Some time back I read in the news that someone crossed red light to allow an ambulance to pass. He was fined by red-light-camera. The matter went to court and though if it was proved that the ambulance was there really, he still had to pay the fine!!!
Unfortunately, the highway code is vague on these issues. I know everyone feels for giving way to emergency vehicles. But the rubbish camera based fines are ruining everything.
|
You watch them and you see them panic as an emrgency vehicle comes upon them don't you? Beggars belief how some people even manage to dress themselves in a morning...
In a car, when I stop in traffic, I always stop short (a vehicles length) of the vehicle in front.
I do this to the facilitate the view of drivers behind me and should a blue & two's come up behind me, I have room to move and I can to get out of its way.
Front of traffic - I will move but only as far as required and if it is safe to do so.
Keeping a greater distance from the car in front when in a stop start situation also has many other benefits too.
What gets me are the numpties that sit 'hard' on the tail of an emergency vehicle to then use it to cut through traffic.
Used to see this a lot when I lived in London.
Edited by Tron on 17/07/2008 at 11:09
|
|
|
As an officer in charge of a fire appliance it is my duty to operate the siren en route to an incident.
Usually on most A and B roads we can cross to the other side of the road at traffic light junctions and weave around the islands.
On dual carriageways with a central island I rely on the public to give way without putting themselves at risk. If I approach standing traffic across all lanes with nowhere for them to go except crossing a red light, I turn off the siren until the lights change green. This prevents bullying of those at the front of the queue from making a possible dangerous decision. Once the traffic lights turn green I reapply the siren as the traffic can then move over to a safer position or continue on to stretch out the queue creating better space for us to proceed.
I'm afraid over zealous individuals in all the emergency services can create a "panic" in certain situations that can lead to illegal manoeuvres on your part and place you in an area that might lead to a collision. The advice given above, if you feel the need to yield, is good enough in some situations.
It comes down to a combination of experience on the crew of an emergency vehicle combined with a common sense approach from the public.
I do agree that the sirens today do confuse drivers as to their direction of approach and would recommend that makers of emergency vehicles would make them more visible and look into the science of a better "noise" to alert road users more coherently.
|
My own thoughts, as a volunteer ambulance driver for a first aid organisation (who are NOT allowed to break the highway code under any circumstances, btw):
Move out of the way of an emergency vehicle if its safe to do so. Make sure your intention is clear to the vehicle and all other road users, but avoid sudden moves as many other motorists panic when they hear a siren.
Do not cross a stop line or pass a red light. The driver of the emergency vehicle may be authorised and trained to do this; you and I, as ordinary road users, are not.
Before you move off again, watch for the tailgating ambulance chaser who follows it through the lights on the wrong side of the road, as happened to me on the way home recently.
(Ambulances seem to produce panic in lots of drivers. On a training exercise, driving at a steady 30mph with no lights other than my sidelights on, I had one elderly driver dart across a line of traffic to get out of my way as soon as he saw AMBULANCE in his rear view mirror.)
|
|
|
|
It's funny you should say that last sentence scribe, about 10 years ago, a new siren was unveiled on the news, and never heard from it again. It made a wail followed by white noise and clicks. It was supposed to exploit the human ears' natural ability to tell the direction of a twig snapping type sound.
|
|
Yes, I remember that as well. It was a University that had developed the idea. The idea was muted in London but we haven't seen it as yet. One of those ideas that has probably bitten the dust.
|
I was passed on a dual carriageway the other day by a police car with sirens/lights blaring/blazing.
Didn't hear a thing, the first I saw was the car out of the corner of my eye and the first I heard/felt was the whoosh as it went past.
The siren may as well not have been on.
|
|
|
The idea was muted in London
I don't think a muted siren would work very well at all...
|
If the idea had been mooted, it might not have received such a muted response.
Edited by ifithelps on 17/07/2008 at 19:38
|
Always a good watch - even if a bit dated. Part 2 is in the menu on the right hand side.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=llRZanjwGC8
Edited by Fullchat on 18/07/2008 at 00:36
|
|
|
|
You both got the joke then ;)
|
I'm with perleman on this in that if a camera had been there I would not advance into line of sight of the camera.
That is a real shame because as people say lives maybe at risk but you have to remember that we now live in a country where motoring is almost devoid of any common sense - and we should blame the government for this.
It has come to the point that councils can spy on you while parking and if they feel necessary read your e-mails, we have more cctv per person than any other country in the world and speed/traffic cameras are positioned to do no more than catch you out and prosecute you as a fund raising project. The police are target driven so if I was a senior policeman and my salary review was dependent on achieving my targets I too would be out to catch the easy targets like a motorist that is concentrating on a child by the side of the road and may creep over the speed limit.
