On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:14:21 +0100, Chris Green wrote:

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/blue-light-use/

Oh for goodness sake, it's quite simple. If a vehicle has blue flashing
lights, you get out of their way, no questions asked. If you don't and

However the trouble often is that it's far from obvious where "out of
the way" is going to be.

And that in turn is often a function of how 'aware' you are of your
surroundings. I don't generally play music loud in my car (tinnitus)
and have reasonably good vision and like to think I 'keep my wits
about me', so often see / hear emergency way before they are close and
it seems, much sooner than many other drivers.

Many times I've spotted a good place to slow / pull over and in plenty
of time for said emergency vehicle to pass only to have cars overtake
me and then actually create an effective road block! ;-(

Maybe having good observation skills is part of being a 'bloke' as I'm
also generally scanning the area ahead for hazards (Hazard perception)
that may also happen to include nice looking ladies (and motorcycles
etc). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 10:21:14 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 05/04/17 09:14, Chris Green wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/blue-light-use/

Oh for goodness sake, it's quite simple. If a vehicle has blue flashing
lights, you get out of their way, no questions asked. If you don't and

However the trouble often is that it's far from obvious where "out of
the way" is going to be.

I got dine for speeding by a car that came up, tailgated me at 70 as I
was passing a line of trucks, flashed its lights at me so I speeded up
to get past the line of trucks and on came the twos and blues and they
busted me

Then the policeman was in the wrong. If you were not speeding as he approached, why was he flashing his blue lights? The blue lights are to pull you over, but it seems he flashed them BEFORE you were speeding. I would have disputed it.

--
Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm.

On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:14:21 +0100, Chris Green wrote:

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/blue-light-use/

Oh for goodness sake, it's quite simple. If a vehicle has blue flashing
lights, you get out of their way, no questions asked. If you don't and

However the trouble often is that it's far from obvious where "out of
the way" is going to be.

It's VERY obvious. I've always spotted the blue lights about 10 seconds or more before they reach me, and simply slowed down, mounted a pavement or verge, and let them past. I don't see what the problem is you're having.

--
Computers are like air conditioners: They stop working when you open Windows.

On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:31:42 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 00:04:25 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

snip bs

No, I didn't think you had looked at the front of your own car as seen
from the POV on an oncoming vehicle as if you had you would understand
the difference between the beam you see it from inside the car versus
the glare seen from the outside.

I have, and they're the same. You get glare on the bright bits, those are easy to se when they light up your surroundings.

After an MOT, they are always set much higher than I prefer. I lower them every time.

They eventually sped up to 50 (still a 40) before waiting at a T
junction for what seemed like hours till they couldn't see any car for
5 miles in either direction. We and the 20 cars behind us all pulled
out in one string. ;-)

That's what your horn is for.

I think that would be an offence.

"Using a horn aggressively.

Improper use of the horn is contrary to regulation 99 (1) of the Road
Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, section 42 of the
Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act
1988'."

The horn is to warn people.

Correct, so in the case of them being slow exiting a T junction, what
are you warning them of?

Screwing up everybody's life by making them wait unnecessarily.

And that includes telling them that they almost caused a collision.

Nope. Any use of the horn *after* an event is an improper / aggressive
use and you could be fined for such. Warning someone you are close or
could be close is the correct use. Using it *after* any event is just
aggression / frustration (as the guy who sounded his horn several
times after stopping quickly to avoid knocking over an inattentive
pedestrian found out when fined). [1]

I don't care that you don't understand the differences, just educating
you about them.

The law is wrong. If someone ****s up, they need to be told they've done so, or they'll **** up in the same way again. Then the lost life they cause is YOUR fault.

Would you rather they continued driving in an improper fashion and killed somebody?

Do you think that using your horn aggressively at any bad driver is
going to make them drive better?

Yes. Drivers who aren't very good need to be told they did wrong. When I'd just learned to drive, I was hooted at a few times, I realised I'd done something wrong and corrected it next time.

That would make you an accomplice to manslaughter.

And you to more bs.

It seems you don't give a **** about innocent people then.

Cheers, T i m

[1] There are a couple of local junctions where the 'main road' isn't
actually the main road any more and so many people assume no one is
going to be going into or coming out of what is now a dead-end. So,
those people who are actually going into said dead end often *briefly*
sound their horn if they see a car entering the junction from the side
road to get their attention and hopefully prevent them pulling out in
front of them (even though they aren't signaling left etc). So the use
of the horn as a *warning* is correct. As punishment / chastisement /
'education' it is not.

Show me the junction you mention on google street view, it's not clear from your description.

--
Why do the Scots wear kilts?
Sheep can hear a zipper at 500 yds....

