I have not seen this mentioned in the BR before, but thought it should be given some attention. The following short article was in today's Telegraph.
£5,000 fine for obstructing 999 crews
Anyone who obstructs emergency workers could be fined up to £5,000 under rules brought in today.
The legislation covers people who wilfully get in the way of fire fighters, ambulance workers, coastguards and lifeboat crews. It also covers those transporting blood, organs or equipment for the NHS.
Home Office Minister Gerry Sutcliffe said, ?In some instances a delay of just a couple of minutes can have terrible consequences. Such behaviour will not be tolerated.?
Police and prison officers are not included in the Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act as they are covered by separate laws.
It still does not answer the dilema of should you cross a red light to let an emergency vehicle pass. So instead of a fine for passing a red light, you might have a £5,000 fine instead.
--
Roger
A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well.
|
Staying behind a red light rather than crossing the line to let an emergency vehicle through would not get you prosecuted as you are obeying the law to the letter rather than deliberately obstructing the vehicles progress.
--
|
They would do better to trace and puncsh the twits who ring 999 asking for details of the nearest take-away, traffic routings, train info etc. They are the ones who are being obstructive!
|
|
|
I have seen a thread previously in which someone said they had refused to get out of the way of a plodmobile or fire engine at a red light because that would have meant 'breaking the law'.
I thought the person concerned utterly moronic and still do. There are very few circumstances in which you can't get out of the way after a moment's thought. I always try to even if it means passing the red light, and the emergency services are duly grateful. Police drivers are nearly as good as bikers at noting and acknowledging intelligence in other road users.
Just suppose you did that and some fool tried to run you in for it. Wouldn't the ensuing argument be the most terrific fun? And wouldn't you win it in the end?
|
|
I thought it was referring to obstructing crews in the course of their duties e.g. you are drunk and being an idiot-any fool can obviously see you aren't going to get done for NOT running a red light...
|
|
|
"I thought the person concerned utterly moronic and still do. There are very few circumstances in which you can't get out of the way after a moment's thought. I always try to even if it means passing the red light, and the emergency services are duly grateful. Police drivers are nearly as good as bikers at noting and acknowledging intelligence in other road users. "
Being grateful is nothing to do with it.
Telegraph featured someone who had been fined for passing a red light to let an ambulance (?) through and had been snapped by a camera. Fine was upheld, despite appeal, IIRC. Apparently, it's only a Police officer who can legally allow you through a red light. So, while I agree with you in general, I would have to think hard before passing through a set of lights with a camera if a fire engine were behind me. Would I then be stuffed for 5 grand?
Yet another case where the law is an ass.
V
|
From HJ's column in the Telegraph:
"Following correspondence about a motorist being fined for jumping a red light to allow the passage of an emergency vehicle, I e-mailed my MP and he has forwarded a reply from transport minister Dr Stephen Ladyman.
The gist is that there is no specific exemption in the Traffic Signs Regulations or the Pedestrian Crossings Regulations for vehicles giving way to emergency vehicles or proceeding under the direction of a police officer to pass red signals. It would be for the police to decide in particular cases whether such a manoeuvre was justified or appropriate in the circumstances. Rule 194 of the Highway Code on emergency vehicles states: "Consider the route of the emergency vehicle and take appropriate action to let it pass.
If necessary, pull to the side of the road and stop, but do not endanger other road users." Rule 88, meanwhile, makes it clear that all traffic light signals "must" be obeyed. Ergo, one must not allow an emergency vehicle to pass by crossing a red light."
V
|
|
|
|
|
Yet another law.
I see photos of yobs pelting fire engines with stones when caled to a fire.. Action taken: none..
Enforce current laws first!
madf
|
I agree with Lud. The vast majority of police etc. would back you if you got "done" for running a red light or similar.