We live in a country where if you carry drugs or even a knife you get a caution and when you do 34 in a 30 or park over a white line you get an automatic prosecution, fine and points on your license.
Having said all that people are getting the message and getting sick of the nanny state and hence Mr Brown's popularity in the polls.
Rant over - sorry guys.
|
|
Pendlebury, dont apologise! I, and I am sure many others agree with you.
|
|
Not sure if I'm the victim of an elaborate prank here, but are posters really saying that the risk of a thirty quid fine would make them act in a way that might cost someone's life? I can tune out the incessant 'scamera' rants but this attitude goes way beyond that. Westpig had it about right; others here need to get a sense of proportion.
|
>>....are posters really saying that the risk of a thirty quid fine would make them act in a way that might cost someone's life?
>>
I certainly would get out of the way.
Of course If someone has already got nine points and risks loosing their job or worse then they might well not move.
|
>others here need to get a sense of proportion.
To whom do you refer? The average Joe behind the wheel or the enforcement drones?
Kevin...
|
Of course If someone has already got nine points and risks loosing their job or worse then they might well not move
Within first 2 years of passing, accumulating 6 points is enough to cancel the license!
Everyone is willing to give ambulance way - but the law sucks! Why not put this clause in highway code that one can cross red light to allow emergency vehicles to pass? Then the discussion of conscience won't come.
|
|
I am the original poster of this thread (in case you don't know), I have just got a UK driving license which means if I get 6 points in the next 2 years my license would be automatically revoked, so would be my source of livelihood. So 3 points for crossing red line is not just a ''risk of thirty quid fine''. Though I did cross the red line for the ambulance but I hope (as I observed) there was no red light camera at the junction.
|
I would not pass the red light, the ambulance could always go around the traffic lights on the wrong side of the road hopeing people would stop and get through, if you get caught by the police you are going to get a ticket and its not worth it.
A similar situation happened to me years ago, we were travlling along a main road and turned right into a smaller road, there was a fire engine gaining on us up the main road, sirens and eveything, so we went round the corner with the intention of pulling over quickly to get out of us way. unfotunatly there was a policeman with the hairdryer there and we got a speeding ticket. maybe 38 in a 30. We explained and he had obviously seen the fire truck but it didnt do any good. We have both a fire station and police station near our house and i always do my best to get out of their way. however i am not breaking the law or bashing up a kerb for anyone. Sorry
|
Not a rant P'bury! A concise and clear summary of a lot of the things that are wrong with the laws of the country, and their application.
|
I hope I'd move out of the way (the minimum necessary). If I then got a ticket I'd go to court and explain. And I would hope the bench would give me an absolute discharge, and/or find Special Reasons not endorse my licence.
And, if that failed and I got points and a fine, I *think* I'd still think it was worth it. A few quid and points against risk to human life? Let's keep a sense of perspective here.
Edited by GroovyMucker on 19/07/2008 at 15:59
|
Irrespective of the legalities involved by crossing a red light receiving a fine is one thing but if you manage to have a collision with a vehicle legitimately crossing thus causing a complete blockage of the junction, possible personal injuries, at least two damaged vehicles, general delay all round and probable prosecution then you haven't really done anybody any favours have you? However if you don't cross the red light and hold up the ambulance for a minute or so until the lights change then you'll probably be considered a bit of a clot so its all a bit of no win situation. I think that if the occasion arose I would very carefully cross the red light enough to make room depending on the exact junction, I wouldn't fancy trying to force a crossing of the North Circular in rush hour for example
|
most junctions have enough room to move forward of the white line, but not actually affect other traffic..or...you could treat the red light as a Give Way...which is what emergency services do and what the general public do when they are defective
no one is suggesting you should have a gung ho kamikaze charge right through the whole lot
|
The law, again and again, is an ASS. There is a general common law defence of "necessity" but it has to be interpreted according to precedent if there is any and so there is a humungois grey area. A proper written constitution or some element of a civil law code (as in Scotland) would clear this all up at a stroke.
I remember the case a few years back of the driver of a (correct me if I'm wrong) ambulance who was rushing an organ for transplant to a well known hospital. One police force more or less waved him on with their blessing but another neighbouring police force went for prosecution in order to "clear up" the law and set a precedent. Poor guy waited months to see if he would be fined, lose points and his livelihood with it (the driver in question had 20 - 30 years' experience of emergency driving but didn't have licence B.1.AA.X.2005 revised 2006 subject to exception 228B7, blah blah). Common sense finally won the day but honestly... If a professional driver in a life saving mission is treated like this, what chance for the rest of us ?
