss a while ago about the use of the red cross in video
games: many fighting-related games have medical packs you can pick up to
restore some of your character's health, and the red cross is pretty much
universally used to label them. The ICRC were understandably not happy
about their logo being used in warlike games!

In America, the red cross trademark is owned by Johnson & Johnson, who
a few years ago ended up suing the American Red Cross for using it on
commercial products.

U