Safe Speed Forums

My work base is amongst a huge hospital complex, in a busy built up area, so it's not unusual to hear the sirens go off as ambulances desperately try to get through the traffic in any way they can, safely. (We've all seen it)

My question is, can you be done for going over a red light, traffic or pedestrian xing, or up on the pavement or wrong side of the road etc. for trying to get out of the way?

I've been confused over this for a long time and see it on almost a weekly basis as some well-meaning drivers almost go into a panic. I've done it myself in fact.

We have quite a number of cameras focused on traffic lights here in the Midlands but of course a jobsworth trafpol could see this too and perhaps argue that you were dangerous or careless.

London must have it worse I imagine so maybe someone down there knows the answer, or know someone who's been prosecuted?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Yes you can, and yes it happens. The legitimate thing to do, it would seem, is not to budge for the emergency vehicle.

But lost count of number of times I've had a wave and thumbs up from Police when I put van onto pavement to make more room for them .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

I had a bad feeling that would be the answer. This country is making me ill.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

As far as I know a red light becomes a "give way" if the vehicle is being used for fire, police or ambulance purposes. (or something similar) For everything else it is a "stop and wait even if there's nothing coming".

So for getting out of the way of an emergency vehicle it is still illegal to go through the red light.

Why it can't simply mean give way for everyone I don't know.

_________________
Andrew.

Ah, that would mean giving up a fine income from a helpful public spirited motorist and that would never do!

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

My personal rule for this scenario is: if I KNOW there isn't a camera enforcing the red light, then I'll move as far over the line as required to let the ESV get past. If I so much as suspect there's a camera present, the brakes stay on until I get a green light...

It basically comes down to trust. I trust an at-the-scene police oficer to turn a blind eye and not NIP me for aiding the progress of an ESV. I absolutely do NOT trust someone sat in an office viewing the latest batch of RLC photos to do the same.

_________________
Chris

It sounds, once again, that it comes down to flexibility, (which cameras aren't). An officer can differentiate between a genuine reason and someone just pushing their luck.

I'm old enough to remember the days where an officer may see you speeding and, depending on the circumstances and your attitude towards the officer, you may get off with a caution. You wouldn't, however, if he/she deemed it dangerous.

Now those were the days!

beatae memoriae

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Many of the questions posted up here relate to a basic issue - is it OK to do something that is "wrong" if it "doesn't matter".

And only we ourselves know the answer to that. If it is OK for us to do something that is wrong as long as it "doesn't matter", then it's OK for everyone. And doing it justifies that in people's minds. And it becomes a matter of course to park on the pavement, puke in the street on a Friday night, blow a red light and chuck litter on the street. All of those things are quite OK, if we want them to be.

But if we don't want them to be "OK", then we mustn't do them, I reckon. We could set an example, for example! It's a bit old fashioned, like. Lot's of good things are out of fashion, though. That's why we are the way we are.

On the other hand, it's always right to do something that is wrong if it is the "right thing to do". That trumps everything else, I think.

But is it 'right' to be punished for doing something 'wrong' if it's the 'right thing to do'?

I think it's OK to grumble about being punished for doing something 'wrong' if it's the 'right thing to do', but it isn't OK to obsess about it too much.

I also think it's OK for an "authority" to punish someone for doing something 'wrong', even if they swear that it was the 'right thing to do' – I mean, they’d all say that, wouldn’t they? But this is only OK if the "authority" is competent to make that judgment call.

There are a lot of "if's" and "as long as's" in there, aren’t there? And there are bound to be errors (all systems are screwed up etc.) Sometimes it's better to take it on the chin, though. Life’s tough etc., and some good guys get it in the neck from time to time, eh? So it goes.

Doing the 'wrong' thing at the right time is proof of mastery.
Unfortunately, it is often only self-evident, but the consequences of doing what only you know to be right at the time, on the scene, will still be lesser than doing what would seem right to the absent majority.