(Incidentally, if a blues and twos comes up behind, say, six cars at a red light, are all six drivers supposed to go through the red?)
|
|
I would move, sensibly even if technically illegally, to let any emergency vehicle through. If subsequently anyone had the cheek to take issue with me about it, I would deal appropriately with that. Surely no one with a jot of sense would act any differently? It's a non-issue.
|
|
FWIW I would not cross into a junction on a red light to allow an emergency vehicle to pass. There is an element of danger, and I would not want a fine + 3 points on my licence, since I have also read of people being fined by mindless government/council drones.
|
Lud said, "It's a non-issue."
For you and me, obviously.
Leif, we are still (thank goodness) not in a situation where the council prosecutes traffic offences like this one. They may provide evidence to the police, but that's it. The police would (should) then investigate, and that's the point at which you get the opportunity to explain. Then, as long as you don't get on your high horse, things should get sorted. In my experience, the police are reluctant to seek the prosecution of someone who has simply been sensible and tried to assist the work of the emergency services.
I think we're making a mountain out of a molehill.
Edited by GroovyMucker on 20/07/2008 at 00:01
|
>>I think we're making a mountain out of a molehill.
The risks are real.
www.radar-detectors.co.uk/news_passed_a_red_light_...p
|
GM, I don't think it is a non issue for as Movilogo mentions further up, there was a case in point where a driver moved over, got caught by the camera went to court and still got the 3 points and did not win his appeal.
Sitting here behind my computer, my thoughts are that personally I wouln't risk the 3 points.
Whether the same would be the case if I was sitting at a red light with a siren behind me though I don't know.
|
This is one of those threads that make me despair for the future of this country.
The answer should be obvious. Move out of the way of the ambulance. Get flashed. Explain and the thing gets quashed.
What rule bound dunderhead of a legal system would uphold the charge in these circumstances?
Stanley Milgram got it right...
|
|
Some people just can't bear the idea of a greasy official thumbprint on their immaculate little pink licences, whatever the circumstances. Most grownups are used to it of course, but there are always these wailing little virgins. Never heard anything so damn pathetic in my life.
|
|
Well Lud I am proud of never having received a single point on my licence in over 20 years of driving.
|
And no doubt it really is something to be proud of.
But I still think it's pathetic to care more about that than the police, fire engine or ambulance having a free run when there's an emergency. Seems to indicate an extreme, pernickety narcissism and a self-centred, nerdish, misguided sense of what may be important and what may not matter much of a damn in the final analysis. Perhaps I am just old-fashioned.
|
No, not dyspeptic Niallster, not today anyway. Just raised to see important things as important and trivia as trivia, and to understand fully that I have obligations to society at large that might sometimes clash lightly with my personal needs and preferences.
I think old-fashioned covers it.
|
Well Lud I am with you 100%.
Couldnt even consider BLOCKING an emergency service vehicle under ANY circumstances.
Nobody is advising anyone to speed across a junction; merely make room for them to proceed past you.
What on earth is the problem ?
|
>>What on earth is the problem ?
Exactly, I can't see the problem.
As the law stands, only a uniformed policeman can direct a vehicle to cross the line while the light is red. A fleet of emergency vehicles with lights and sirens cannot make a law abiding motorist cross that line.
Suggesting otherwise is suggesting that we may pick and choose the parts of the law which we choose to obey.
|
Then I sincerely hope that you never lose a loved one for the need of an emergency vehicle that has been held up in traffic NC.
Its illegal to smoke in a public place; illegal to drive without a seatbelt; drive with a mobile in your hand (although the police are allowed hand held radios?), drive while under the influence, misrepresent the value of an insured item etc etc etc.
No doubt we all obey every law, as we should. But anybody with ANY common sense finds it is important to help in any emergency in any way they can! Something as simple as making room comes under that category!
If I earned points for doing just that then I would fight them. But I would certainly not hesitate to make room for an emergency vehicle IN AN EMERGENCY !
What a state of affairs if people think it more important to BLOCK the emergency vehicles because the traffic light is on red! I repeat nobody is advising you to make dangerous maneouvres; simply make room for others to proceed!
|
Then I sincerely hope that you never lose a loved one for the need of an emergency vehicle that has been held up in traffic NC.
And I sincerely hope you don't lose a loved one because some idiot drove into a junction on a red light, and caused a fatal accident.
|
"And I sincerely hope you don't lose a loved one because some idiot drove into a junction on a red light, and caused a fatal accident."
