"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:48960484@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-03 20:05:36 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4895c7aa@qaanaaq...

If that question is asked of anybody and an *honest* answer is given, we
all value our lives above others in the final analysis. It's known
as self preservation.



That says more about you than you think.

It says the same about everyone who is honest.

Keep digging.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...
dennis@home wrote:

He probably thinks its good driving to run pets down.
I wonder if it was excess speed or just plain stupidity?

Prabably stupidity Dennis. London Ambulance deliberately recruit
stupid people, then train them extensively to become even more
stupid.

It probably runs in the family.


Wouldn't have been excess speed, no reason to go fast with a
critical cardiac arrest patient in the back, all the time in the
world.

Changing the story again?

Whoosh! I was being sarcastic Dennis, please try to pay attention.

You said they were on their way to an incident, so why were they
taking a cardiac arrest victim there?

Which bit of the following leads you to believe that?

"she had to radio control for another ambulance to collect the
cardiac arrest patient in the back of her truck - who fortunately
survived".
As it happens there is less reason to go fast with a cardiac victim
in the back than when going there.

Oh, and you would know all about that would you?

I know more than you think.


They should have started the treatment and its rather hard to
continue when the ambulance is being chucked about.

Ambulance crews don't 'treat' cardiac arrest patients, their mandate
is to stabilise the patient e.g. stop him/her from croaking until
they can get them to A&E where they can be treated properly.

Get some proper paramedics then!

That frankly is highly insulting to a dedicated & caring bunch of people
who spend years training and work long, antisocial hours for relatively
little reward.

I have nothing against paramedics, yours need retraining to become
paramedics.


You are a very sad man. I don't think I'm alone in forming that opinion.

You are just confusing what paramedics are.
You are talking about ambulance technicians AFAICS.
While these are trained they shouldn't be attending cardiac calls as they
can't administer the required treatment.
Now go away and learn something before you start insulting others.

PS I hope that they get some medical training as well as a one day course in
driving the fast response cars.. having someone arrive ten minutes early who
can't do the required treatment is a waste of time.

If your NHS trust can't afford paramedics then its time someone sorted them
out.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:48960458@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-03 20:02:02 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:

Why do you keep trying to justify bad driving?

I'm not. You don't know that there was. Let's say that you're
driving along past parked cars and you come to a zebra crossing and an
uncontrolled dog runs out at the last minute - literally as you get to the
crossing - 1m in front of you. There is no way to avoid an accident
resulting from that.

So you have a comprehension problem then?
Read the post again and then stop making excuses for bad driving.



Even an emergency vehicle is required to be able to stop before they hit
something.
The fact that the dog was there and the driver didn't allow enough room
to stop shows that the driver is not very good.

That would depend on how far away the dog was when it ran into the road

It didn't!

Do you want ambulance drivers running people down to get there faster?

No, but I do want them to get there quickly. It would appear that
people are generally supportive of emergency vehicles going faster than
the normal speed limit and for other vehicles and pedestrians to make
way for them.


They should have avoided the dog, they didn't so it shows a problem
that needs rectifying, either by training or by replacement.

The dog can be replaced, that's true. It could be trained, as could
the owner.

You are still trying to blame the drivers error on someone else! Why?

Because it may well not be the driver's error.

Yes it was!

"ARWadworth" wrote in message
om...

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-08-02 23:06:38 +0100, Andy Burns
said:

On 02/08/2008 22:47, Andy Hall wrote:

Only because a dog was involved.

If it had been a toddler? If the dog had pulled its owner over? All
sounds a bit too close for comfort to me.

So what is the solution?

- More ambulances so that they can statistically be closer to locations
where there is an emergency?

They don't return to base after a call, they go to RVP's to await another
call. Thats why you see them on bridges etc.

I wish they would not wait on motorway bridges. When you are doing over a
ton you think it is a speed camera as you approach the bridge.

They do that on purpose.
It catches the short sighted drivers out a lot.

Ever been for an eye test?

On 2008-08-04 09:19:10 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:48960484@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-03 20:05:36 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4895c7aa@qaanaaq...

If that question is asked of anybody and an *honest* answer is given,
we all value our lives above others in the final analysis. It's
known as self preservation.



That says more about you than you think.

It says the same about everyone who is honest.

Keep digging.

For an answer from you? I stopped doing that a while back.

