Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

In message e.net
Mark Goodge wrote:

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 10:57:32 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to
keyboard and typed:

In message , at
10:27:15 on Sun, 19 Apr 2009, MB remarked:
As for police advice, it's very specific (as part of a long list of
things they don't expect you to do):

"We do NOT expect you to put yourself in danger by crossing red
traffic lights to make way for us."

http://www.met.police.uk/mpds/advice.htm

That sounds like a clever way of saying "we would like you get out of our
way at traffic lights if it is safe but if you have an accident we will not
accept any responsibility and probably charge you"

Except when you look at the page as a whole, when it's clear that's not
the hidden meaning.

I think the last one on that page is the most telling:

We do NOT expect you to risk road camera fines by, for example,
moving in to bus lanes during hours of operation to make way for us.

That is, effectively, saying that making way for an emergency vehicle
is not considered sufficient grounds to challenge an automatically
issued fixed penalty notice from a camera monitored location. Bus
lanes are one common example of such locations, others would be
light-controlled junctions that have red light cameras.


IME police cars on call use the bus lanes, so they don't want you getting in
their way.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

In message
Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 15:11:02 on Sun, 19 Apr
2009, David A Stocks remarked:
That is, effectively, saying that making way for an emergency vehicle
is not considered sufficient grounds to challenge an automatically
issued fixed penalty notice from a camera monitored location. Bus
lanes are one common example of such locations, others would be
light-controlled junctions that have red light cameras.

If one had passed the red light in order to make way for an emergency
vehicle (see above) it would probably be fairly obvious from the
pictures what had happened.

Apparently not, as there are people who been caught on camera running a
red light to get out of the way, and no emergency vehicle in the frame.

So the evidence that there was an emergency vehicle there is what precisely?

It's an obvious try-on for anyone caught by such a camera. That's the reason
I note the number of the vehicle I have given way to.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

In message
"John Rowland" wrote:

rail wrote:
In message
"John Rowland"
wrote:

rail wrote:
In message
"John Rowland"
wrote:

rail wrote:
[snip]
Are you aware why they switch the sirens off once they have
crossed the junction?

It could be that the emergency has been cancelled, but if you have
an explanation for why this started happening after the Menezes
incident, I'd like to hear it.

It didn't start after the Menezes incident, it is to reduce the
amount of noise polution, which has the advantage of making the
siren more noticeable when it is used. If you here a siren going
continuously for a while you tend to blank it out. Fire engines
and ambulances do the same thing.

You're talking about when they put the siren off and leave the lights
flashing. I said "I have frequently seen police vehicles pull up at
a red light, wait for ten seconds, get bored, put on the flashing
lights, drive through the junction and then put the lights off
again"

I dispute that you have seen it frequently.

About the Greenwich incident I should have said "Once a police car
even pulled up behind me in Greenwich town centre and put the lights
and sirens on (at 3am!) causing me to drive through the red light
out of their way, and then they drove through the lights and put
the lights and sirens off."



But you didn't say that. Looks like you are changing the story to
fit your prejudices.

Is your nickname "Brick Wall?"



Ha bloody ha, never heard that one before.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

In message , at 17:24:56 on Sun,
19 Apr 2009, rail remarked:

I would take a police car behind me blipping his siren as an
instruction to move aside.

The Met advice makes it quite clear what their expectations are.

I did point out that specifically the Met were not involved.

I would not expect other forces to have different advice, particularly
when it comes to running red lights.

The key word is expectations, not instructions.

They do not expect that a police car can give instructions to a motorist
to do the various things previously listed.

Note that doesn't necessarily mean running the red light as in
crossing the junction, but, as in the two times I've done it (and not
been prosecuted) crossing the white stop line

The offence is crossing the white line, not literally passing the red
light.

Hence why I said that, your point is?

That you were leaving yourself open to prosecution, especially if there
had been a camera.

So how come I have blatantly broken the law twice right in front of a
policeman in uniform and not been prosecuted?

Because they have better things to do (both at the time, and generally).
But traffic light and bus lane cameras are always at the ready.
--
Roland Perry

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

In message , at 17:29:22 on Sun,
19 Apr 2009, rail remarked:
If one had passed the red light in order to make way for an emergency
vehicle (see above) it would probably be fairly obvious from the
pictures what had happened.