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 05/04/17 09:14, Chris Green wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/blue-light-use/

Interesting that it says "In the regulations, lights, reflectors and
reflective material are all classed as lights on cars (this means that the
public cannot have blue reflective graphics for example)." I've always
wondered what the legality is of the illuminated coloured emblems (eg
football team crests) that HGV drivers sometimes have on the back wall of
their cab or in the windscreen, facing forwards. These sometimes are
predominantly blue and at a quick glance can appear to be emergency vehicle
lights. I wonder if they contravene the regulation?

I'm surprised that lifeboat crew and retained firefighters aren't allowed to
have blue lights on their cars for use only when getting from home/work to
lifeboat or fire station to attend a shout. I'd say that a common sense
approach is that if you work for one of the emergency services on a retained
basis (ie you do a normal job from which you can be called away at any time)
then travel to your place of work, when you have been called to an
emergency, is itself emergency use.

The document makes no mention of special training being needed for sirens. I
think at one time police drivers were allowed to drive using just blue
lights even if they hadn't been specially trained, but needed to be
specially trained to be allowed to accompany the lights with the siren. That
seemed a daft distinction: either you require drivers to be trained in order
to do *any* emergency driv ing, or else you don't require it for either
blues or sirens (the latter seems to be the current situation).

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:54:37 +0100, "NY" wrote:

snip

If on the other hand you get done for speeding up (or going through red
lights) to make way for a vehicle that has its blue lights on, that's
different - it would be churlish of the police to prosecute someone who is
making every effort to get out of the way to let him past, providing it
wasn't dangerous.

There are stories of people still being 'done' for say pulling across
a white line or into a bus lane or box junction (as I believe is what
the law states) but I'm hoping they were let off under the 'special
circumstances'.

I also understand the drivers of emergency vehicles are supposed to
turn off sirens and especially not blow their horns as a way of
bullying people into doing something illegal (and / or possibly
causing an accident).

It must be difficult though when every second counts re controlling a
fire or saving lives.

I think the only time non-emergency drivers can legally break the Road
Traffic rules is when indicated to do so by a uniformed officer (like
an outrider on a Police escort etc).

Given TNP's scenario, I wonder if it could have been considered that
said Police driver was warning him to get out of the way by flashing
his lights (that should officially only be used as a warning, not an
invitation to do something) and therefore he was given authority by
said Police driver to exceed the speed limit.

Otherwise, wouldn't it be considered 'entrapment'?

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 13:08:09 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , AnthonyL
wrote:

On 3 Apr 2017 11:16:51 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2017-04-03, Fredxxx wrote:
On 03/04/2017 10:17, Jethro_uk wrote:

[27 lines snipped]

Building extra roads creates traffic.

Untrue.


Of course it's true. Before we had roads there was no traffic.

Think about it.

Yes there was and you are a troll.


What traffic, people walking through the forest?

You've missed the point and you've missed the point of roads.

There are journeys made now that wouldn't have been made if the roads
weren't there. I certainly think nothing of going to see someone 100
miles away that when I started driving would have been a two day trip
to make it worthwhile.

The whole idea of roads is to carry traffic and just about every time
a new route is opened or improved then new traffic will find its way
there.

The A42/M42 when first opened was quiet. I could traverse its length
M1 to M5 in around 40-45 mins on runs down to Exeter early in the
morning, a business run that 50 years ago couldn't be reasonably done
in a day.

The reason that we still keep getting traffic flow issues is not the
building of the roads, its that we're simply not keeping up with the
demand that is there, so by the time a road is built, or expanded, the
pressure has reformed.

--
AnthonyL

On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 11:27:05 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:54:37 +0100, "NY" wrote:

snip

If on the other hand you get done for speeding up (or going through red
lights) to make way for a vehicle that has its blue lights on, that's
different - it would be churlish of the police to prosecute someone who is
making every effort to get out of the way to let him past, providing it
wasn't dangerous.

There are stories of people still being 'done' for say pulling across
a white line or into a bus lane or box junction (as I believe is what
the law states) but I'm hoping they were let off under the 'special
circumstances'.

I also understand the drivers of emergency vehicles are supposed to
turn off sirens and especially not blow their horns as a way of
bullying people into doing something illegal (and / or possibly
causing an accident).

It must be difficult though when every second counts re controlling a
fire or saving lives.

I think the only time non-emergency drivers can legally break the Road
Traffic rules is when indicated to do so by a uniformed officer (like
an outrider on a Police escort etc).

Rubbish, they break the speed limit for a start, continuously. And they run red lights once everyone at the junction has stopped.

Given TNP's scenario, I wonder if it could have been considered that
said Police driver was warning him to get out of the way by flashing
his lights (that should officially only be used as a warning, not an
invitation to do something) and therefore he was given authority by
said Police driver to exceed the speed limit.

I thought the BLUE lights were flashed, not the headlights. That means "there's an emergency, get out of the way", or "I'm pulling you over". Since he hadn't broken the speed limit before the lights came on, it had to be the first. So speeding would not be illegal.