On 2008-08-04 09:28:22 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:48960458@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-03 20:02:02 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:

Why do you keep trying to justify bad driving?

I'm not. You don't know that there was. Let's say that you're
driving along past parked cars and you come to a zebra crossing and an
uncontrolled dog runs out at the last minute - literally as you get to
the crossing - 1m in front of you. There is no way to avoid an
accident resulting from that.

So you have a comprehension problem then?

No, but clearly you do.


Read the post again and then stop making excuses for bad driving.



Even an emergency vehicle is required to be able to stop before they
hit something.
The fact that the dog was there and the driver didn't allow enough room
to stop shows that the driver is not very good.

That would depend on how far away the dog was when it ran into the road

It didn't!


Were you there?



Do you want ambulance drivers running people down to get there faster?

No, but I do want them to get there quickly. It would appear that
people are generally supportive of emergency vehicles going faster than
the normal speed limit and for other vehicles and pedestrians to make
way for them.


They should have avoided the dog, they didn't so it shows a problem
that needs rectifying, either by training or by replacement.

The dog can be replaced, that's true. It could be trained, as could
the owner.

You are still trying to blame the drivers error on someone else! Why?

Because it may well not be the driver's error.

Yes it was!



Were you there?

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4896c314@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-04 09:28:22 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:48960458@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-03 20:02:02 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:

Why do you keep trying to justify bad driving?

I'm not. You don't know that there was. Let's say that you're
driving along past parked cars and you come to a zebra crossing and an
uncontrolled dog runs out at the last minute - literally as you get to
the crossing - 1m in front of you. There is no way to avoid an
accident resulting from that.

So you have a comprehension problem then?

No, but clearly you do.


Read the post again and then stop making excuses for bad driving.



Even an emergency vehicle is required to be able to stop before they
hit something.
The fact that the dog was there and the driver didn't allow enough room
to stop shows that the driver is not very good.

That would depend on how far away the dog was when it ran into the road

It didn't!


Were you there?

Read the post and stop looking a fool.

Do you want ambulance drivers running people down to get there
faster?

No, but I do want them to get there quickly. It would appear that
people are generally supportive of emergency vehicles going faster
than the normal speed limit and for other vehicles and pedestrians to
make way for them.


They should have avoided the dog, they didn't so it shows a problem
that needs rectifying, either by training or by replacement.

The dog can be replaced, that's true. It could be trained, as could
the owner.

You are still trying to blame the drivers error on someone else! Why?

Because it may well not be the driver's error.

Yes it was!



Were you there?

Read the post and stop looking a fool.

A hint: he said the person stepped back but the dog didn't!
It didn't run out despite your claims.

On 2008-08-04 10:30:45 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:

A hint: he said the person stepped back but the dog didn't!
It didn't run out despite your claims.

So the dog was not properly under control.

You claim that that is the driver's fault.....?

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:33:31 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2008-08-04 10:30:45 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:

A hint: he said the person stepped back but the dog didn't!
It didn't run out despite your claims.

So the dog was not properly under control.

You claim that that is the driver's fault.....?

One feels that in all of this, as always, dennis is protesting far too
much.

One wonders if he has a dark driving secret in his past...


--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:33:31 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2008-08-04 10:30:45 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:
A hint: he said the person stepped back but the dog didn't!
It didn't run out despite your claims.
So the dog was not properly under control.

You claim that that is the driver's fault.....?

One feels that in all of this, as always, dennis is protesting far too
much.

One wonders if he has a dark driving secret in his past...


One wonders if Dennis is into fire engines rather than ambulances. :-)

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

On 2008-08-04 12:19:19 +0100, Rod said:

Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:33:31 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2008-08-04 10:30:45 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:
A hint: he said the person stepped back but the dog didn't!
It didn't run out despite your claims.
So the dog was not properly under control.

You claim that that is the driver's fault.....?

One feels that in all of this, as always, dennis is protesting far too much.

One wonders if he has a dark driving secret in his past...


One wonders if Dennis is into fire engines rather than ambulances. :-)

Because the crew are reminiscent of gladiators?

On Aug 3, 3:46*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:


They have started doing the same with the fire engines around here.
That's a part of what the last strike was about, crews moving about so they
were in the best place should there be a fire. Its hard to sleep if you
aren't in the station.
The ambulances have been doing it for at least a year and it works very
well.