I think most of the problem here is because people do not understand the difference between making room and driving out of the way regardless of other traffic ?
I also think the situation you describe is also more likely to happen at a junction without emergency vehicle presence than 1 with them present ?
If points are more important than anything else then please feel free to park up!
|
Nobody is advising anyone to speed across a junction; merely make room for them to proceed past you. What on earth is the problem ?
1) If you get hit by a vehicle crossing on a green light, you will be prosecuted for dangerous driving.
2) Further to 1, you might suffer an injury.
3) You can be prosecuted, fined, and have 3 points on put on your licence.
There have been several letters from ambulance/emergency vehicle drivers in the Sat. Telegraph advising driver NOT to go through a red light in such a situation.
One point to note, is that it is always worth leaving space in front of your car when you stop at lights to give you more chance to move out of the way, thus avoiding this issue anyway.
|
Leif, the important differnce is whether you proceed to make room or proceed to cross the junction regardless of what other traffic is around.
If you proceed and hit somebody or even get hit, then you were probably driving without due care and attention. Thats different to making room !
|
NC is quite right. There is no law that says you have to 'break the law', lol, to give way to emergency vehicles if some fool may then threaten to penalise you for it. But one doesn't give way because one feels pressured into it by the law or social convention. It's a moment's decision, and in my opinion a no-brainer. But there it is, some disagree.
I have to accept, obviously, that some people think three points, or a tiresome correspondence with some camera scam company, is a much bigger deal than I seem to. I just simply can't bring myself to give a toss.
|
Do the right thing, let the ambulance through.
If you can't distinguish between making a bit of room at the edge of a junction that's big enough to have traffic lights and lurching out into flowing traffic then do us all a favour and stay off the roads.
|
|
I've often done it and never had any comeback. Plod are usually courteous enough to thank one in some way too, even in the rush of it all.
|
|
I'd back Plod not to book you. One of those CSOs on the other hand......
|
How many emergency "blues and twos" journeys are emergencys? How many times do you watch these programs where they race through the streets sirens blaring to arrive and someone is already there and got it under control? How many fire emergency calls are hoaxes?
I bet the critics on here would be thinking differently if they "edged" forward, enough to get a red light ticket, enough for our silly courts to give them three points and then they found out it was a hoax call. Would you still be sitting back saying well I did my duty and am proud of my three points?
Edited by BobbyG on 20/07/2008 at 23:29
|
I have to accept obviously that some people think three points or a tiresome correspondence with some camera scam company is a much bigger deal than I seem to. I just simply can't bring myself to give a toss.
I can at least see the reasoning behind not crossing the stop line, whereas there is no reasoning that justifies punishing someone for crossing the line if they took due care and attention in doing so, yet people believe it might happen. Being punished afterwards is undeniably wrong. If you feel at risk of being wronged in that way, only you can decide whether you are comfortable taking that risk.
Personally I wouldn't care so much about points or a fine. The principle on the other hand - that's a whole different matter. I would care very much about knowing that I was in the right and the powers that be were in the wrong, but that they were going to get their way anyway. That's called bullying and I despise it in all its forms, most particularly state-perpetrated, whether the victim happens to be me or someone else.
Doesn't mean I wouldn't get out of the way though - I certainly would. Just that if I did get nobbled for it afterwards I'd feel some considerable anger and resentment, lose a bit of respect for law enforcement and rant at length to anybody who didn't run away.
Why would I choose crossing the stop line to get out of the way? Well obviously it's the right thing to do. But more importantly it's because I perceive the likelihood of being done for it to be so vanishingly small that it would hardly even enter my mind. If I thought that I would get prosecuted, I expect I wouldn't cross the line. But I'd only think that if such prosecutions were a normal, daily occurrance for all of us. Call me naive, but I don't think that's the case.
|
"Leif, the important differnce is whether you proceed to make room or proceed to cross the junction regardless of what other traffic is around."
The question is what was the situation experienced by the original poster. The impression given is that he was being bullied to enter the junction. That is the situation I am addressing. That is not 'making a bit of space', but a potentially dangerous move. Obviously just moving a little is what most people would do. Or is that 'a little' just a euphemism, along the lines of "crept over the speed limit".
|
This is a bit like the mimsing argument in a way. Indeed individuals who are damned if they will move just because an emergency vehicle is shouting and flashing behind them at a red light, and they might have to think a bit about how to get out of the way without causing an obstruction to other traffic, are probably mimsers as well, waddling along on the crown of the road 5mph below the limit on a fast A road with a long queue of patient white vans and other properly driven vehicles behind them. Because after all their speedometers might be accurate, best to err on the safe side by a largish margin, and they want to save fuel, and a limit is a limit not a target, etc.
