Andy Hall wrote:
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?

How fast would he have been driving with a cardiac arrest patient on board?


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

Andy Hall wrote:
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.

Sorry Andy, I have to take you to task here. You really don't understand
the points Dennis is making;

The ambulance should have been doing 29 mph, because getting the cardiac
arrest patient that they hadn't yet picked up, who was in the ambulance,
which was driven by a competely untrained person, who couldn't give drugs
not used for cardiac arrests, to hospital wasn't time critical, because they
hadn't picked him up. This resulted in the police, who know nothing about
traffic accidents having never seen one before, having to ask Dennis, who
wasn't even there, for his advice, but they couldn't get hold of him,
because he misunderstood the phone ringing for a virus alert on his PC. Had
they got hold of him, they would have known that the dog had once been
within 1000 metres of a smoker and was therefore dead anyway and his owner
had mistaken the blues & two's and siren for a new type of speed camera.

I hope that clears things up for you. If not, let me know & I will twist
the facts and make up a story that supports my paranoia - if I can remember
what it is today.


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

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:12:47 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Bob, Dennis has extreme hang ups about driving, speeding, smoking, Apple
Macs and God knows what else.

There's nothing wrong with having 'hang ups' about smoking.

The downside of the guvmint legislation regarding smoking is that
smokers are now making the streets even more intolerable, standing in
shop/office/pub/whatever doorways to suck at their cancer-sticks,
perhaps making said establishments even less approachable than
hitherto.

There's even a certain pedestrianised street here, fairly narrow with
tallish buildings either side, which seems to have a permanent stench
of stale smoke (almost like old railway stations/tunnels but much more
obnoxious).

--
Frank Erskine
Sunderland

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 19:45:42 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


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.

At 2 miles away you probably wouldn't see it.

Don't forget that UK legislation regarding distances/speeds on roads
remains in miles/yards format.

--
Frank Erskine

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:04:08 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

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.

Wow. I hope all these people remember the interactions between all of
them.

I'd hate the idea of being injected/whatever with 27 drugs, even if I
was in the back of a nambulance.

--
Frank Erskine

Rod wrote:
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. :-)

and ended up HGV positive?

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:12:47 GMT, "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.

I suspect even a half-decent trick cyclist could have him sussed in a
matter of minutes.
The comments regarding the ambulance team's sense of humour would tell
them most of what they needed to know.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"ARWadworth" wrote in message
m...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"ARWadworth" wrote in message
om...

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 do not know how many mile you do each year, but if I had an eye test every
100 thousand miles that would be 3 eye tests a year. Yes, I got a speeding
ticket. I challenged it and won. I was not speeding.


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.


They are dead at 70 or 100 mph.

Adam

ARWadworth wrote:

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"ARWadworth" wrote in message
m...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"ARWadworth" wrote in message
om...

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 do not know how many mile you do each year, but if I had an eye test
every 100 thousand miles that would be 3 eye tests a year. Yes, I got a
speeding ticket. I challenged it and won. I was not speeding.


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.


They are dead at 70 or 100 mph.

Adam

Goes to show - should be doing 30, or less. :-)

--
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

John Rumm wrote:
Rod wrote:
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. :-)

and ended up HGV positive?


Didn't think you could get that from yourself. And that is clearly where
Dennis is up. :-)

--
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 05/08/2008 06:49, ARWadworth wrote:

if I had an eye test
every 100 thousand miles that would be 3 eye tests a year.

300,000 miles per year, assuming 6 day week, no holidays, that is 962
miles per day.

average 106mph at 9h/day

or 17h/day at average 56mph

Really?

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:48978072@qaanaaq...
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.

It is, that's why you have to learn to drive, try it sometime and you will
understand.


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.

It is and having an accident is evidence you got it wrong, even nearly
having an accident is evidence you got it wrong.


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.

You can if that object was already in the path of the vehicle as the dog was
in that TMA description.
to paraphrase what he said as you appear to have a problem "the owner
stepped back but the dog didn't".
This implies that the ambulance saw a dog in the way and ran it down.
You can claim that the dog wasn't under control if you want but the driver
still ran a dog down that was already in his path.
Its the sort of driving that would get you banned.

Just remember emergency vehicles are only allowed to exceed the speed limits
not to drive dangerously.
Sirens and flashing lights are there to warn other but it is still the
drivers responsibility to ensure that anyone has heard and/or seen them and
has reacted in a safe way.
They are the ones that are trained not the pedestrians and dogs.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote more lies in
message om...