I was quite surprised to find that fire crews are often out and about
"doing the knowledge". It's not being able to be where *they* want to
be (e.g. parked outside the chippy) that's the problem.

MBQ

On Aug 3, 8:18*pm, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-08-03 20:05:36 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in messagenews:4895c7aa@qaanaaq....

If that question is asked of anybody and an *honest* answer is given,
we all value our lives above others in the final analysis. * * It's
known as self preservation.

That says more about you than you think.

It says the same about everyone who is honest.

Including the soldier (in Iraq?) who threw himself on top of a grenade
that was about to explode in order to help out his comrades?
Thankfully, he lived to tell the tale and receive the medal.

MBQ

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Aug 3, 8:18 pm, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-08-03 20:05:36 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in messagenews:4895c7aa@qaanaaq....
If that question is asked of anybody and an *honest* answer is given,
we all value our lives above others in the final analysis. It's
known as self preservation.
That says more about you than you think.
It says the same about everyone who is honest.

Including the soldier (in Iraq?) who threw himself on top of a grenade
that was about to explode in order to help out his comrades?
Thankfully, he lived to tell the tale and receive the medal.

MBQ

However, I thought I heard him say that he was convinced he was going to
die so just tried to save his comrades. (That in no way diminishes what
he did.)

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

On Aug 3, 3:26*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in media.com...



dennis@home wrote:
"Andy Burns" wrote in message
snet...
On 02/08/2008 18:43, dennis@home wrote:

I hope she learns from that!
It was her fault!

I couldn't think of a tactful way of saying it either.

I thought for a good few seconds and decided that tack would be
wasted on TMH.

It would be Dennis, I'm not a horse.

He probably thinks its good driving to run pets down.
I wonder if it was excess speed or just plain stupidity?

Prabably stupidity Dennis. *London Ambulance deliberately recruit stupid
people, then train them extensively to become even more stupid.

It probably runs in the family.



Wouldn't have been excess speed, no reason to go fast with a critical
cardiac arrest patient in the back, all the time in the world.

Changing the story again?
You said they were on their way to an incident,

Considering you've been telling others to go back and read the
original post, you obviously need to pay more attention yourself.

MBQ

On 2008-08-04 13:01:34 +0100, "Man at B&Q" said:

On Aug 3, 8:18*pm, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-08-03 20:05:36 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in messagenews:4895c7aa@qaanaaq..
.

If that question is asked of anybody and an *honest* answer is given,
we all value our lives above others in the final analysis. * * It'
s
known as self preservation.

That says more about you than you think.

It says the same about everyone who is honest.

Including the soldier (in Iraq?) who threw himself on top of a grenade
that was about to explode in order to help out his comrades?
Thankfully, he lived to tell the tale and receive the medal.

MBQ

There are always exceptions and they atract publicity. However, I
don't believe that this is the general case. It doesn't match human
nature or that of the rest of the animal kingdom.

On 03/08/2008 10:47, Andy Hall wrote:

We do accept that emergency vehicles should be able to travel faster
than the rest of the traffic and to make a lot of noise to encourage it
to move out of the way as well as notifying pedestrians of the approach
of the vehicle.

I know we're all supposed to be animal mad in this country, but I
wouldn't want to see anyone mown down by a speeding pet ambulance

http://www.vets-now.com/ambulance

To be fair it doesn't have blues'n'twos, it just cropped up on the local
TV news, I hope the drivers don't get delusions of grandeur ...

On 04/08/2008 13:05, Rod wrote:

However, I thought I heard him say that he was convinced he was going to
die so just tried to save his comrades.

He also had the good sense (or training) to throw his back and bergen
over it, rather than his front.

(That in no way diminishes what he did.)

Indeed.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-08-04 10:30:45 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:

A hint: he said the person stepped back but the dog didn't!
It didn't run out despite your claims.

So the dog was not properly under control.

You claim that that is the driver's fault.....?

The Police certainly didn't comsider it to be the drivers fault.

Of course Dennis knows more about this sort of thing than a traffic cop
would, even though he wasn't there...

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

dennis@home wrote:

Get some proper paramedics then!

That frankly is highly insulting to a dedicated & caring bunch of
people who spend years training and work long, antisocial hours for
relatively little reward.

I have nothing against paramedics, yours need retraining to become
paramedics.


You are a very sad man. I don't think I'm alone in forming that
opinion.

You are just confusing what paramedics are.

Ok then Dennis, educate us all and tell us exactly what a paramedic is
compared to an EMT - don't forget there are three grades of EMT and two
grades of paramedic within LAS.

We are waiting your words of wisdom.......

You are talking about ambulance technicians AFAICS.

No such thing.

While these are trained they shouldn't be attending cardiac calls as
they can't administer the required treatment.

They wouldn't, they don't exist. You might mean EMT's who are fully trained
in dealing with cardiac arrest.

Now go away and learn something before you start insulting others.

PS I hope that they get some medical training as well as a one day
course in driving the fast response cars.. having someone arrive ten
minutes early who can't do the required treatment is a waste of time.

You really don't have a clue you ****wit do you? You clearly have no idea
just how well trained these people are.

If your NHS trust can't afford paramedics then its time someone sorted
them out.

That would be the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust, the largest free
ambulance service in the world with 839 paramedics and 1,593 EMT's and 950
vehicles spread over 70 ambulance stations?

I'm sure they will get the hang of things one day...


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4896dafb@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-04 10:30:45 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:

A hint: he said the person stepped back but the dog didn't!
It didn't run out despite your claims.

So the dog was not properly under control.

You claim that that is the driver's fault.....?



Yes!
Any driver that deliberately drives his vehicle in a way that causes it to
strike an object that is already in his path must be at fault.
This is what was said happened.
Now explain to me how it wasn't the drivers fault!!
I suppose if it had been a tree it wouldn't have been the drivers fault
either!

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:33:31 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2008-08-04 10:30:45 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:

A hint: he said the person stepped back but the dog didn't!
It didn't run out despite your claims.

So the dog was not properly under control.

You claim that that is the driver's fault.....?

One feels that in all of this, as always, dennis is protesting far too
much.

One wonders if he has a dark driving secret in his past...

Well its obvious that Andy shouldn't drive, maybe that's his secret?

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4896f429@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-04 13:01:34 +0100, "Man at B&Q" said:

On Aug 3, 8:18 pm, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-08-03 20:05:36 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in messagenews:4895c7aa@qaanaaq..
.

If that question is asked of anybody and an *honest* answer is given,
we all value our lives above others in the final analysis. It'
s
known as self preservation.

That says more about you than you think.

It says the same about everyone who is honest.

Including the soldier (in Iraq?) who threw himself on top of a grenade
that was about to explode in order to help out his comrades?
Thankfully, he lived to tell the tale and receive the medal.

MBQ

There are always exceptions and they atract publicity. However, I don't
believe that this is the general case. It doesn't match human nature or
that of the rest of the animal kingdom.


The more you say the more I think you are brain damaged.
Try harming someone's child and see if they are prepared to put themselves
in danger to protect them.
In fact see if most people won't put themselves in danger to protect them.

Just because you are a selfish ******* doesn't mean its the general state of
the population.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-08-04 10:30:45 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:

A hint: he said the person stepped back but the dog didn't!
It didn't run out despite your claims.

So the dog was not properly under control.

You claim that that is the driver's fault.....?

The Police certainly didn't comsider it to be the drivers fault.

Of course Dennis knows more about this sort of thing than a traffic cop
would, even though he wasn't there...

You described it, if it was as you described it it was careless driving if
not dangerous driving.

If the police turned a blind eye then they had better hope the owner doesn't
complain.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...
dennis@home wrote:

Get some proper paramedics then!

That frankly is highly insulting to a dedicated & caring bunch of
people who spend years training and work long, antisocial hours for
relatively little reward.

I have nothing against paramedics, yours need retraining to become
paramedics.


You are a very sad man. I don't think I'm alone in forming that
opinion.

You are just confusing what paramedics are.

Ok then Dennis, educate us all and tell us exactly what a paramedic is
compared to an EMT - don't forget there are three grades of EMT and two
grades of paramedic within LAS.

We are waiting your words of wisdom.......

You are talking about ambulance technicians AFAICS.

No such thing.

While these are trained they shouldn't be attending cardiac calls as
they can't administer the required treatment.

They wouldn't, they don't exist. You might mean EMT's who are fully
trained in dealing with cardiac arrest.

Now go away and learn something before you start insulting others.

PS I hope that they get some medical training as well as a one day
course in driving the fast response cars.. having someone arrive ten
minutes early who can't do the required treatment is a waste of time.