These howling carphounds, and their avatars in the structures of society, do us no good at all in my opinion, slowing everything down and annoying honest people, and they of course must be thoroughly miserable. We can be thankful for that at least.
|
Although the following link is not motoring related but it shows the how the law itself is often illegal
Photographing thugs 'is assault', police tell householder who took picture of gang of hoodies
tinyurl.com/5k8g5k
Nowadays, to do anything in (once) Great Britain, you need to forget "common sense" and behave like an idiot. Only then you can avoid prosecution!!
|
The sickening thing about all this is that it is yet another example of the state-driven erosion of one of the fundamental principles of any civilised society: the assumption of good faith. Sure, in critical situations we usually apply a principle of due diligence as well, but the bottom line is that if people are going to get along with each other it's a really bad idea to be merciless with someone who makes an honest mistake after taking due care and acting in good faith.
If the powers-that-be want us to stay put until the lights change, regardless of circumstances, then so be it. I don't think a blanket ban is the best approach, but if that's what has been decided, I can live with that (albeit reluctantly).
But that doesn't mean that every breach of the rule should be prosecuted. The cases in the news reports above do not involve drivers who were careless or reckless or irresponsible, or who thought that they knew better than the law. They were just ordinary decent people trying to be good citizens, people who tried to help the emergency services, not to impede or undermine things.
If they did the wrong thing, it'd be quite reasonable for police to have a wee chat with the driver along the lines of "I'm sure you meant well, but please never do that again" ... but instead we have the law punishing people for trying to help. It used to be the case that prosecutions were supposed to be vetted by the CPS to determine whether they were in the public interest. Has some kapo decided that these prosecutions are in the public interest, or does nobody care any more?
Some brave folks like Lud will still try to do the right thing anyway, even if they get a few points, and good for him. But most of us will just accept that we now live in a rules-driven society where not only is no leniency given for mistakes, but even an act of common decency may be punished as if it was a piece of deliberate malice, and the prosecution system is so skewed that nobody on average income can afford to risk the huge costs of defending themselves.
This lack of good faith is what leads highly-strung drunks to get into fights instead of exchanging apologies ... but instead of acknowledging the destructiveness of that behaviour, we are institutionalising it.
If there was a masterplan to destroy a society, this sort of thing would have to be a part of it. All we need now to make it complete is total surveillance, abolition of privacy of correspondence, and a humungous database of all us which records all our movements. Ooops! they are doing that already, and the politician who objected to it got derided as mad and vain. Brave new world, innit?
|
|
I'd wear the points as a badge of pride.
|
Nice to see you back thinking hard NW. Interesting post too. We are indeed drowning in a sea of bad faith and bad manners.
Surely though there is no blanket rule that drivers edging into camera range, safely, to let a fire engine through should be prosecuted. My guess would be that even the camera wonks filter such cases out when they see what has happened. So I simply wouldn't expect to get a ticket if I did that, and if I did get one I would expect my explanation to be believed and understood, and the ticket rescinded.
There haven't been many such prosecutions after all, and the authorities are barging through urban areas scattering the citizens like chickens all day long. Nationwide, incidents like that probably number in the hundreds every day.
|
There haven't been many such prosecutions after all and the authorities are barging through urban areas scattering the citizens like chickens all day long. Nationwide incidents like that probably number in the hundreds every day.
There haven't been many reported prosecutions, so we don't know for sure whether these are isolated incidents or just the tip of an iceberg. But what we do know is that in the cases where there have been prosecutions, there has been no rush by the authorities to sort out the problem by rescinding the ticket with a public apology.
|
>>But what we do know is that in the cases where there have been prosecutions,there has been no rush by the authorities to sort out the problem by rescinding the ticket with a public apology.
>>
IIRC at least one honest "offender" pleaded guilty to crossing a red light and therefore the court had to convict him.
Why it could not resoved earlier is a mystery.
|
Photographing thugs 'is assault' police tell householder who took picture of gang of hoodies
>>
this is absolute piffle and shame on the Mail for ramping it up.
Since when has a Community Support Officer been the 'police'. CSO's have minimal training and are not in any position to give advice on what is and is not a crime or potential crime.
Filming someone is not an assault.
Complete 'non story' from start to finish.
|
This is a bit like the mimsing argument in a way. Indeed individuals [snip] are probably mimsers as well waddling along on the crown of the road 5mph
>. below the limit on a fast A road with a long queue of patient white vans and otherproperly driven vehicles behind them.