Apparently not, as there are people who been caught on camera running a
red light to get out of the way, and no emergency vehicle in the frame.

So the evidence that there was an emergency vehicle there is what precisely?

Did you read the stories I posted?
--
Roland Perry

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

In message
Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 17:29:22 on Sun,
19 Apr 2009, rail remarked:
If one had passed the red light in order to make way for an emergency
vehicle (see above) it would probably be fairly obvious from the
pictures what had happened.

Apparently not, as there are people who been caught on camera running a
red light to get out of the way, and no emergency vehicle in the frame.

So the evidence that there was an emergency vehicle there is what
precisely?

Did you read the stories I posted?

No point, it's easy to dredge up 5 newspaper reports from around the country
and an indeterminant time period to prove practically anything. As Charles
Ellson pointed out, how many were overturned on appeal?

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

In message
Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 17:24:56 on Sun,
19 Apr 2009, rail remarked:

I would take a police car behind me blipping his siren as an
instruction to move aside.

The Met advice makes it quite clear what their expectations are.

I did point out that specifically the Met were not involved.

I would not expect other forces to have different advice, particularly
when it comes to running red lights.

The key word is expectations, not instructions.

They do not expect that a police car can give instructions to a motorist
to do the various things previously listed.

I don't expect any kind of vehicle, let alone a police car, to issue any
instructions to anyone to do anything.


--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

"Paul Scott" wrote:
"Tony Polson" wrote in message
.. .

Because politics goes in cycles. There are such things as "political
will", "political capital" and "political opportunity". They all work
on different cycles.

As Norman Tebbit might not have said :-)

Getting coat...


Oh dear.

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

"Mark Goodge" wrote in message
house.net...
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 10:57:32 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to
keyboard and typed:

In message , at
10:27:15 on Sun, 19 Apr 2009, MB remarked:
As for police advice, it's very specific (as part of a long list of
things they don't expect you to do):

"We do NOT expect you to put yourself in danger by crossing red
traffic lights to make way for us."

http://www.met.police.uk/mpds/advice.htm

That sounds like a clever way of saying "we would like you get out of
our
way at traffic lights if it is safe but if you have an accident we will
not
accept any responsibility and probably charge you"

Except when you look at the page as a whole, when it's clear that's not
the hidden meaning.

I think the last one on that page is the most telling:

We do NOT expect you to risk road camera fines by, for example,
moving in to bus lanes during hours of operation to make way for us.

That is, effectively, saying that making way for an emergency vehicle
is not considered sufficient grounds to challenge an automatically
issued fixed penalty notice from a camera monitored location. Bus
lanes are one common example of such locations, others would be
light-controlled junctions that have red light cameras.



Probably because enforcement of these is outside the control of the police
and they don't want to get in arguments with the companies or organisations
doing the enforcement. They should perhaps also advise about driving into
the entrance of some private car parks to clear a way for an emergency
vehicle because that could be enough to get a penalty.

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

"David A Stocks" wrote in message
...

"Mark Goodge" wrote in message
house.net...
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 10:57:32 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to
keyboard and typed:

In message , at
10:27:15 on Sun, 19 Apr 2009, MB remarked:
As for police advice, it's very specific (as part of a long list of
things they don't expect you to do):

"We do NOT expect you to put yourself in danger by crossing
red
traffic lights to make way for us."

http://www.met.police.uk/mpds/advice.htm

That sounds like a clever way of saying "we would like you get out of
our
way at traffic lights if it is safe but if you have an accident we will
not
accept any responsibility and probably charge you"

Usually there's a pedestrian crossing or other space you can move into
without coming into conflict with traffic cossing the junction -
technically you have broken the law by passing the red light but you've
not put anyone in danger by doing this.

Except when you look at the page as a whole, when it's clear that's not
the hidden meaning.

I think the last one on that page is the most telling:

We do NOT expect you to risk road camera fines by, for example,
moving in to bus lanes during hours of operation to make way for us.

I'm struggling to think of a case where you could "make way" for an
emergency vehicle by moving into a bus lane. If the bus lane is clear the
emergency vehicle should be using it, not you ...



Standing traffic and gap in bus lane but standing traffic further down the
bus lane?