"ARWadworth" wrote in message
om...

They are dead at 70 or 100 mph.

They appear to survive quite well.

I expect the traffic isn't doing 100 mph.

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
et...
On 05/08/2008 06:49, ARWadworth wrote:

if I had an eye test every 100 thousand miles that would be 3 eye tests a
year.

300,000 miles per year, assuming 6 day week, no holidays, that is 962
miles per day.

average 106mph at 9h/day

or 17h/day at average 56mph

Really?


No.My typo. Every 30 thousand, my typical annual milage Well spotted.

Adam

On 2008-08-05 09:41:00 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:48978072@qaanaaq...


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.

You can if that object was already in the path of the vehicle as the
dog was in that TMA description.

The dog wasn't in the path at some point and was at another.


to paraphrase what he said as you appear to have a problem "the owner
stepped back but the dog didn't".
This implies that the ambulance saw a dog in the way and ran it down.

I dont think it implies that at all.


You can claim that the dog wasn't under control if you want but the
driver still ran a dog down that was already in his path.

That wasn't implied either

Its the sort of driving that would get you banned.

That would depend on the circumstances. As A reminder.... you still
haven't answered the question about where the fault would lie if
something or somebody steps out 2m in front of you.



Just remember emergency vehicles are only allowed to exceed the speed
limits not to drive dangerously.
Sirens and flashing lights are there to warn other but it is still the
drivers responsibility to ensure that anyone has heard and/or seen them
and has reacted in a safe way.
They are the ones that are trained not the pedestrians and dogs.

How would you have handled the situation had you been driving the ambulance?

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4898eb7f@qaanaaq...

The dog wasn't in the path at some point and was at another.

You really do want to keep digging...

"Woman walked onto the crossing in front of her,
then 'spotted' the ambulance & stepped backwards - leaving the dog on the
end of the lead. "

So at one point there was a person and a dog in the path of the ambulance.


Will you either get it right or shut up?

I wonder what would have been said if it were a horse..
you can't use sirens when approaching a horse as it may startle them..
come to think of it they startle dogs too.

On 2008-08-06 09:04:02 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4898eb7f@qaanaaq...

The dog wasn't in the path at some point and was at another.

You really do want to keep digging...

"Woman walked onto the crossing in front of her, then 'spotted' the
ambulance & stepped backwards - leaving the dog on the end of the lead.
"

So at one point there was a person and a dog in the path of the ambulance.




... and?

So dog wasn't under proper control for a street situation.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-08-06 09:04:02 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4898eb7f@qaanaaq...

The dog wasn't in the path at some point and was at another.

You really do want to keep digging...

"Woman walked onto the crossing in front of her, then 'spotted' the
ambulance & stepped backwards - leaving the dog on the end of the lead. "

So at one point there was a person and a dog in the path of the
ambulance.




.. and?

So dog wasn't under proper control for a street situation.


ther is a fine point he under adequate control for a normal sub
35mpgh traffic flow, or under adequate control for a vehicle grossly
exeeding te speed limit.

I dont WANT to go off at a tangent, but one of the downsides to any sort
of limit, is that it lulls people into a sense of security that the odd
person speeding - even legally - may fatlly disrupt.

It all very well to say 'I was in the right, but I am now dead' rather
than 'I was in the right, but sill vigilant, and am not dead' Or even 'I
wasn't in the right or the wrong: its up to me to be bloody careful
around lethal weapons of mass destruction (== vehicles)

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:48997f55@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-06 09:04:02 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4898eb7f@qaanaaq...

The dog wasn't in the path at some point and was at another.

You really do want to keep digging...

"Woman walked onto the crossing in front of her, then 'spotted' the
ambulance & stepped backwards - leaving the dog on the end of the lead. "

So at one point there was a person and a dog in the path of the
ambulance.




.. and?

So dog wasn't under proper control for a street situation.



Neither was the ambulance.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-08-06 09:04:02 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news:4898eb7f@qaanaaq...

The dog wasn't in the path at some point and was at another.

You really do want to keep digging...

"Woman walked onto the crossing in front of her, then 'spotted' the
ambulance & stepped backwards - leaving the dog on the end of the lead.
"

So at one point there was a person and a dog in the path of the
ambulance.