You really don't have a clue you ****wit do you? You clearly have no idea
just how well trained these people are.

*You* said they couldn't administer the required drugs.
Now sod off I cant cope with someone as stupid as you!

On 2008-08-04 19:23:08 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4896dafb@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-04 10:30:45 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:

A hint: he said the person stepped back but the dog didn't!
It didn't run out despite your claims.

So the dog was not properly under control.

You claim that that is the driver's fault.....?



Yes!
Any driver that deliberately drives his vehicle in a way that causes it
to strike an object that is already in his path must be at fault.
This is what was said happened.
Now explain to me how it wasn't the drivers fault!!
I suppose if it had been a tree it wouldn't have been the drivers fault either!




You didn't answer the earlier question. You're driving along a road
at less than the speed limit and a dog steps out 2m in front of you.
Inevitably you will hit it. When you got to the dog it was already in
your path.

Would you consider that to be your fault?

On 2008-08-04 19:27:45 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:

The more you say the more I think you are brain damaged.

Starting from your position, that is not a reliable call. Nonetheless........


Try harming someone's child and see if they are prepared to put
themselves in danger to protect them.
In fact see if most people won't put themselves in danger to protect them.

Different situation. I was referring to self preservation among peers.

It's pretty obvious from the mammal world and especially the higher
primates that a mother will almost always protect her offspring.
That is instinctive.

In a split second situation, the behaviour of the animal kingdom tells
us what humans will do.



Just because you are a selfish ******* doesn't mean its the general
state of the population.

You shouldn't become confused between being selfish and taking
observations from the animal world. Of course everybody would *like*
to think that they would be magnanimous and self sacrificing. Sadly it
isn't true and has nothing to do with being selfish or not. Take a
look at what happens in an aircraft emergency if you ever had any
illusions of humans behaving on a "higher level" than other animals.

This of course is not o be confused with humans assisting others if
they perceive that there is little or no risk or additional risk to
themselves. That is a value judgment and not an instinctive one.
In terms of instinct there is no confusion.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"ARWadworth" wrote in message
om...

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-08-02 23:06:38 +0100, Andy Burns
said:

On 02/08/2008 22:47, Andy Hall wrote:

Only because a dog was involved.

If it had been a toddler? If the dog had pulled its owner over? All
sounds a bit too close for comfort to me.

So what is the solution?

- More ambulances so that they can statistically be closer to locations
where there is an emergency?

They don't return to base after a call, they go to RVP's to await
another call. Thats why you see them on bridges etc.

I wish they would not wait on motorway bridges. When you are doing over a
ton you think it is a speed camera as you approach the bridge.

They do that on purpose.
It catches the short sighted drivers out a lot.

Ever been for an eye test?

I do not need one.

I have I had one speeding ticket in the last 300 thousand miles I have
driven. I was found not guilty on that charge.

I can spot a mobile unit in a 30 zone miles away. Not that it matters as I
am not speeding.

It is a little harder to spot mobile cameras on a quiet motorway or dual
carriageway where there are no pedestrians. I admit I speed then.

Adam

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 18:24:03 UTC, "dennis@home"
wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:33:31 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2008-08-04 10:30:45 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:

A hint: he said the person stepped back but the dog didn't!
It didn't run out despite your claims.

So the dog was not properly under control.

You claim that that is the driver's fault.....?

One feels that in all of this, as always, dennis is protesting far too
much.

One wonders if he has a dark driving secret in his past...

Well its obvious that Andy shouldn't drive, maybe that's his secret?

Whatever it is, I suspect that, given the extreme hangups about this
that you have, yours is far worse.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...
dennis@home wrote:

Get some proper paramedics then!

That frankly is highly insulting to a dedicated & caring bunch of
people who spend years training and work long, antisocial hours for
relatively little reward.

I have nothing against paramedics, yours need retraining to become
paramedics.


You are a very sad man. I don't think I'm alone in forming that
opinion.

You are just confusing what paramedics are.

Ok then Dennis, educate us all and tell us exactly what a paramedic
is compared to an EMT - don't forget there are three grades of EMT
and two grades of paramedic within LAS.

We are waiting your words of wisdom.......

You are talking about ambulance technicians AFAICS.

No such thing.

While these are trained they shouldn't be attending cardiac calls as
they can't administer the required treatment.

They wouldn't, they don't exist. You might mean EMT's who are fully
trained in dealing with cardiac arrest.