Otherwise, wouldn't it be considered 'entrapment'?

Entrapment seems to be legal now. For example the police pay (or otherwise get them to do it for free) teenagers under the age limit to attempt to buy alcohol to entrap shopkeepers.

--
gods don't smite people anymore because people of many different religions now living in the same town.
No god wants to accidentally smite the wrong person and get sued by another god.
-- David James

On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 11:15:06 +0100, NY wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 05/04/17 09:14, Chris Green wrote:
James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/blue-light-use/

Interesting that it says "In the regulations, lights, reflectors and
reflective material are all classed as lights on cars (this means that the
public cannot have blue reflective graphics for example)."

There's a PC repair man around here who's small van looks almost exactly like a police car. Different colours, but checkerboard patters and so forth.

The rules for cyclists are appalling. They shouldn't be allowed hivis jackets, flashing lights, or any such distraction. The only thing that should ever flash, light up brightly etc, are emergency vehicles, blind people, roadworkmen in the middle of the road etc. Having almost everyone all lit up means you don't spot the ones you should any more.

I've always
wondered what the legality is of the illuminated coloured emblems (eg
football team crests) that HGV drivers sometimes have on the back wall of
their cab or in the windscreen, facing forwards. These sometimes are
predominantly blue and at a quick glance can appear to be emergency vehicle
lights. I wonder if they contravene the regulation?

They should, and so should BMWs with blue headlights. Or even worse, xenons that change between blue, white, orange, yellow, and green as they go over slight bumps in the road.

I'm surprised that lifeboat crew and retained firefighters aren't allowed to
have blue lights on their cars for use only when getting from home/work to
lifeboat or fire station to attend a shout. I'd say that a common sense
approach is that if you work for one of the emergency services on a retained
basis (ie you do a normal job from which you can be called away at any time)
then travel to your place of work, when you have been called to an
emergency, is itself emergency use.

Indeed, assuming you have emergency vehicle training to go at high speed etc.

But then it also says:
"The only times when you can use your blue flashing light are when you a
at the scene of an emergency
responding to an emergency"

So that disagrees with the lifeboat rule, as they are "responding to an emergency".

The document makes no mention of special training being needed for sirens. I
think at one time police drivers were allowed to drive using just blue
lights even if they hadn't been specially trained, but needed to be
specially trained to be allowed to accompany the lights with the siren. That
seemed a daft distinction: either you require drivers to be trained in order
to do *any* emergency driv ing, or else you don't require it for either
blues or sirens (the latter seems to be the current situation).

This is ridiculous: "Revenue and Customs are allowed to use blue flashing lights when investigating serious crime."
Under no circumstances is tax evasion an emergency.

I also find it stupid that an ambulance can't go the wrong way down a one way street. That could get them to the dying person a few minutes earlier and save their life.

I notice it says amber is only for indicators, not for front sidelights like some BMWs and Volvos dangerously have. So why did those cars get type approval?

--
The world record for a talking bird is 1728 words by a budgerigar named Puck, having the same vocabulary as an estate agent.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
The rules for cyclists are appalling. They shouldn't be allowed hivis
jackets, flashing lights, or any such distraction. The only thing that
should ever flash, light up brightly etc, are emergency vehicles, blind
people, roadworkmen in the middle of the road etc. Having almost everyone
all lit up means you don't spot the ones you should any more.

I disagree with you about cyclists: anything that makes them more visible
and stand out from the background is a good thing: fluorescent jackets,
flashing white and red lights. There do need to be limits on the brightness
and or angle of cyclists' headlights. I was blinded by *very* bright
flashing lights and night on a cyclist - they would definitely have been
illegal on a car, but then we all know that a lot of the rules of the road
don't apply (or else aren't enforced) for cyclists.

I've always
wondered what the legality is of the illuminated coloured emblems (eg
football team crests) that HGV drivers sometimes have on the back wall of
their cab or in the windscreen, facing forwards. These sometimes are
predominantly blue and at a quick glance can appear to be emergency
vehicle
lights. I wonder if they contravene the regulation?

They should, and so should BMWs with blue headlights. Or even worse,
xenons that change between blue, white, orange, yellow, and green as they
go over slight bumps in the road.

I'm surprised that lifeboat crew and retained firefighters aren't allowed
to
have blue lights on their cars for use only when getting from home/work
to
lifeboat or fire station to attend a shout. I'd say that a common sense
approach is that if you work for one of the emergency services on a
retained
basis (ie you do a normal job from which you can be called away at any
time)
then travel to your place of work, when you have been called to an
emergency, is itself emergency use.

Indeed, assuming you have emergency vehicle training to go at high speed
etc.

