Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Neil
Williams gently breathed:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:03:47 +0100, "MB" wrote:

There is an example in the Motoring Telegraph of a driver booked by a RLC
camera

Is that like a "PIN number" or an "ATM machine"?

LOL! That battle appears to be well and truly lost - I've seen "PIN
Number" displayed on the screen of an ATM (RBS or Tesco one, I think).


--
- DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds. http://www.sheepish.net
- Wisefire Promotions, Goth & Metal. http://www.wise-fire.com
- http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk http://www.revival.stormshadow.com

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

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"
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."

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

In message t
"MB" wrote:


"rail" wrote in message
...
[snip]
And even then you could be fined if there is a Red Light Camera and
find it very difficult to prove you moved out of the way of a
police car. If you write the police and ask should you through a
red light in circumstances like that then you will told that you
should never go through a red light.


Rubbish




There is an example in the Motoring Telegraph of a driver booked by a
RLC
camera because he moved out of the way for a police vehicle. It took
him a
long time to be able to prove he was innocent.

There has been talk in the press about crossing a red light to allow an
emergency vehicle to get past but the police always give a blanket "thou
shalt not go through a red light".


I repeat, rubbish.



Are you saying the letter in the Motoring Telegraph was lies?



Neat evasion.

--
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:
[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.

--
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
 

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:18:10 +0100, rail put finger to keyboard and
typed:

In message t
"MB" wrote:


There is an example in the Motoring Telegraph of a driver booked by a RLC
camera because he moved out of the way for a police vehicle. It took him a
long time to be able to prove he was innocent.

There has been talk in the press about crossing a red light to allow an
emergency vehicle to get past but the police always give a blanket "thou
shalt not go through a red light".


I repeat, rubbish.

Why do you think it's rubbish? Do you have counter-evidence?

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

In message , at 20:18:10 on Sat,
18 Apr 2009, rail remarked:
There is an example in the Motoring Telegraph of a driver booked by a RLC
camera because he moved out of the way for a police vehicle. It took him a
long time to be able to prove he was innocent.

There has been talk in the press about crossing a red light to allow an
emergency vehicle to get past but the police always give a blanket "thou
shalt not go through a red light".

I repeat, rubbish.

There are plenty of examples of people being fined for getting out of
the way of emergency vehicles.

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
--
Roland Perry

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 20:18:10 on Sat,
18 Apr 2009, rail remarked:
There is an example in the Motoring Telegraph of a driver booked by a
RLC
camera because he moved out of the way for a police vehicle. It took
him a
long time to be able to prove he was innocent.

There has been talk in the press about crossing a red light to allow an
emergency vehicle to get past but the police always give a blanket
"thou
shalt not go through a red light".

I repeat, rubbish.

There are plenty of examples of people being fined for getting out of
the way of emergency vehicles.

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
--
Roland Perry


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"

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

In message e.net
Mark Goodge wrote:

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:18:10 +0100, rail put finger to keyboard and
typed:

In message t
"MB" wrote:


There is an example in the Motoring Telegraph of a driver booked by a
RLC camera because he moved out of the way for a police vehicle. It
took him a long time to be able to prove he was innocent.

There has been talk in the press about crossing a red light to allow an
emergency vehicle to get past but the police always give a blanket
"thou shalt not go through a red light"


I repeat, rubbish.

Why do you think it's rubbish? Do you have counter-evidence?


As the police have the power to instruct a driver to pass a red light (but
not a flashing red light) then stating that 'police always give a blanket
"thou shalt not go through a red light' is patent rubbish.

--
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 20:18:10 on Sat,
18 Apr 2009, rail remarked:
There is an example in the Motoring Telegraph of a driver booked by a RLC
camera because he moved out of the way for a police vehicle. It took
him a long time to be able to prove he was innocent.

There has been talk in the press about crossing a red light to allow an
emergency vehicle to get past but the police always give a blanket "thou
shalt not go through a red light".

I repeat, rubbish.

There are plenty of examples of people being fined for getting out of
the way of emergency vehicles.

Where are these 'plenty of examples'? My local paper is full of them, not.


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

There are still circumstances where you can be instructed by a police officer
in uniform to pass a red light. eg when the lights have failed and the
crossing is being controlled manually.

--
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
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.
--
Roland Perry