Do you have to be so offensive about people who do not share your viewpoint by characterising them in such an absurd Daily Mail manner?
Sorry but this is a real issue not just a silly black and white "people who disagree with me are idiots who do not know how to drive" issue. If you do not understand that, why have several emergency vehicle drivers written to the Sat. Telegraph stating that the advise drivers NOT to enter a junction on red? Now clearly that is the view of 2 or 3 people, not all such drivers, but it shows that the issue is not at all as you rather insultingly wish to parody it.
I can understand you having a different viewpoint to me and I have no need to characterise you as an idiot, merely because we disagree.
|
I have certainly used a few immoderate expressions in this thread, and have perhaps 'in absurd Daily Mail fashion' gratuitously introduced the mimser, another bugbear of mine, to this thread. However it is not my intention to insult anyone directly and I didn't especially mean you Leif.
Whether I regard people who disagree with me as idiots depends partly on how idiotic they are being. A mimser and a gentle, leisurely driver are not the same thing. A driver who is aware of the traffic regulations and a driver who is determined to avoid violating them (as he understands them) for whatever reason, however pressing, are not the same thing.
Gentle, leisurely drivers and drivers aware of the traffic regulations are all right. Mimsers and drivers obsessed with their own record on the traffic regulations are self-centred, obstructive and a pain in the bum.
|
or...you could treat the red light as a Give Way...which is what emergency services do and what the general public do when they are defective
I've seen defective members of the general public do much worse than that.
|
when you are driving in an emergency mode (blue lamps, two tones, alternate headlamp flash) you are taught not to 'hassle' people and if there's a queue at a red light it's good practice to turn off the noise
the alternative is someone at the front doing something stupid... and believe me, they do
the other problem is that a person at the head of the queue will often pull forward slightly and pull in front of the middle/inside lane blocking it...but still partially blocking their just vacted lane..which means that there are now two lanes blocked...which when the lights go green mean you are worse off than before
the best case scenario is for the car at the front to move completely out of the way if they can, which allows the ones behind some room to move forward and provide some more space, which in police car at least can mean an extra lane created which you can often squeeze through
it horrifies me that some on here would be prepared to sit there utterly motionless and/or would try to second guess how important the call might be. I suspect those sort of people are the very same ones that in a built up area will pull over to the left for an emergency vehicle, but are so desperate to 'keep ground' that they will carry on moving, so eventually will feed the emergency vehicle the 'keep left' bollard in the middle of the road.
|
>>it horrifies me...
So, are you urging that people should break the law, and cross the white line while the light is red, or not?
|
yes I am...........i'm asking them to use common sense.....
putting things in perspective.. a minor, understandable traffic offence committed to help an emergency services vehicle out...for me an absolute 'no brainer'
|
yes I am
I would have imagined that you would be among the last to urge people to disregard the law. Are there any other areas where you think we should be allowed to pick and choose the laws we want to obey?
|
"yes I am...........i'm asking them to use common sense.....2
Playing Devil's Advocate here - when asking that someone crosses a stop light/line, you are then risking their judgement that it's safe to cross. They may not be able to see/hear another vehicle (perhaps also on blues) that's crossing a green light, at speed.
You could end up with two accidents for the price of one. The police/fire/ambulance crew may never make it to the first one if they have to stop for the second one.
Edited by oldnotbold on 21/07/2008 at 18:06
|
Playing Devil's Advocate here - when asking that someone crosses a stop light/line you are then risking their judgement that it's safe to cross. They may not be able to see/hear another vehicle (perhaps also on blues) that's crossing a green light at speed.
what do these people do when they approach traffic lights that are defective?
Many people sail through defective lights as if they're green, because they haven't seen a red light.. so they're equally as dangerous..i'd suggest you'd need to take care and treat is as a 'Give Way'...
|
"Many people sail through defective lights as if they're green, because they haven't seen a red light.. so they're equally as dangerous..i'd suggest you'd need to take care and treat is as a 'Give Way'... "
I think you are generalising there - most people don't "sweep through" faulty lights. Proceed with caution, yes, but not at speed. But that's different to having the the ambulance behind you. In that scenario, the lights are working, so traffic with the green light can see a clear route ahead and take an appropriate speed, knowing that their course will be clear. If I push into that stream I'm relying on a) my correct look out and b) the look out of the traffic on the green light.
I may be the wrong person to ask about this. I was a professional aviator, where doing things "off the cuff" is not encouraged.