Not necessarily even at high speed (ie exceeding the speed limit) just
"please will you try to move over so I can pass while still remaining within
the limit".

But then it also says:
"The only times when you can use your blue flashing light are when you
a
at the scene of an emergency
responding to an emergency"

So that disagrees with the lifeboat rule, as they are "responding to an
emergency".

The document makes no mention of special training being needed for
sirens. I
think at one time police drivers were allowed to drive using just blue
lights even if they hadn't been specially trained, but needed to be
specially trained to be allowed to accompany the lights with the siren.
That
seemed a daft distinction: either you require drivers to be trained in
order
to do *any* emergency driv ing, or else you don't require it for either
blues or sirens (the latter seems to be the current situation).

This is ridiculous: "Revenue and Customs are allowed to use blue flashing
lights when investigating serious crime."
Under no circumstances is tax evasion an emergency.

It depends how you define emergency. Catching someone red-handed or pursuing
them afterwards is something that the police can do, so maybe Revenue should
be allowed to as well. I'd extend "emergency" to include danger to property
as well as to life. Otherwise you'd have to ban fire engines from using blue
and twos unless it was a "persons reported" fire.

I also find it stupid that an ambulance can't go the wrong way down a one
way street. That could get them to the dying person a few minutes earlier
and save their life.

Having had my life saved by a ambulance when I had a cardiac arrest and
heart attack, I'm slightly biassed :-) I'd say *anything* that gets help
there sooner has to be a good thing. Liikewise for overtaking on double
white lines: the blue lights and siren should be regarded as sufficient
warning to make other drivers take extra care and to expect emergency
vehicles where oridinary vehciles are banned.

I'd like there to be a means of emergency dispatchers being able to radio
ahead and get level crossings held open (even at the expense of slowing the
trains) on a carefully-controlled basis. It's back to the "every second
counts" principle. In the town where I live, the fire station is just down
the road from a level crossing and the detour if the crossing is closed to
premises just on the far side is several miles. And there isn't even a
pedestrian footbridge for firemen to run across. It's right next to a river
that occasionally floods, and when the level crossing was updated recently
the fire brigade wanted culverts to be installed so they could pass hoses
through for river water to be drained without having to lay hoses across the
track and remove them every time a train was due. Permission was refused.

I notice it says amber is only for indicators, not for front sidelights
like some BMWs and Volvos dangerously have. So why did those cars get
type approval?

Yes, front and side "position lights" (sidelights) should only ever be
white. Amber should be confined to indicators and to "slow moving vehicle".
We're British, not American!

On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 16:14:28 +0100, NY wrote:

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
The rules for cyclists are appalling. They shouldn't be allowed hivis
jackets, flashing lights, or any such distraction. The only thing that
should ever flash, light up brightly etc, are emergency vehicles, blind
people, roadworkmen in the middle of the road etc. Having almost everyone
all lit up means you don't spot the ones you should any more.

I disagree with you about cyclists: anything that makes them more visible
and stand out from the background is a good thing: fluorescent jackets,
flashing white and red lights. There do need to be limits on the brightness
and or angle of cyclists' headlights. I was blinded by *very* bright
flashing lights and night on a cyclist - they would definitely have been
illegal on a car, but then we all know that a lot of the rules of the road
don't apply (or else aren't enforced) for cyclists.

Cyclists do not need to be seen any more than anyone else, as they're doing the same things cars do. They're not digging the road in your path, they're not crossing the road with poor vision, and they're not rushing to the scene of an emergency. And flashing lights are ABSOLUTELY WRONG. It's extremely annoying, distracting, and prevents you seeing the road ahead of you. When a cyclist does that and is coming towards me, I flash my headlights back. If it's ok for him, it's ok for me.

I've always
wondered what the legality is of the illuminated coloured emblems (eg
football team crests) that HGV drivers sometimes have on the back wall of
their cab or in the windscreen, facing forwards. These sometimes are
predominantly blue and at a quick glance can appear to be emergency
vehicle
lights. I wonder if they contravene the regulation?

They should, and so should BMWs with blue headlights. Or even worse,
xenons that change between blue, white, orange, yellow, and green as they
go over slight bumps in the road.

I'm surprised that lifeboat crew and retained firefighters aren't allowed
to
have blue lights on their cars for use only when getting from home/work
to
lifeboat or fire station to attend a shout. I'd say that a common sense
approach is that if you work for one of the emergency services on a
retained
basis (ie you do a normal job from which you can be called away at any
time)
then travel to your place of work, when you have been called to an
emergency, is itself emergency use.

Indeed, assuming you have emergency vehicle training to go at high speed
etc.

Not necessarily even at high speed (ie exceeding the speed limit) just
"please will you try to move over so I can pass while still remaining within
the limit".

Agreed. The law is stupid and probably ignored by both the lifeboat crew and any policeman that sees them. Imagine a copper pulling him over, then somebody ends up drowning because of it. I would hope the copper loses his job pronto, or worse.

But then it also says:
"The only times when you can use your blue flashing light are when you
a
at the scene of an emergency
responding to an emergency"

So that disagrees with the lifeboat rule, as they are "responding to an
emergency".

The document makes no mention of special training being needed for
sirens. I
think at one time police drivers were allowed to drive using just blue
lights even if they hadn't been specially trained, but needed to be
specially trained to be allowed to accompany the lights with the siren.
That
seemed a daft distinction: either you require drivers to be trained in
order
to do *any* emergency driv ing, or else you don't require it for either
blues or sirens (the latter seems to be the current situation).

This is ridiculous: "Revenue and Customs are allowed to use blue flashing
lights when investigating serious crime."
Under no circumstances is tax evasion an emergency.

It depends how you define emergency. Catching someone red-handed or pursuing
them afterwards is something that the police can do, so maybe Revenue should
be allowed to as well. I'd extend "emergency" to include danger to property
as well as to life. Otherwise you'd have to ban fire engines from using blue
and twos unless it was a "persons reported" fire.

If a house is on fire, that's an emergency, whether there are people in it or not. The fire could spread and endanger others.

But nicking something from the tax office, oh for goodness sake, no need to sprint through traffic and get in everyone's way for that!

I also find it stupid that an ambulance can't go the wrong way down a one
way street. That could get them to the dying person a few minutes earlier
and save their life.

Having had my life saved by a ambulance when I had a cardiac arrest and
heart attack, I'm slightly biassed :-) I'd say *anything* that gets help
there sooner has to be a good thing. Liikewise for overtaking on double
white lines: the blue lights and siren should be regarded as sufficient
warning to make other drivers take extra care and to expect emergency
vehicles where oridinary vehciles are banned.

It seems simple enough to me. They use the blue lights and siren, almost everyone gets out of the way, then the driver proceeds wherever he needs to when he's sure everyone's seen him.

I'd like there to be a means of emergency dispatchers being able to radio
ahead and get level crossings held open (even at the expense of slowing the
trains) on a carefully-controlled basis. It's back to the "every second
counts" principle. In the town where I live, the fire station is just down
the road from a level crossing and the detour if the crossing is closed to
premises just on the far side is several miles. And there isn't even a
pedestrian footbridge for firemen to run across. It's right next to a river
that occasionally floods, and when the level crossing was updated recently
the fire brigade wanted culverts to be installed so they could pass hoses
through for river water to be drained without having to lay hoses across the
track and remove them every time a train was due. Permission was refused.

The problem with level crossings is they have so much safety margin. If the fire engine just had to wait for the train passing, it would only take 20 seconds. They should be able to press a button to override the barriers, then proceed with caution, straight after or before the train arrives. I can only assume the ridiculously long wait before the train is to allow for broken down cars, so the train has time to stop.

I notice it says amber is only for indicators, not for front sidelights
like some BMWs and Volvos dangerously have. So why did those cars get
type approval?

Yes, front and side "position lights" (sidelights) should only ever be
white. Amber should be confined to indicators and to "slow moving vehicle".
We're British, not American!

I think you're the first person on a newsgroup to agree with me on that, although it seems to be 50/50 on car modding forums, which is where I'd expect more people to like the amber.

I also think it's insane to have amber repeater tail lights along the side of a lorry. They should be red. A few times I've been going along the motorway overtaking a lorry, and a strap is flapping behind an amber taillight along the side, making it look like it's flashing, and I think he's about to swerve into me!

--
During last night's high winds an African family was killed by a falling tree.
A spokesman for the Birmingham City council said, "We didn't even know they were living up there".

"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
tim... wrote:




Having commuted from Gravesend to Wembley every day, before the M25 I can
assure you that it quite possible to go through central London without
significant problems. So your Gatwick example is invalid.

I remember doing it [1] as a kid about 68. By 1980 it was impractical (the
M25 was completed in 86)

tim

[1] not as the driver, of course.

On 05/04/17 10:11, Jethro_uk wrote:
Which -
for the hard of thinking - doesn't mean I don't believe in climate
change. I do. But I believe that so far all attempts politicians try and
sell to us as solutions are a load of ********.

I thimk te4 evidence of te last ive age mnakes id very hard to not
believe in climate change. That of course is the beauty of the alarmists
dialectic.

They first of all estand switch to tell you that today's climate change
is 'unprecedented' which is a distortion of the truth that since the
Hadley centre didn't coexist with hairy mammoths, we haven't got a 30
year period with decent measurements stretching back beyond 100 years.
So althought there is niothig like 1978-1998 in te records, thats
because te records themselves dcant show any 29 year period in fine
detail more than 190 years old.