The bigger the rule, the bigger the exception needed to break it. The 'rules' in my sig are the biggest ones I can think of; any and everywhere.
(As far as I know, breaking Rules #1, #2, & #3 at once is only an option when deadly force is justified, either in selfdefense or in the thwarting of an imminent crime involving deadly force. 99% of the world will never face that exception, thus its omission.)

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

Trivialising it still doesn't take away the fact that prosecuting people for getting out of the way of ambulances is not the hallmark of a just society.

I'm not suggesting that "I was getting out of the way of an emergency vehicle" becomes a get-out-of-jail-free-card for being snapped by a red light camera, but presumably same camera will have snapped the emergency vehicle going through, so it should be quite easy to clear up.

My understanding is that this currently does not happen.

But nothing 'cuts' quite like injustice. Even if it's a rare occurance, if it's you that's at the sharp end imagine how you would feel. I'm surprised it hasn't happened to me yet.

Where I work, I can tell you it happens every day - they are just not getting caught for it, yet, fortunately.

So it comes down to good luck where instead the law should protect someone doing the right thing, not persecute them.

I agree with VC "it's always right to do something that is wrong if it is the "right thing to do". That trumps everything else, I think."



BTW. Happy new year from across the pond Rush I'm sure your list has grown since I last saw you

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

I try not to make a big deal out of rare, unlucky and forgettable events that you can’t do much about. An endorsement on my license doesn’t matter very much anymore to me. We are very lucky that such things are all we have to get worked up about, eh?

Not sure I can completely agree with you there Valle for two reasons: -

For many people who use their car as part of their living, like myself, that extra endorsment can mean the difference between banned from driving or not and imagine how would you feel about losing your job under these circumstances?

Also, with the increase in all this technology and widspread use, instead of it being a rare case it could become every case. In which instance, people will just decide not budge out of the way and patients will die in the ambulance. (I know of this happening)

Do I make a fair point/points?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Frustrated! BTW: A lot of local businessmen have been getting off, around here, on the grounds that they are too important to be banned (lot's of people depend on them etc.) It seems that magistrates are quite impressed if you can turn on the waterworks - I'd give it a try, you never know.



I see. Those fatty 4x4s don't make it any easier. Perhaps the law should say that you _must_ budge out of the way. There would be a bit of inconsistency, but we can take a bit of that before it all goes to pot.

Ah yes A friend I knew years ago did this when he was going to court. He knew he was for the high jump and said to me he'll have to "do the big one". I had to ask him to explain to me what that was.

Actually, (sorry about the total topic drift), it was over a ban he was going to get because two officers did him for drink driving. Jackanory: -

He was in his car listening to music because his mum couldn't stand it in the house. So he went in the car to listen to it and carried his drink with him. (He'd had some already but not at the 'howling at the moon' stage)

The car was parked on the reservation outside the house, just like others cars all did, so not actually on the road. He had to have the keys in the ignition for the stereo to work.

The two officers were walking by and booked him for drink driving. "But I'm not driving and haven't driven!" he exlaimed. "If you don't believe me then feel the engine!".

It didn't matter

My friend thought the colour of his skin didn't help. Who knows?... I personally thought it was unfair.

He said the feeling he got was that the one officer was trying to show who's boss to the younger, greener, officer. The younger officer was actually quite sympathetic.

Actually, it is sort of on-topic - the fairness/unfairness of it all.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

I know what you're trying to say, but it would be a big deal if everyone stopped nosing through red lights to let emergency vehicles through, as the cumulative effect may be literally a matter of life and death.

If a relative had died in the back of an ambulance because motorists were unwilling to get out of its way even though perfectly safe to do so, for fear of prosecution, I would get "quite worked up" at those who had caused this change in behaviour to be manifested.

Even those idiots who believe that man lives to serve the law instead of the other way around, should be able to understand that running a redlight is not as bad as reckless endangerment, and act appropriately on that understanding.
If one is too stupid to understand when, how, and why a redlight should be treated like a stopsign (a stopsign like a yieldsign, etc.), the chances of being too stupid to properly choose between reckless endangerment and a redlight go up too quickly for my comfort.

Both the lawmaker and those who follow the law without question are merely heads and tails of the same coin. Blame them both.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation