As focussed has said.

It is a criminal offence for you to fit or use those lights.

I once took a patient in suspected cardiac arrest to hospital. I tied a white handkerchief to my aerial as they do in the rest of europe. I took the outside of a long queue of traffic at a junction without a hint of protest from anyone.

Would you still get away with this?

The one thing that has concerned me most about this thread from day one is the simple fact that the OP has not been trained to drive at higher speeds than mormal through traffic. If things went wrong the result for his own family as well as others could be dreadful.

As martint123 says

I would insist that transport be done with NHS transport with both trained staff and blue lights fitted

DVD's point was, I think, was that a court may interpret "for ambulance purposes" to include a member of the public transporting a sick person to hospital in an emergency.

Just to re iterate

Ambulance purpose is not defined at law so one has to take the OED version.

Wilkinsons Traffic Law tells us that a car taking a casualty to hospital in an urgent case is being used for ambulance purposes.

Wilkinsons Traffic Law is a well respected tomb in legal circles and stands alongside Stone's Justices' Manual that you will see in Courts alongside the Magistrates Clerk.

Interesting a Doctor driving in his own car to treat a patient is not covered but if he puts the patient needing urgent attention in his car and takes to hospital he is.

dvd

.....only applies in relation to speeding and failing to conform to traffic signal because the statute says so. Other traffic rules applies unless within the imposing statute it states there is an exemption.

As stated earlier still open to prosecution for due care etc.

dvd

Easy for me to say this but......if I was the officer who was approached with the request I would be asking two pertinent questions.

What is the hosptals/doctors take on all this? Are they really advocating rushing the child to hospital by whatever means are neccessary if an emergency situation should arise?

Wouldnt it be alltogether as quick, safer and more beneficial to simply call 999 and let the fast response paramedics handle it?

I dont really think its a case of the vehicle being equipped to take the child to hospital in an emergency situation, more a case of if the driver can do it without compromising anyones safety, including not only the public but himself and the child.

I doubt any traffic officer stopping someone racing to hospital over a matter of life and death would hold things up or indeed take things further, unless of course the actiones were totaly reckless. However if the vehicle was displaying blue lights at the time it puts a totaly different slant on things and I imagine there would be a lot of awkward questions asked afterwards.

Well said ScoBro, you can only do your very best when a situation occurs. I hope it never does for you or your child but in your shoes I would do my utmost to get them treatment as quickly as possible.

Very best of luck. Cheers Concrete

Don't believe all you read.

Mum and dad are both in their late 80's and now in a care home. In the past 2 1/2 weeks mum has fallen twice (one head injury and one broken foot) and dad has fallen once (no injury).

On each occation the nurse on duty rang 999 and a paramedic and ambulance attended within the sort of timescale you could reasonably expect.

And its EMAS.

No complaints from me.

But at times they get incredibly busy (having sat in Majors for 1/2 a day on 2 occations this month I have seen it first hand) and its inevitable that each amulance crew can only be in one place at any one time. At those times they inevitably must prioritise calls and normally its the very young and very old that are first.

I'll add my tuppence-worth to this (but it may not be worth that).

I was a mid-senior police officer (retired 10 years). I worked in a very rural area and was often on call for serious crime, fatal RTAs, etc. Often, driving to my base to pick up a police car would have seriously hindered my response time (say a 30 mile round trip) ad was impractible.

I used my car for work anyway (usually, of course, for routine work) and it was insured for use 'for police purposes' and I was paid a mileage allowance.

My Fire Service colleagues in similar roles were supplied with official/lease cars equipped with 'blues & twos'. We weren't, for financial reasons.

My cars (a Felicia (yes, really!), a Xsara and a Mondeo) were fitted with grille lights, siren and I used a 'kojack' light. (Nowadays there are better alternatives).

This is a grey area (what legal matter isn't?) but my thoughts are that if -as in the OP - the vehicle needs to be used for ambulance purposes (and it certainly sounds as if that would be the case) then blue lights and siren would be legal, and other regulations relating to such vehicles would also apply. From a common-sense and legal point of view, there is no legal distinction between an 'official' ambulance (i.e. one operated by the NHS and a private company).

Well said joegrundy. A reasonable response from an age when the average policeman, both had and used their discretion. Again I suppose it would be at the dsicretion of any police officer who happened to detain the OP for using said lights etc. In other words; a lottery. As DVD pointed out the legislation seems clear: No vehicle shall have blue lights or sirens fitted unless it is properly authorised. That seems clear enough except who decides what or when this 'authorisation' applies. Is it the police on the street? Does the OP telephone an emergency number who then 'authorise' him to use the lights etc? All in all a bit of a mess. I just know one thing. If any of my children were desperately in need of hospital attention then I would have done what was necessary at the time and argued later over the semantics of 'authorisation'.

Cheers Concrete

Lights blue touch paper as I toss this gem I found yesterday

DPP v Issler [2014]

tinyurl.com/z6fdnqx

dvd

Lights blue touch paper as I toss this gem I found yesterday

DPP v Issler [2014]

tinyurl.com/z6fdnqx

dvd

That one is subtly different - the defendants in that case weren't transporting patients but were getting themselves as first reponders to the scene of the emergency. So the distinction made is that in the case of Issler, the car wasn't an ambulance as defined in law.

Interesting.

This ruling would seem to rule out paramedic response cars and bikes.

All a bit messy, isn't it?

The counter is to "distinguish" the quoted case ,as it was appied to a diffferent circumstance. But the fly guys might get away with it!