Then th y say that 'there is no better explanatiuon than human activity.
Which is true because largely there is no explanation whatsoever for any
climate change. And in fact chaos mathematics shows that there doesn't
need to be any external cause at all. Even the ice ages are hotly
debated as to cause, and although there is an orthodoxy, its by no means
sure that its the truth

One might with equal justification hypothesises that the pixies make
the sun rise every morning.

--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:14:21 +0100, Chris Green wrote:

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/blue-light-use/

Oh for goodness sake, it's quite simple. If a vehicle has blue flashing
lights, you get out of their way, no questions asked. If you don't and

However the trouble often is that it's far from obvious where "out of
the way" is going to be.

And that in turn is often a function of how 'aware' you are of your
surroundings. I don't generally play music loud in my car (tinnitus)
and have reasonably good vision and like to think I 'keep my wits
about me', so often see / hear emergency way before they are close and
it seems, much sooner than many other drivers.

Many times I've spotted a good place to slow / pull over and in plenty
of time for said emergency vehicle to pass only to have cars overtake
me and then actually create an effective road block! ;-(

I usually just pull into the curb and slow down

only to nearly rear-end the numpty in the car in front who thinks that the
only way that the emergency vehicle can pass them is if they stop :-(

tim

On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 20:04:36 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , tim...
wrote:

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:14:21 +0100, Chris Green wrote:

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/blue-light-use/

Oh for goodness sake, it's quite simple. If a vehicle has blue flashing
lights, you get out of their way, no questions asked. If you don't and

However the trouble often is that it's far from obvious where "out of
the way" is going to be.

And that in turn is often a function of how 'aware' you are of your
surroundings. I don't generally play music loud in my car (tinnitus)
and have reasonably good vision and like to think I 'keep my wits
about me', so often see / hear emergency way before they are close and
it seems, much sooner than many other drivers.

Many times I've spotted a good place to slow / pull over and in plenty
of time for said emergency vehicle to pass only to have cars overtake
me and then actually create an effective road block! ;-(

I usually just pull into the curb and slow down

only to nearly rear-end the numpty in the car in front who thinks that the
only way that the emergency vehicle can pass them is if they stop :-(

The "numpty" is doing the right thing. If you stop (provided you don't
do it just where there's a refuge and keep-left thingy in the middle of
the road) then the emergency driver doesn't have to compute in his head
where you are going to be when he passes you. He can get on with the
driving bit.

The real numpties are the ones who think the best thing to do is speed
up.

It depends on the circumstances. I might stop, slow down, or speed up. It's pretty easy to work out how not to be where the ambulance wants to be.

For example, I'm travelling along a road at the speed limit of 60mph behind two other cars. An ambulance approaches from behind at 80mph. The two cars in front pull over and slow down or stop. I accelerate to 90mph, leaving the ambulance behind me so I'm not in it's way, and I get past the slowcoaches in front of me.

Following an ambulance is also a good way of getting past the law abiding buggers who won't go faster than the signs. They pull over to let the ambulance pass then I get past aswell before they notice.

--
How do you scare a man?
Sneak up behind him and start throwing rice.

On 05/04/2017 18:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
we haven't got a 30 year period with decent measurements stretching back
beyond 100 years

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

Andy

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

In message , tim...
writes


"Capitol" wrote in message
news:C6idnSqDJ4Yr4X7FnZ2dnUU78K_NnZ2d@brightview. co.uk...
tim... wrote:




Having commuted from Gravesend to Wembley every day, before the M25 I
can assure you that it quite possible to go through central London
without significant problems. So your Gatwick example is invalid.

I remember doing it [1] as a kid about 68. By 1980 it was impractical
(the M25 was completed in 86)

Those were the days! I regularly drove from St. Albans to Uckfield (near
Lewes) to commission a water filtration plant. The quickest route was
through central London: Hyde Park Corner, Park Lane, Vauxhall Bridge and
out on the A23.

I would not dream of doing it today, never mind the diesel car!
--
Tim Lamb

On 05/04/17 21:45, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 05/04/2017 18:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
we haven't got a 30 year period with decent measurements stretching back
beyond 100 years

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/


I said decent.

Those as we know have been 'adjusted' to 'show global warming' and they
weren't the best to start with.

Andy

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com



--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

On 05/04/17 21:37, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 18:58:12 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 05/04/17 10:11, Jethro_uk wrote:
Which -
for the hard of thinking - doesn't mean I don't believe in climate
change. I do. But I believe that so far all attempts politicians try
and sell to us as solutions are a load of ********.

I thimk te4 evidence of te last ive age mnakes id very hard to not
believe in climate change. That of course is the beauty of the alarmists
dialectic.