Now go away and learn something before you start insulting others.

PS I hope that they get some medical training as well as a one day
course in driving the fast response cars.. having someone arrive ten
minutes early who can't do the required treatment is a waste of
time.

You really don't have a clue you ****wit do you? You clearly have
no idea just how well trained these people are.

*You* said they couldn't administer the required drugs.

Which required drugs was I talking about Dennis? Your memory appears to be
playing tricks on you again.

Just for the record an EMT3 can administer 18 drugs, a Paramedic can
administer 27, a Doctor on the HEMS unit can administer whatever he wants to
including Ketamine.

Now sod off I cant cope with someone as stupid as you!

Everybody else out of step are they?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Bob Eager wrote:


One feels that in all of this, as always, dennis is protesting far
too much.

One wonders if he has a dark driving secret in his past...

Well its obvious that Andy shouldn't drive, maybe that's his secret?

Whatever it is, I suspect that, given the extreme hangups about this
that you have, yours is far worse.

Bob, Dennis has extreme hang ups about driving, speeding, smoking, Apple
Macs and God knows what else. How are you going to narrow it down to just
one dark secret?

He could keep a shrink busy for years.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 20:12:47 UTC, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:


One feels that in all of this, as always, dennis is protesting far
too much.

One wonders if he has a dark driving secret in his past...

Well its obvious that Andy shouldn't drive, maybe that's his secret?

Whatever it is, I suspect that, given the extreme hangups about this
that you have, yours is far worse.

Bob, Dennis has extreme hang ups about driving, speeding, smoking, Apple
Macs and God knows what else. How are you going to narrow it down to just
one dark secret?

He could keep a shrink busy for years.

LOL!

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

On 2008-08-04 21:12:47 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

Bob Eager wrote:


One feels that in all of this, as always, dennis is protesting far
too much.

One wonders if he has a dark driving secret in his past...

Well its obvious that Andy shouldn't drive, maybe that's his secret?

Whatever it is, I suspect that, given the extreme hangups about this
that you have, yours is far worse.

Bob, Dennis has extreme hang ups about driving, speeding, smoking, Apple
Macs and God knows what else. How are you going to narrow it down to just
one dark secret?

He could keep a shrink busy for years.

Reminds me of the Fawlty Towers episode about the psychiatrists.

"There's enough material here for an entire conference"

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:48974e56@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-04 19:23:08 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4896dafb@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-04 10:30:45 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:

A hint: he said the person stepped back but the dog didn't!
It didn't run out despite your claims.

So the dog was not properly under control.

You claim that that is the driver's fault.....?



Yes!
Any driver that deliberately drives his vehicle in a way that causes it
to strike an object that is already in his path must be at fault.
This is what was said happened.
Now explain to me how it wasn't the drivers fault!!
I suppose if it had been a tree it wouldn't have been the drivers fault
either!




You didn't answer the earlier question. You're driving along a road at
less than the speed limit and a dog steps out 2m in front of you.
Inevitably you will hit it. When you got to the dog it was already in
your path.

Would you consider that to be your fault?



This is irrelevant, it is not what was described.

As it is you are making assumptions that don't work.
You assume I will be driving too fast to stop, just because you do doesn't
mean everyone does.

You assume that the dog is invisible, maybe you need better specs?

"ARWadworth" wrote in message
m...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"ARWadworth" wrote in message
om...

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-08-02 23:06:38 +0100, Andy Burns
said:

On 02/08/2008 22:47, Andy Hall wrote:

Only because a dog was involved.

If it had been a toddler? If the dog had pulled its owner over? All
sounds a bit too close for comfort to me.

So what is the solution?

- More ambulances so that they can statistically be closer to
locations where there is an emergency?

They don't return to base after a call, they go to RVP's to await
another call. Thats why you see them on bridges etc.

I wish they would not wait on motorway bridges. When you are doing over
a ton you think it is a speed camera as you approach the bridge.

They do that on purpose.
It catches the short sighted drivers out a lot.

Ever been for an eye test?

I do not need one.

How do you know?

I have I had one speeding ticket in the last 300 thousand miles I have
driven. I was found not guilty on that charge.

Lets see how many have I had.... hmmm... none, how many parking
tickets...hmmm.. none, eye tests.... hmmm.... thirty or so.


I can spot a mobile unit in a 30 zone miles away. Not that it matters as I
am not speeding.

It is a little harder to spot mobile cameras on a quiet motorway or dual
carriageway where there are no pedestrians. I admit I speed then.

ITYM where there aren't normally pedestrians.
There has been a spate of kids running across the M6 by me.
That's the difference between speeding and not killing the idiots.



Adam

On 2008-08-04 21:58:54 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



You didn't answer the earlier question. You're driving along a road
at less than the speed limit and a dog steps out 2m in front of you.
Inevitably you will hit it. When you got to the dog it was already in
your path.

Would you consider that to be your fault?



This is irrelevant, it is not what was described.

The point is that you know full well that if the dog ran out 2m in
front of you and you ran it down, you would not consider it to be your
fault, but you ducked the question.


As it is you are making assumptions that don't work.
You assume I will be driving too fast to stop, just because you do
doesn't mean everyone does.

So how fast would you have been driving? At what distance would you
say that it's reasonable to be able to stop?

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:48977223@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-04 21:58:54 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



You didn't answer the earlier question. You're driving along a road at
less than the speed limit and a dog steps out 2m in front of you.
Inevitably you will hit it. When you got to the dog it was already in
your path.

Would you consider that to be your fault?



This is irrelevant, it is not what was described.

The point is that you know full well that if the dog ran out 2m in front
of you and you ran it down, you would not consider it to be your fault,
but you ducked the question.


As it is you are making assumptions that don't work.
You assume I will be driving too fast to stop, just because you do
doesn't mean everyone does.

So how fast would you have been driving? At what distance would you say
that it's reasonable to be able to stop?


You are required to drive no faster than you can "see".
If you are driving down a wall and you hit someone that steps out of an
opening in that wall it is your fault for driving too fast.
You can play around with your stupid question all you want.
If you want an answer you will have to provide *far* more information.
Post a picture or two, maybe a video.
As it is your question is stupid and is getting the answer it deserves.

On 2008-08-04 22:42:11 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:48977223@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-04 21:58:54 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



You didn't answer the earlier question. You're driving along a road
at less than the speed limit and a dog steps out 2m in front of you.
Inevitably you will hit it. When you got to the dog it was already in
your path.

Would you consider that to be your fault?



This is irrelevant, it is not what was described.

The point is that you know full well that if the dog ran out 2m in
front of you and you ran it down, you would not consider it to be your
fault, but you ducked the question.


As it is you are making assumptions that don't work.
You assume I will be driving too fast to stop, just because you do
doesn't mean everyone does.

So how fast would you have been driving? At what distance would you
say that it's reasonable to be able to stop?


You are required to drive no faster than you can "see".

What does that mean? Sounds very vague.


If you are driving down a wall and you hit someone that steps out of an
opening in that wall it is your fault for driving too fast.
You can play around with your stupid question all you want.
If you want an answer you will have to provide *far* more information.
Post a picture or two, maybe a video.
As it is your question is stupid and is getting the answer it deserves.

Ducking the issue because you can't really answer it without admitting
that with the exception of being over or under the speed limit,
"driving too fast" is a value judgment for a given situation.

You can't give an absolute rating to it by saying simplistically that
if a driver hits something he had to be driving too fast. As has been
illustrated, in extremis you would have to be traveling at zero speed
to achieve zero risk.

dennis@home wrote:


Lets see how many have I had.... hmmm... none, how many parking
tickets...hmmm.. none, eye tests.... hmmm.... thirty or so.

Hmmm. Thirty eye tests. Just shows what excessive wanking can do to you.

You will go blind if you don't stop it Dennis.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-08-04 21:12:47 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

Bob Eager wrote:


One feels that in all of this, as always, dennis is protesting far
too much.

One wonders if he has a dark driving secret in his past...

Well its obvious that Andy shouldn't drive, maybe that's his
secret?

Whatever it is, I suspect that, given the extreme hangups about this
that you have, yours is far worse.

Bob, Dennis has extreme hang ups about driving, speeding, smoking,
Apple Macs and God knows what else. How are you going to narrow it
down to just one dark secret?

He could keep a shrink busy for years.

Reminds me of the Fawlty Towers episode about the psychiatrists.

"There's enough material here for an entire conference"

I was going to suggest a whip round to put a contract out on Dennis, then I
heard that the poor buggers at HSBC were on their uppers, so the 50p is
going there instead.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk