"Police did not respond in time!"
"Fire engines delayed by traffic - six die in fire!"
"Ambulance slow to respond to emergency call - the traffic was against us, say crew."
Which do you want?
The first post and the first reply reflect modern 'blame culture', that permits no one in any form of authority to make any kind of mistake, even in training. This driver was being trained and they, and their instructor made a mistake. Should all experienced police, fire and ambulance drivers now drive 'to the book', even in an emergency? Was the unfortunate ambulance driver wrong, who was nearly prosecuted for transporting a donor kidney at 100mph on an after-midnight, deserted motorway?
Grow up Billy and Rob. Learn to live in the real world, where bad things happen even to those with good intent.
John
|
It is possible that there is much involved in the magistrates decision that is left unmentioned in the report. For example, if the officers light had just turned red then what was the Subaru doing across the junction - jumping the lights?
|
|
I'm with Adrian on this one - how much about this case don't we know? For one eason or another events like these are often portrayed in a biased manner so whilst, on the face of it, it looks bad for the police driver, it may well not have been quite like that. Also agree with John to the extent that many people seem all to ready to jump on the police when it suits them. I for one wouldn't do their job - life's stressful enough without having deal with lowlife all day and then having the people you're there to protect queue up to have a go as soon as the opportunity presents itself. There's a lot wrong with the Police Service but IMO most of that's the result of political interference and weak leadership not the troops on the ground.
|
|
|
|
john.
Should all experienced police, fire and ambulance drivers now drive 'to the book', even in an emergency? Was the unfortunate ambulance driver wrong, who was nearly prosecuted for transporting a donor kidney at 100mph on an after-midnight, deserted motorway?
technically, yes!
the idea, i believe, is for emergency services to attend in the shortest time possible,given the prevailing conditions.
"Fire engines delayed by traffic - six die in fire!"-regrettable,but better that- "fire engine hits coach- 52 killed/injured-six die in fire"
the fact is (as i read it) this was not an "emergency" response, you or i have often been in the same circumstances when approaching a set of lights, have you just gone charging through, i know i haven't!. as the spokesman said,"they are still subject to the laws of the land", just because they have "blues-n-two's" doesn't say they have the right to use them to skirt around highway regulations, at will.
the officer had time to realise the lights had changed, had time to evaluate the situation, had time to swith-on the equipment, so why did she not have the time or precence of mind to push the brake pedal?.
she also "admitted" driving without "due care and attention" and as such should have been sentenced exactly the same as either you or i would have been had we been in the same situation.
billy.
|
the idea, i believe, is for emergency services to attend in the shortest time possible,given the prevailing conditions. \"Fire engines delayed by traffic - six die in fire!\"-regrettable,but better that- \"fire engine hits coach- 52 killed/injured-six die in fire\"
Must agree , billy, my father drove fire appliances for nearly 30 years and hence I have known many fire appliance drivers over the years. Their maxim has always been to get to a shout as quickly as possible, BUT, to be of any use they must arrive, in one piece, and able to carry out their duty. If involved in an accident they will not arrive, a machine will have to be despatched from further afield, and life will be endangered far more.
Cockle
|
|
|
|
John,
I'm not entirely sure that I like the condescending tone of your reply.
If that had been a 'lesser mortal' ordinary motorist, then they would have had the book thrown at them and quite rightly. Do you have children? Would you be quite so sanguine about this is one of them had (God forbid) been mown down and killed by a trainee police driver who jumped a red light?
I do live in the real world (unfortunately) but I also realise that everybody on the road has the same duty of care to other road users, be they milkmen, police drivers, firemen, or pink spotty dogs.
If I had made as serious a mistake while I was being trained to drive a bus, then I would have been prosecuted and sacked. I'm not attempting to class bus-driving in the same league as policing, but how come so many people are willing to excuse recklessness and lack of attention in cases such as this.
Incidentally, just for the record I totally supported the ambulanceman in that case. He was driving on a deserted motorway, NOT through red traffic lights.
Cheers
Rob
|
John,
Accidents do unfortunately happen. Going through a red light is not an accident.
Why do you think they shpuld be allowed to make a mistake? If whilst I'm working on a 11kva bus-bar I make a mistake I will either kill myself or a colleague. Is that acceptable to you?
I think you need to live in the real world and realise that mistakes do not HAVE to happen.
|
Gentlemen, please chill....
S 36 RTA 88 makes it an offence to fail to conform to a Traffic Sign and as you all know the red light of a Traffic Sign is a Traffic Sign. Unlike speeding there is no proviso under this Section allowing the Emergency Services to ignore for their various purposes which others above have identified a need to do so..
But they do - so where is the authority. It is at Reg 36 Traffic Signs and Genneral Directions 2002 which states that RED mean stop, but goes on to permit Emergency Service vehicles to proceed on a red light which to observe would hinder the use of that vehicle for the purpose of which it is being used, but not so as to endanger any person or to cause a vehicle from other than red to change speed or course to avoid an accident.
Now you all state that "she got away with it". No she didn't.
She was charged before a Court.
She was not found Not Guilty and therefore let off.
She was convicted.
Under Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 where a Court before a person is convicted of an offence, is of the opinion, having regard to the circumstances including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender that it is inexpedient to inflict punishment, the Court may make an Order to discharge that person absolutely.
She was therefore dealt with in accordance with the Law.
From what has been reported here it would appear there are some mitigating factors not reported. Again can I ask when reading reports in papers bear in mind it is their bent to "sex up" accounts to ensure good circulation fiqures.
DVD
|
Gentlemen, please chill....
Thank you DVD.
An emotive subject, reported in an emotive fashion (for isn't all journalism one persons take on an event, issued as the truth to the masses?)
Do try not to let the thread descend into a slanging match.
Ta
No Dosh
mailto:Alan_moderator@honestjohn.co.uk
|
|
|
well said and backed up DVD.
just one thing puzzles me, why did she admit to the charge?- it is saying "yes, i was driving without due care and attention", and having admitted, doing so, how can the magistrates say "no you weren't because of x-y-z factors"?.
maybe you have already answered this in your "under powers etc" paragraph, buy doesn't seem to jump out and bite me!-sorry!
billy.
|
Why did she admit the charge?
I presume she was charged with driving without due care of which because of the evidence against her, she held her hand up. There are some honest plods.....
Having pleaded "Guilty" it was up to Their Worships to consider sentence, which they did and thought Absolute Discharge appropriate.
DVD
|
oh i see now!
i'm not usually that thick, but even i make allowances for myself. billy must be slipping into words of one sylable mode due to missing my sunday afternoon dose of "amber"(not red) nectar.
ta,
billy.
|
|
|
|
It seems pointless to pontificate on this particular case without all the relevant facts, but presumably if an officer is being trained in "emergency response" then that will entail switching on the blues and twos and going through red lights, evn though it's not a real emergency? In these circumstances I can imagine the driver being given an absolute discharge.
|
Police like fire and ambulance drivers are not just allowed to go through red lights just as they please If they have their blues and two s on and are responding to an emergency the law allows them to treat it as a give way only if it is safe to do so If you hit someone then it clearly was not safe to do it and they are clearly in the wrong and should be treated like anyone else who breaks the rules
|
"as the officer approached a set of traffic lights that were on green, they suddenly changed to red"
What, no amber then?
|
Problem here is that we do not know all the facts - merely what a local newspaper reports.
Report raises several questions - especially about the magistrates considering "special" factors that we know nothing about. Also that lights suddenly changed to red without amber (according to article). Lights changed yet driver had time to switch on siren, lights, etc yet didn't have time to stop. Lights changed suddenly yet Subaru was also crossing junction when hit - did he jump lights? Was he prosecuted? Did police car cross red long after they had changed or as they changed?
I think we have to trust the magistrates on this one, after all the police driver seems to have admitted guilt so there must have been extenuating circumstances that the magistrates took into account that the report does not/cannot report.
If we doubt the sentence we are doubting the integrity of the magistrates.
I just think of the number of rugby match reports I read in our local paper while thinking "Was the reporter watching the same match as me?"
I tend to go with magistrates and police driver on this ----but then there's the Hutton Report!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