They first of all estand switch to tell you that today's climate change
is 'unprecedented' which is a distortion of the truth that since the
Hadley centre didn't coexist with hairy mammoths, we haven't got a 30
year period with decent measurements stretching back beyond 100 years.
So althought there is niothig like 1978-1998 in te records, thats
because te records themselves dcant show any 29 year period in fine
detail more than 190 years old.

Then th y say that 'there is no better explanatiuon than human activity.
Which is true because largely there is no explanation whatsoever for any
climate change. And in fact chaos mathematics shows that there doesn't
need to be any external cause at all. Even the ice ages are hotly
debated as to cause, and although there is an orthodoxy, its by no means
sure that its the truth

One might with equal justification hypothesises that the pixies make
the sun rise every morning.

I'm too old for all of that nonsense.

The cause of climate change is irrelevant at the moment. It's much easier
to mitigate, and the ways in which we do are my gripe now.

How can we mitigate something that we don't even know is happening?
Assuming it is, How can we mitigate something that we don't even know is
a bad thing?
Assuming it is, How can we mitigate if we don't know what is causing it?
Assuming we do, How can we mitigate if there is essentially nothing to
be done?

I am reminded of the GBS epithet about being in agreement about something
and "just arguing over the price" ...

Well no.

I am reminded of the man tearing up newspapers and throwing them out of
the train window.

"My good friend, why are you rearing up newspapers and throwing them out
of the window?"
"Keeps the elephants down"
"But my good man, there are no elephants"
"Damned effective isn't it".

If the wherethe****arewe tribe don't do their ceremonial dance every
night, the sun wont come up tomorrow. Fortunately they always do.


--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

In article , Tim Streater
wrote:
In article , NY
wrote:

"T i m" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 10:45:11 +0100, "NY" wrote:

"T i m" wrote in message
...
Either might work (and the latter probably work better) and is in
fact what I though those who were envisioning what our roads would
be like in the future predicted? That is, 'trains' of vehicles all
going along together automatically?

The problem with a "train" of lorries all going along at exactly the
same speed is that they may follow at a barely-safe distance from each
other - certainly too small a distance for a car to nip between them.
So when you come to one of these "trains" you know that you have to
find an opportunity to overtake *all* of them in one go, because you
won't be able to get past them individually, in stages.

OK. 1) we are talking about 'automated' speed / distance control her
so the gaps would be minimal and 2) we are only talking of motorways
and the like.

On a motorway or dual carriageway, that's fine:

There's another problem: the car drivers who slow down to overtake
lorries
:-) Imagine the scene: loads of cars doing around 70 mph (some a bit
slower, some a bit faster). The lead car comes to a long train of maybe
10 lorries. And he slows down to 56.1 mph, crawls past all 10 lorries
(which would take as long as a lorry doing it) and then speeds up to 70
afterwards.

It's incredible how often I see people doing this on a motorway
(goodness knows why) - I'm not just imagining it.

Where possible, I always speed up going past a lorry. The shorter time
I'm next to a lorry the better, given that I don't want to be there when
a lorry tire blows and starts shedding chunks of rubber at me.

and if the road is wet, you get out of the "spray zone" quicker

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 04-Apr-17 12:54 PM, Capitol wrote:
...
It would probably be cheaper to build a second layer above the M25
for through traffic. Using Lego type unitary construction would be very
cheap. I'm always impressed by the I10 across the Mississippi delta
which uses standard concrete building elements to a great extent.

While I like the idea, I'm not sure how easy it would be to do it
without disrupting the traffic on the existing road.




The existing M25 around Heathrow is already so bad, that I don't think
anybody will notice the difference! And some idiot wants to put another
runway into Heathrow. Must be a politician, no one else could be so
stupid. I now allow 3.5 hours for the 40 mile journey to Heathrow. I
used to allow 45 minutes from just outside Edinburgh to Prestwick when I
used that airport.

Why does an extra runway mean more car traffic?
The new Elizabeth line will take the passengers into London.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article , James Wilkinson Sword
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:14:21 +0100, Chris Green wrote:

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/blue-light-use/

Oh for goodness sake, it's quite simple. If a vehicle has blue
flashing lights, you get out of their way, no questions asked. If you
don't and

However the trouble often is that it's far from obvious where "out of
the way" is going to be.

It's VERY obvious. I've always spotted the blue lights about 10 seconds
or more before they reach me, and simply slowed down, mounted a pavement
or verge, and let them past. I don't see what the problem is you're
having.

You'll get fined if you go into a bus lane to let them past.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 17:35:07 +0100, charles wrote:

In article , James Wilkinson Sword
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:14:21 +0100, Chris Green wrote:

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/blue-light-use/

Oh for goodness sake, it's quite simple. If a vehicle has blue
flashing lights, you get out of their way, no questions asked. If you
don't and

However the trouble often is that it's far from obvious where "out of
the way" is going to be.