In all reality, very few people expire because the ambulance arrived seconds too late, or got them to hospital seconds too late.
|
yes plenty....
-31mph in a 30mph limit anyone
-75mph on an empty, dry, motorway
- police car driving up a No Entry in an 'urgent assistance' call to a colleague (no exemption
to do that)
- doctor doing 35 mph in 30 mph limit to dying patient
etc, etc, etc....
they'd all be subject to the prevailing conditions at the time and whether it was safe or not, but yes, i'd advocate people actually thinking and using their own common sense
|
>> yes I am I would have imagined that you would be among the last to urge people to disregard the law.
You snipped Westpig's suggetion that you might want to consider using common sense. That's rather important when deciding whether to disregard the law. The law prohibiting you from crossing the stop line on a red light is there for a reason. Unless you don't understand the reason, you ought to be able to judge when it makes more sense to break the law than adhere to it.
Are there any other areas where you think we should be allowed to pick and choose the laws we want to obey?
I'm happy to use my judgement to pick and choose occasions to break the law and I expect the police to use their judgement to pick and choose occasions to hold back on enforcing the law.
No written law can ever be flexible enough to absolutely prohibit all bad things without also inadvertently prohibiting some good things. Sensible people, intelligently policed can do a far better job of making society work than can blind and unthinking adherence to the letter of the law.
Any other approach on either side (for example, replacing human police with judgement-free cameras, or holding up an emergency vehicle simply because crossing the white line is technically illegal) is simple-minded, selfish and cowardly.
|
London police drivers are quite good at wriggling along between the lanes in major thoroughfares, and quite a lot of London drivers are sensible about making a space they can squeeze through. In smaller main roads though, like my street, I have often seen drivers freeze in a silly way and feed the hurrying fuzz into the keep left bollards, in the way Westpig describes.
The systematic narrowing of roads, widening of bollards and building of ghastly ramps, cycle lanes and projecting pavements is no help at all of course. It ensures that even sensible drivers get trapped in the way of the charging services sometimes. It's even happened to me.
|
NC and onb, you are both being mischievous. Traffic and road regulations are not 'laws' like the ones against theft, rape, murder and fraud. You are allowed to use common sense in applying them. Or rather, there's nothing morally dubious about doing so.
Driving into a junction that traffic might be approaching at speed, without using due caution, is hardly what one would call common sense. No one would suggest that a driver should risk a serious accident to make way for a howling fuzz car. Most of this thread though has been about protecting people's licences from the threat of points rather than risking life and limb. One is important, the other trivial.
|
>>Traffic and road regulations are not 'laws' like the ones...
But, alas, they are Lud. There's no difference.
|
|
You may be a brilliant lawyer NC, but I certainly hope you never become a judge.
|
NC,
Bottom line is this. You have relatives to stay, one of their young children has a funny turn in the middle of the night and you decide the best option is to drive them to hospital.
On a clear stretch of road, dry, good vision etc....do you exceed the limit somewhat in a safe fashion or do you slavishly stick to the limit, because that's the law.
I know which one i'd do.
|
Well said Westpig, I know which one I'd do too.
|
What a pity this is a serious thread. If it wasn't I might be tempted to wonder whether Westpig and Blue might not edge safely a whisker or three over the limit (in these clear, dry, light traffic conditions) not just when they were rushing a sick nipper to the doctor, but just for the hell of it.
I certainly would.
|
>>I know which one i'd do.
I can't say what I would do. Probably, I would dial 999, but I'm not sure.
However, there's a world of difference between a member of the public in extremis breaking a law with a good intention, and for someone paid to uphold the law encouraging members of the public to break laws.
|
my views on the subject matter are best covered by a quote attributed to Sir Douglas Bader
"Rules are made for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools"
|
>>"Rules are made for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools"
That's great, but, how does someone know if they are a wise man or a fool?
My guess would be anyone who thinks they are wise man is actually a fool - therefore, the saying can't actually be used to advantage by anyone, and we are left with the situation that we should all simply follow the rules.
|
we are left with the situation that we should all simply follow the rules.
So that's not all right then.
:o}
|
|
I think i'm going to give up. Did make me laugh though 'how do you know if you're a wise man or a fool'?
|
'how do you know if you're a wise man or a fool'?
Didn't they have an infallible method in the middle ages involving hanging the person upside down in a cess pit and judging their reactions? Or perhaps that was a pregnancy test. Anyway they knew what they were doing in those days. Not like now.
Interesting bedfellows some of these threads make, what?
:o}
|
Traffic and road regulations are not 'laws' like the ones against theft rape murder and fraud. You are allowed to use common sense in applying them. Or rather there's nothing morally dubious about doing so.
