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

"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"

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

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.

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

Mark Goodge wrote:
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.



wall RUBBISH! /wall

;-)

"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 ...

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.

D A Stocks

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:11:02 +0100, David A Stocks put finger to
keyboard and typed:

"Mark Goodge" wrote in message
shouse.net...

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.

It may be, or it may not, But it doesn't actually matter - the point
is that getting out of the way of an emergency vehicle isn't
sufficient excuse for passing a red light, and so any automated FPN
for doing so will be upheld if you appeal it.

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

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:34:22 +0100, Mark Goodge
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:11:02 +0100, David A Stocks put finger to
keyboard and typed:

"Mark Goodge" wrote in message
kshouse.net...

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.

It may be, or it may not, But it doesn't actually matter - the point
is that getting out of the way of an emergency vehicle isn't
sufficient excuse for passing a red light, and so any automated FPN
for doing so will be upheld if you appeal it.

The appropriate phrase when attempting to negate such an offence is
IMU usually "lawful excuse or authority" NOT "_legal_ excuse or
authority" thus requiring the intervention of a judge to decide, _not_
the police or other form of legal accuser. Statutes themselves often
provide specific exemptions (not always in an obvious manner) but
general operation of law also involves get out clauses involving
necessity, misunderstanding, lack of required intention etc. A simple
question to be posed by the defence could be something like "If Mr X
had not got out of your way and your emergency call had been
cancelled, what would have been your next action?". It has to
remembered that many apparently silly prosecutions make the headlines
when the person is convicted in a magistrates' court but have been
forgotten by the time a successful appeal is made later in a higher
court outwith the area covered by the original reporting newspaper and
thus avoid being "lifted" by the national newspapers as follow-up
material.

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.
--
Roland Perry

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