.. and?

So dog wasn't under proper control for a street situation.


ther is a fine point he under adequate control for a normal sub 35mpgh
traffic flow, or under adequate control for a vehicle grossly exeeding te
speed limit.

And its bloody hard to control any animal when there is some nutcase blaring
a loud siren at the animal.

Its either a very bad case of driving or he made it all up.

On 2008-08-06 12:43:36 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:48997f55@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-06 09:04:02 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4898eb7f@qaanaaq...

The dog wasn't in the path at some point and was at another.

You really do want to keep digging...

"Woman walked onto the crossing in front of her, then 'spotted' the
ambulance & stepped backwards - leaving the dog on the end of the lead.
"

So at one point there was a person and a dog in the path of the ambulance.




.. and?

So dog wasn't under proper control for a street situation.



Neither was the ambulance.

So what would have been your solution in terms of the speed employed?

On Aug 6, 1:17*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:


And its bloody hard to control any animal when there is some nutcase

I do hope you need the services of the ambulance service one day.

Maybe then you'll appreciate what they do.

MBQ

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4899aafd@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-06 12:43:36 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:48997f55@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-06 09:04:02 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news:4898eb7f@qaanaaq...

The dog wasn't in the path at some point and was at another.

You really do want to keep digging...

"Woman walked onto the crossing in front of her, then 'spotted' the
ambulance & stepped backwards - leaving the dog on the end of the lead.
"

So at one point there was a person and a dog in the path of the
ambulance.




.. and?

So dog wasn't under proper control for a street situation.



Neither was the ambulance.

So what would have been your solution in terms of the speed employed?


Why do you persist in circular arguments?

You know as well as I that the driver was going too fast and killed a dog
and endangered their patient as a result.

dennis@home wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4899aafd@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-06 12:43:36 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news:48997f55@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-06 09:04:02 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news:4898eb7f@qaanaaq...

The dog wasn't in the path at some point and was at another.

You really do want to keep digging...

"Woman walked onto the crossing in front of her, then 'spotted' the
ambulance & stepped backwards - leaving the dog on the end of the
lead. "

So at one point there was a person and a dog in the path of the
ambulance.




.. and?

So dog wasn't under proper control for a street situation.



Neither was the ambulance.

So what would have been your solution in terms of the speed employed?


Why do you persist in circular arguments?

You know as well as I that the driver was going too fast and killed a
dog and endangered their patient as a result.

At what speed would you have been driving?

--
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

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...
On Aug 6, 1:17 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:


And its bloody hard to control any animal when there is some nutcase

I do hope you need the services of the ambulance service one day.

Maybe then you'll appreciate what they do.

I do, its the idiots that think they should be allowed to drive dangerously
that don't.

If TMW story is true the driver killed a dog and endangered their patient by
careless, if not dangerous driving.

There is no other interpretation of what he said.

Anyone that drives any vehicle at an "object" too fast to stop if it doesn't
move is stupid or trying to damage/kill the "object".

There is a big difference between a dog running out into the road and one
already being there and expecting it to move even if its on a lead. In fact
if its on a lead it may bolt and pull the person into the path of the
vehicle so that is more dangerous as far as loss of life.

This is the difference between being trained to drive an ambulance and some
**** like TMW making stories up.

I don't think for one second that it happened as TMW said, if it did the
driver would be in serious trouble.

If it did happen and they lied (rather than TMW) about what happened to
avoid the trouble then some poor patient is likely to suffer as a result,
they may have got away without killing their patient this time but what
about the next time they are delayed by their bad driving?

As for the claim they don't treat cardiac victims and rush them to hospital
as fast as possible, then what is the point of one man fast response units
going to cardiac attacks, they can't do anything when they get there other
than meet the target response time.
This isn't true BTW, they do treat cardiac victims even if TMW thinks they
don't.


MBQ

"Rod" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4899aafd@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-06 12:43:36 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news:48997f55@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-06 09:04:02 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news:4898eb7f@qaanaaq...

The dog wasn't in the path at some point and was at another.

You really do want to keep digging...

"Woman walked onto the crossing in front of her, then 'spotted' the
ambulance & stepped backwards - leaving the dog on the end of the
lead. "

So at one point there was a person and a dog in the path of the
ambulance.




.. and?

So dog wasn't under proper control for a street situation.



Neither was the ambulance.

So what would have been your solution in terms of the speed employed?


Why do you persist in circular arguments?

You know as well as I that the driver was going too fast and killed a dog
and endangered their patient as a result.

At what speed would you have been driving?

How would I know?
What speed would you be driving 350 m down the road from me?


--
Why do some people ask really stupid questions?

dennis@home wrote:


"Rod" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news:4899aafd@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-06 12:43:36 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news:48997f55@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-06 09:04:02 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news:4898eb7f@qaanaaq...

The dog wasn't in the path at some point and was at another.

You really do want to keep digging...

"Woman walked onto the crossing in front of her, then 'spotted'
the ambulance & stepped backwards - leaving the dog on the end of
the lead. "

So at one point there was a person and a dog in the path of the
ambulance.




.. and?

So dog wasn't under proper control for a street situation.



Neither was the ambulance.

So what would have been your solution in terms of the speed employed?


Why do you persist in circular arguments?

You know as well as I that the driver was going too fast and killed a
dog and endangered their patient as a result.

At what speed would you have been driving?

How would I know?
What speed would you be driving 350 m down the road from me?


At one that was legal for whatever that implies in terms of road plus
conditions.

You seem so utterly confident that it was the speed of the ambulance, I
thought you must have some idea of what would be sensible.

--
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

dennis@home wrote:


"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...

On Aug 6, 1:17 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:


And its bloody hard to control any animal when there is some nutcase


I do hope you need the services of the ambulance service one day.

Maybe then you'll appreciate what they do.


I do, its the idiots that think they should be allowed to drive
dangerously that don't.

If TMW story is true the driver killed a dog and endangered their
patient by careless, if not dangerous driving.

Can you give me a description of driving without due care and attention
and dangerous driving?

Dave

dennis@home wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote in message


And its bloody hard to control any animal when there is some nutcase

I do hope you need the services of the ambulance service one day.

Maybe then you'll appreciate what they do.

Deep breath

I do, its the idiots that think they should be allowed to drive
dangerously that don't.

So, let me get this right. You appreciate what the ambulance service do,
but anyone who thinks ambulances should be allowed to drive dangerously,
doesn't appreciate what they do?

Perfect logic.

If TMW story is true the driver killed a dog and endangered their patient
by careless, if not dangerous driving.

Alas knobhead the traffic police and the LAS area manager who actually
attended the incident didn't arrive at that conclusion.

There is no other interpretation of what he said.

Other than the interpretation made by every other contributor to this
thread.


There is a big difference between a dog running out into the road and
one already being there and expecting it to move even if its on a
lead.

This is cut & paste from my original post, read it again slowly;

"Woman walked onto the crossing in front of her, then 'spotted' the
ambulance & stepped backwards - leaving the dog on the end of the lead."

This means that the woman & dog were not on the crossing as she approached.
Thats what the "walked onto the crossing in front of her" bit means. Got
that?

In fact if its on a lead it may bolt and pull the person into
the path of the vehicle so that is more dangerous as far as loss of
life.

I have no idea what that means.

This is the difference between being trained to drive an ambulance and
some **** like TMW making stories up.

I'm confused again, I wish you would learn English. The difference between
being trained to drive an ambulance and making stories up? What difference
are you referring to?

BTW I take it you have a full PSV license?

I don't think for one second that it happened as TMW said, if it did the
driver would be in serious trouble.

I wasn't there, but my daughter usually tells the truth, so I believe her
account of the incident. That being the case, why didn't the traffic police
& the LAS manager take action against her?

If it did happen and they lied (rather than TMW) about what happened
to avoid the trouble then some poor patient is likely to suffer as a
result, they may have got away without killing their patient this
time but what about the next time they are delayed by their bad
driving?

So you are now suggesting that my daughter, her crewmate, the police & the
LAS manager all lied about the incident?

As for the claim they don't treat cardiac victims and rush them to
hospital as fast as possible, then what is the point of one man fast
response units going to cardiac attacks, they can't do anything when
they get there other than meet the target response time.

This isn't true BTW, they do treat cardiac victims even if TMW thinks they
don't.

I think that because my daughter tells me that is the case. What qualifies
you to comment on what the ambulance service do or don't do?

They don't 'treat' cardiac arrest patients, the job of the ambulance crew is
to stabilise the patient & keep them alive until they get them to A&E -
where they are 'treated'.

I admit I did say "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". However, I was being sarcastic, only you were not bright enough to
spot that & took it literally.

FRU's can start work on stabilising the patient until the ambulance arrives.
You've finally said something sensible, they can't transport patients and
they are there simply to meet targets.

I've tried to explain this as clearly & simply as possible, so even someone
of your obviously limited comprehension could understand it. Everybody else
seems to have grasped the situation.

Please try to remember the points raised & answer them. You can have a new
crayon if it helps, I'll arrange it with matron.


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

dennis@home wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news:48997f55@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-06 09:04:02 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news:4898eb7f@qaanaaq...
The dog wasn't in the path at some point and was at another.

You really do want to keep digging...

"Woman walked onto the crossing in front of her, then 'spotted' the
ambulance & stepped backwards - leaving the dog on the end of the
lead. " So at one point there was a person and a dog in the path of the
ambulance.




.. and?

So dog wasn't under proper control for a street situation.



Neither was the ambulance.

Answer this very simple question Dennis. Do you have a PSV licemse?

A simple yes or no will do.


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

"Rod" wrote in message
...

How would I know?
What speed would you be driving 350 m down the road from me?


At one that was legal for whatever that implies in terms of road plus
conditions.

You seem so utterly confident that it was the speed of the ambulance, I
thought you must have some idea of what would be sensible.

Are you suggesting that they were doing something worse than driving too
fast to stop?
If so what exactly do you think a well trained crew would be doing to cause
the crash???

"Dave" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...

On Aug 6, 1:17 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:


And its bloody hard to control any animal when there is some nutcase


I do hope you need the services of the ambulance service one day.

Maybe then you'll appreciate what they do.


I do, its the idiots that think they should be allowed to drive
dangerously that don't.

If TMW story is true the driver killed a dog and endangered their patient
by careless, if not dangerous driving.

Can you give me a description of driving without due care and attention
and dangerous driving?

Why? isn't the one enough?

On 2008-08-06 16:42:51 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:


Neither was the ambulance.

So what would have been your solution in terms of the speed employed?


Why do you persist in circular arguments?

A simple question is not a circular argument. If you can't or don't
want to answer it then fine.

dennis@home wrote:


"Rod" wrote in message
...

How would I know?
What speed would you be driving 350 m down the road from me?


At one that was legal for whatever that implies in terms of road plus
conditions.

You seem so utterly confident that it was the speed of the ambulance,
I thought you must have some idea of what would be sensible.

Are you suggesting that they were doing something worse than driving too
fast to stop?
If so what exactly do you think a well trained crew would be doing to
cause the crash???

I asked you "At what speed would you have been driving?".

If you can change that into suggesting that the ambulance crew were
doing anything untoward, you have a future in front of you as a lawyer.
Well you would have if you could get a jury to believe you.

--
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

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...
dennis@home wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote in message


And its bloody hard to control any animal when there is some nutcase

I do hope you need the services of the ambulance service one day.

Maybe then you'll appreciate what they do.

Deep breath

I do, its the idiots that think they should be allowed to drive
dangerously that don't.

So, let me get this right. You appreciate what the ambulance service do,
but anyone who thinks ambulances should be allowed to drive dangerously,
doesn't appreciate what they do?

Perfect logic.

If TMW story is true the driver killed a dog and endangered their patient
by careless, if not dangerous driving.

Alas knobhead the traffic police and the LAS area manager who actually
attended the incident didn't arrive at that conclusion.

Tell you what, post the details and I will get it checked to see what they
say happened and see if it fits with what you said happened. If it doesn't I
can tell them that they need to reinvestigate to see if you really are a
liar or if the crew is.


There is no other interpretation of what he said.

Other than the interpretation made by every other contributor to this
thread.

Really, every other poster stopped once I put your original post to them.

There is a big difference between a dog running out into the road and
one already being there and expecting it to move even if its on a
lead.

This is cut & paste from my original post, read it again slowly;

"Woman walked onto the crossing in front of her, then 'spotted' the
ambulance & stepped backwards - leaving the dog on the end of the lead."

This means that the woman & dog were not on the crossing as she
approached. Thats what the "walked onto the crossing in front of her" bit
means. Got that?

So you are saying they didn't slow down when a woman walked out into the
road from her position on the crossing?
It gets worse, now you say it was attempted murder.


In fact if its on a lead it may bolt and pull the person into
the path of the vehicle so that is more dangerous as far as loss of
life.

I have no idea what that means.

Why does that not surprise me?


This is the difference between being trained to drive an ambulance and
some **** like TMW making stories up.

I'm confused again, I wish you would learn English. The difference
between being trained to drive an ambulance and making stories up? What
difference are you referring to?

BTW I take it you have a full PSV license?

I don't think for one second that it happened as TMW said, if it did the
driver would be in serious trouble.

I wasn't there, but my daughter usually tells the truth, so I believe her
account of the incident. That being the case, why didn't the traffic
police & the LAS manager take action against her?

Post the case details and we can have a look.


If it did happen and they lied (rather than TMW) about what happened
to avoid the trouble then some poor patient is likely to suffer as a
result, they may have got away without killing their patient this
time but what about the next time they are delayed by their bad
driving?

So you are now suggesting that my daughter, her crewmate, the police & the
LAS manager all lied about the incident?

No just the crew or you.


As for the claim they don't treat cardiac victims and rush them to
hospital as fast as possible, then what is the point of one man fast
response units going to cardiac attacks, they can't do anything when
they get there other than meet the target response time.

This isn't true BTW, they do treat cardiac victims even if TMW thinks
they don't.

I think that because my daughter tells me that is the case. What
qualifies you to comment on what the ambulance service do or don't do?

They don't 'treat' cardiac arrest patients, the job of the ambulance crew
is to stabilise the patient & keep them alive until they get them to A&E -
where they are 'treated'.

So you think that there is no point in fast response units.
Does your sister agree that she is a waste of space?


I admit I did say "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". However, I was being sarcastic, only you were not bright enough
to spot that & took it literally.

You aren't bright enough to be sarcastic.


FRU's can start work on stabilising the patient until the ambulance
arrives. You've finally said something sensible, they can't transport
patients and they are there simply to meet targets.

Does your sister know you think she is a waste of space?


I've tried to explain this as clearly & simply as possible, so even
someone of your obviously limited comprehension could understand it.
Everybody else seems to have grasped the situation.

Please try to remember the points raised & answer them. You can have a
new crayon if it helps, I'll arrange it with matron.

Why? its all a waste on you.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...
dennis@home wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news:48997f55@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-06 09:04:02 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news:4898eb7f@qaanaaq...
The dog wasn't in the path at some point and was at another.

You really do want to keep digging...

"Woman walked onto the crossing in front of her, then 'spotted' the
ambulance & stepped backwards - leaving the dog on the end of the
lead. " So at one point there was a person and a dog in the path of the
ambulance.




.. and?

So dog wasn't under proper control for a street situation.



Neither was the ambulance.

Answer this very simple question Dennis. Do you have a PSV licemse?

A simple yes or no will do.

Do you have a brain?
A simple yes or no will do.

dennis@home wrote:

Why do you persist in circular arguments?

You know as well as I that the driver was going too fast

Can you now define too fast for me please?


Dave

"Rod" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"Rod" wrote in message
...

How would I know?
What speed would you be driving 350 m down the road from me?


At one that was legal for whatever that implies in terms of road plus
conditions.

You seem so utterly confident that it was the speed of the ambulance, I
thought you must have some idea of what would be sensible.

Are you suggesting that they were doing something worse than driving too
fast to stop?
If so what exactly do you think a well trained crew would be doing to
cause the crash???

I asked you "At what speed would you have been driving?".

And I have already answered.
I will do so again "Too fast".


If you can change that into suggesting that the ambulance crew were doing
anything untoward, you have a future in front of you as a lawyer. Well you
would have if you could get a jury to believe you.

You are the one that is questioning too fast.
If it wasn't too fast then it was something else, maybe they weren't
looking, maybe they were drunk?
I think too fast is the most likely as they did see the woman and the dog
but failed to avoid.

Of course any driver knows that a pedestrian crossing starts on the pavement
at the side of the road and not actually in the road so they should have
been expecting the woman to cross, she could have been deaf or blind and
wouldn't know the ambulance was there.

Unless there is a different story there is no way the crew were not at
fault.
You can't just ignore people and animals at crossings and hope they won't
cross.

On 2008-08-06 20:08:20 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Dave" wrote in message
...

Can you give me a description of driving without due care and attention
and dangerous driving?

Why? isn't the one enough?



This should be good.