Lud, I agree that there's nothing morally dubious in applying commonsense. But law and morality are not always closely related, and the problem now is that the application of law has departed from morality, because it is no longer tempered by commonsense or human decency.
It's basic decency to accept that a minor rule may be broken to prevent something worse, such as smashing a window (causing criminal damage) to rescue someone from a fire. Not any more: we now have a steady stream of people being prosecuted simply for acting in good faith and with due care, trying to do the right thing.
We are all being turned into jobsworths :(
|
We are all being turned into jobsworths :(
Some more willingly than others though.
|
it horrifies me that some on here would be prepared to sit there utterly motionless and/or would try to second guess how important the call might be.
Indeed, any decent person should be horrified that this is the state we have got to. But it's the inevitable consequence of prosecuting people when they try to do the right thing.
If an explanation of "I didn't act recklessly and I was only trying to help" isn't accepted as an excuse, then the answer is simple: don't help. It applies as much in the public sphere as in the private.
Edited by NowWheels on 21/07/2008 at 19:21
|
If an explanation of "I didn't act recklessly and I was only trying to help isn't accepted as an excuse then the answer is simple: don't help. It applies as much in the public sphere as in the private.
I disagree.
Political Correctness,
Jobsworth's,
people who blindly follow rules because it's easier than thinking or making a decision
are all held with utter contempt by me and i try my best to ignore them/it. I see no reason why we all shouldn't carry on doing what we think is 'right'.
one of the saddest things i read in a long time, last year...was a van driver who drove past a nursery and saw a toddler walking along the pavement on her own and thought it wasn't right...(she'd escaped from the nursery) but didn't stop to deal because he was frightened someone might think he was a child molester or was going to kidnap the child. The child wandered into a nearby garden and drowned in a pond.
I can quite categorically state i'd stop every single time and if someone wanted to query my motives, then good luck to them....
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 21/07/2008 at 20:04
|
one of the saddest things i read in a long time last year...was a van driver who drove past a nursery and saw a toddler walking along the pavement on her own and thought it wasn't right...(she'd escaped from the nursery) but didn't stop to deal because he was frightened someone might think he was a child molester or was going to kidnap the child. The child wandered into a nearby garden and drowned in a pond.
Tragic, for all concerned ... but it's entirely to be expected when the penalties for intervening are so high.
If the van driver had stopped and taken the child back to nursery, he'd have had a reasonable chance of getting a police caution and ending up on the register of sex offenders ... and I don't blame him at all for not risking it.
Same things applies in schools, where teachers know that they risk having their careers destroyed if they hug an upset child or restrain an unruly one.
If you punish good faith actions, then people don't act in good faith. Why is anyone surprised?
|
If the van driver had stopped and taken the child back to nursery he'd have had a reasonable chance of getting a police caution and ending up on the register of sex offenders ... and I don't blame him at all for not risking it.
A very outside chance indeed I would say. The school would want to sweep the escape of a child under the carpet just for a start. They would be more than happy to get the tot back unharmed, especially if they hadn't even noticed it had vanished.
The media have always been alarmist, but they have got worse as paper has given way progressively to image. It's a great pity people don't really understand what this means: that millions of perfectly respectable, unthreatened citizens are sneaking about with their collars turned up expecting to be killed and eaten at any moment, or at least lynched and accused of child molesting if they stop someone's nipper from running into the road.
Despite the corrosive effect of this kind of reporting, however, quite a lot of people are still more or less sane on important matters. Or so I like to think.
|
What does a green traffic light mean? - The bulbs working, thats all.
There seems to be two schools of thought. One where someone would cross the stop line to facilitate the passage of an emergency vehicle and the other where based on the reporting of people being prosecuted for crossing the line would stay put.
Me, I'd have may day in court and make such a stink about it.
|
Tragic for all concerned ... but it's entirely to be expected when the penalties for intervening are so high. If the van driver had stopped and taken the child back to nursery he'd have had a reasonable chance of getting a police caution and ending up on the register of sex offenders ... and I don't blame him at all for not risking it. If you punish good faith actions then people don't act in good faith. Why is anyone surprised?
the bit that surprises me is why more people don't stand up to this rubbish. If the decent folk of this land 'kowtow' to this sort of thing, all of a sudden it's the norm... and there'll be worse on the way.
decent people have to stand up for themselves and thereby do everyone else a favour
there is no reason on earth why a van driver shouldn't stop and assist a vulnerable child. If he has a brain and a tongue he can patiently explain what has happened, can't he?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
