Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#82
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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" |
#83
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher scribeth thus Roland Perry wrote: In message op.uoxip7ishaghkf@lucy, at 12:09:33 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Duncan Wood remarked: http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/DSC04085.jpg [1] [1] Not unless it's operated by the NHS, which I can't tell from that photo, but seems unlikely. So you think it would be morally acceptable to obstruct it? Not unless it was unavoidable, such as a red traffic light (where you wouldn't even have the excuse that the Emergency Workers Act had led you to believe it was OK). Normally I give a wide range of public service vehicles precedence, including buses and refuse trucks. But we are discussing the *legal* situation. No need to defer to Buses. They simply barge their way past without considering other users. I have always found vehicles with 'twos and blues' VERY well driven by comparison. Even the police, normally total disregarders of the law*, seem to be a bit more careful. *I once tried to keep up with an unmarked jaguar full of uniforms that overtook me on the Sandy road. I lost him at 120mph. As fast as I could go. Single lane road of course. Wasn't chasing a load of Old Bill @ 120 odd on country road asking for a bit of bovver?.. They weren't looking in their rear view mirrors were they? Not much overtakes you at 130mph.. |
#84
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#85
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message op.uoxx5dpghaghkf@lucy, at 17:42:39 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009,
Duncan Wood remarked: 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 Ah! So he didn't follow the emergency vehicle through the lights, he was past by then. from the middle lane, the emergency vehicle passed with no problem, he was not in the middle of the junction or obstructing anything, He apparently did feel he was. and there was no need for him to then follow the vehicle thru the lights, err, we've established he didn't follow the emergency vehicle through - the emergency vehicle followed *him*. 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's a difference between blocking the way *through* (which we all probably agree he wasn't) and blocking the crosswise traffic. there was a few second gap before he followed, it was dangerous and unwarranted" In one person's opinion. Although as he was past the stop line the traffic lights don't apply any more. -- Roland Perry |
#86
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , The Natural
Philosopher scribeth thus tony sayer wrote: In article , The Natural Philosopher scribeth thus Roland Perry wrote: In message op.uoxip7ishaghkf@lucy, at 12:09:33 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Duncan Wood remarked: http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/DSC04085.jpg [1] [1] Not unless it's operated by the NHS, which I can't tell from that photo, but seems unlikely. So you think it would be morally acceptable to obstruct it? Not unless it was unavoidable, such as a red traffic light (where you wouldn't even have the excuse that the Emergency Workers Act had led you to believe it was OK). Normally I give a wide range of public service vehicles precedence, including buses and refuse trucks. But we are discussing the *legal* situation. No need to defer to Buses. They simply barge their way past without considering other users. I have always found vehicles with 'twos and blues' VERY well driven by comparison. Even the police, normally total disregarders of the law*, seem to be a bit more careful. *I once tried to keep up with an unmarked jaguar full of uniforms that overtook me on the Sandy road. I lost him at 120mph. As fast as I could go. Single lane road of course. Wasn't chasing a load of Old Bill @ 120 odd on country road asking for a bit of bovver?.. They weren't looking in their rear view mirrors were they? Not much overtakes you at 130mph.. Good job they didn't stop suddenly ![]() -- Tony Sayer |
#87
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#88
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Brian Morrison wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 18:11:16 +0000 The Natural Philosopher wrote: Wasn't chasing a load of Old Bill @ 120 odd on country road asking for a bit of bovver?.. They weren't looking in their rear view mirrors were they? Not much overtakes you at 130mph.. It does in Germany... Not on a single carriage country road. |
#89
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher scribeth thus tony sayer wrote: In article , The Natural Philosopher scribeth thus Roland Perry wrote: In message op.uoxip7ishaghkf@lucy, at 12:09:33 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Duncan Wood remarked: http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/DSC04085.jpg [1] [1] Not unless it's operated by the NHS, which I can't tell from that photo, but seems unlikely. So you think it would be morally acceptable to obstruct it? Not unless it was unavoidable, such as a red traffic light (where you wouldn't even have the excuse that the Emergency Workers Act had led you to believe it was OK). Normally I give a wide range of public service vehicles precedence, including buses and refuse trucks. But we are discussing the *legal* situation. No need to defer to Buses. They simply barge their way past without considering other users. I have always found vehicles with 'twos and blues' VERY well driven by comparison. Even the police, normally total disregarders of the law*, seem to be a bit more careful. *I once tried to keep up with an unmarked jaguar full of uniforms that overtook me on the Sandy road. I lost him at 120mph. As fast as I could go. Single lane road of course. Wasn't chasing a load of Old Bill @ 120 odd on country road asking for a bit of bovver?.. They weren't looking in their rear view mirrors were they? Not much overtakes you at 130mph.. Good job they didn't stop suddenly ![]() I lost em after a mile or two. |
#90
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... The initial reaction for someone as stupid and officious as Colin appears, is possible. The subsequent events are inexcusable. Bearing in mind how often these things are misreported in the interests of some publication sensationalising to sell more tree parts, it might be wise to see what actually gets revealed at the enquiry. -- Brian "Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman." |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Croxley Link news | London Transport | |||
BREAKING NEWS!! Power Cut affecting Railways in the South East | London Transport | |||
BREAKING NEWS!! Power Cut affecting Railways in the South East | London Transport | |||
BREAKING NEWS!! Power Cut affecting Railways in the South East | London Transport | |||
Epping-Ongar news? | London Transport |