I, like Lud, would relish the argument if it ever got that far..... : )
|
I agree with Lud. The vast majority of police etc. would back you if you got "done" for running a red light or similar. I, like Lud, would relish the argument if it ever got that far..... : )
>>
you are both right, but the only problem comes with a camera prosecution.......because you'd likely get the bureaucratic twerp on 10 shillings a week dealing with it, unwilling or unable to use any common sense or discretion......the emergency services vehicle you've given way to will be long gone and won't even know of your predicament.....could you imagine trying to trace the other driver to help you.......even if you did get through to the right place, it's be on the too difficult pile, wouldn't it
|
IIRC there have been convictions in these circumstances.
From a purely selfish point of view, it seems better to hold up the emergency services than risk prosecution. It's a very sad state of affairs. Perhaps if emergency service vehicles had GPS tracking so you could prove that there was an emergency vehicle in your location at the time, the problem would go away.
Personally, I'd let them through because I'd rather take the points than risk someone else's life, but I can see why some might not, especially since I saw in the local paper that fire service call outs were fast approaching 50% prank calls...
|
I wasn't actually suggesting that anyone should refuse to move through a red light to let an emergency vehicle through, just pointing out that I doubt that you would be commiting an offence.
The law is being introduced to stop deliberate obstruction. A mate who was a sargeant in the Met at Hackney used to say that deliberately obstructing police cars on a call was commonplace.
--
|
|
There are idiots in other countries;I was the patient in the back of an emergency ambulance in France;bright red,four blue lights flashing(one on each corner) and two-tone horns blowing and did people move out of the way-no way!!!
|
|
|
|
But surely Westpig (I see you have given yourself an uppercase first letter!) if video evidence is produced it should also show the emergency vehicle, and if it isn't produced then there's no evidence?
An Ealing camera twerp tried to run me in for encroaching on a bus lane, at a place where not doing so would have contributed to an endless traffic jam. The still that I was sent was cropped to hide the long queue of traffic waiting to turn right at the junction where the heinous offence occurred. The road markings there were also far from satisfactory.
In my letter I said I was more than happy to defend my actions in court and was looking forward to seeing the uncropped video of the dreadful crime. I was sent a twerpish letter of rejection which I ignored. Nothing further came of it.
Don't accept carp from these people. Argue and say that you will be a nuisance.
Of course if they've got you bang to rights without an argument you have to pay up, and I do.
|
But surely Westpig (I see you have given yourself an uppercase first letter!) ................
my own lack of standards was annoying me & something L'escargot said on another thread reminded me of it
if video evidence is produced it should also show the emergency vehicle, and if it isn't produced then there's noevidence? ...
you often hear the emergency vehicle some way behind you, so if you pulled forward to facilitate the flow, it may well not be in the frame of the fixed camera at the lights
An Ealing camera twerp tried to run me in for encroaching on a bus lane, at a place where not doing so would have contributed to an endless traffic jam. The still that I was sent was cropped to hide the long queue of traffic waiting to turn right at the junction where the heinous offence occurred. The road markings there were also far from satisfactory. In my letter I said I was more than happy to defend my actions in court and was looking forward to seeing the uncropped video of the dreadful crime. I was sent a twerpish letter of rejection which I ignored. Nothing further came of it. > Don't accept carp from these people. Argue and say that you will be a nuisance.
Glad you did that, had that dilemma on Sunday going around the edges of Oxford, approached a roundabout with the bus lane going near enough right up to the roundabout...big queue wanting to go right and no buses in sight...I eventually only wanted to steal one car length to turn left at the roundabout, but was worried about a camera on a pole... (couldn't see one, but they're usually doom grey aren't they)...why do we allow this, we vote these people in
|
|
|
|
|
It isn't the poliuce who decide these things - it is the CPS and they seem to be a bunch of crackpots! Too many honest law abiding citizens charged with assault when removing oiks and chavs from their property when damage is being caused. It may not happen often but once is once too often!
|
|
As to people being fined because they moved out of the way at traffic lights we may not have heard all the facts,merely a newspaper's sensationalized story just as the girl who was fined for drinking from a bottle of water whilst stationary at traffic lights.Sometime after there was a very small apology on an inside page stating that she was prosecuted as she was still drinking as she drove away from the lights.
|
|
Does this mean all the local councils are going to be fined everytime a 999 crew goes down a road with speed humps, I certainly hope so !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