It's VERY obvious. I've always spotted the blue lights about 10 seconds
or more before they reach me, and simply slowed down, mounted a pavement
or verge, and let them past. I don't see what the problem is you're
having.

You'll get fined if you go into a bus lane to let them past.

Nonsense. Obstructing a bus is a billion times less serious than obstructing an ambulance. A camera might do me for it, but I'd just get it quashed.

--
Some people's brains are purely for life support purposes only.

On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 17:35:07 +0100, charles
wrote:


It's VERY obvious. I've always spotted the blue lights about 10 seconds
or more before they reach me, and simply slowed down, mounted a pavement
or verge, and let them past. I don't see what the problem is you're
having.

You'll get fined if you go into a bus lane to let them past.

Let them go in the bus lane instead then.

G.Harman

On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 19:10:23 +0100, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 17:35:07 +0100, charles
wrote:


It's VERY obvious. I've always spotted the blue lights about 10 seconds
or more before they reach me, and simply slowed down, mounted a pavement
or verge, and let them past. I don't see what the problem is you're
having.

You'll get fined if you go into a bus lane to let them past.

Let them go in the bus lane instead then.

There might be a bus in the way further along, but you can pull into it and stop, letting the ambulance past in the car lane.

--
Mary's lamb had foot and mouth.
The vet he came and shot it.
But Mary's Dad had shagged it twice.
And now her Mum has got it.

On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 17:35:07 +0100, charles wrote:

In article , James Wilkinson Sword
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:14:21 +0100, Chris Green wrote:

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/blue-light-use/

Oh for goodness sake, it's quite simple. If a vehicle has blue
flashing lights, you get out of their way, no questions asked. If you
don't and

However the trouble often is that it's far from obvious where "out of
the way" is going to be.

It's VERY obvious. I've always spotted the blue lights about 10 seconds
or more before they reach me, and simply slowed down, mounted a pavement
or verge, and let them past. I don't see what the problem is you're
having.

You'll get fined if you go into a bus lane to let them past.

It's also illegal to drive on the pavement, but I do it every time I see an ambulance. Don't you? Emergencies override normal laws.

--
Some people's brains are purely for life support purposes only.

charles wrote:
In article ,
Capitol wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 04-Apr-17 12:54 PM, Capitol wrote:
...
It would probably be cheaper to build a second layer above the M25
for through traffic. Using Lego type unitary construction would be very
cheap. I'm always impressed by the I10 across the Mississippi delta
which uses standard concrete building elements to a great extent.

While I like the idea, I'm not sure how easy it would be to do it
without disrupting the traffic on the existing road.




The existing M25 around Heathrow is already so bad, that I don't think
anybody will notice the difference! And some idiot wants to put another
runway into Heathrow. Must be a politician, no one else could be so
stupid. I now allow 3.5 hours for the 40 mile journey to Heathrow. I
used to allow 45 minutes from just outside Edinburgh to Prestwick when I
used that airport.

Why does an extra runway mean more car traffic?
The new Elizabeth line will take the passengers into London.


In your dreams!

On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 23:19:07 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 17:35:07 +0100, charles wrote:

In article , James Wilkinson Sword
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:14:21 +0100, Chris Green wrote:

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/blue-light-use/

Oh for goodness sake, it's quite simple. If a vehicle has blue
flashing lights, you get out of their way, no questions asked. If you
don't and

However the trouble often is that it's far from obvious where "out of
the way" is going to be.

It's VERY obvious. I've always spotted the blue lights about 10 seconds
or more before they reach me, and simply slowed down, mounted a pavement
or verge, and let them past. I don't see what the problem is you're
having.

You'll get fined if you go into a bus lane to let them past.

It's also illegal to drive on the pavement, but I do it every time I see an ambulance.

Why do you bother involving yourself in these conversations as it's
obvious *you think* there is one rule for you and one rule for
everyone else (or there are no rules at all)?

Irrespective of the circumstances, it is illegal to do anything
illegal (road traffic laws wise we are talking about here) under any
circumstances unless explicitly instructed to by a uniformed Police
officer.

Don't you?

Drive on? No. Mount to make some room and stop ... possibly. Even
driving across the pavement to access your own property without the
use of a proper dropped kerb / crossover is against the rules (there
may be some exceptions, like service vehicles).

Emergencies override normal laws.

Whilst there is a good chance that with the right evidence you may be
able to get an offence squashed, the RULES state that the RULES
continue to apply, even during an emergency situation ... otherwise we
would have idiots like you thinking they could take the rules into
their own hands and potentially make matters worse.

And don't confused your illegal activity not being spotted, or being
seen but a 'blind eye turned' or a Police officer using their
discretion ... with something being legal.

I'll not be correcting you again as there is obviously no point.

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 09:45:06 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 23:19:07 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 17:35:07 +0100, charles wrote:

In article , James Wilkinson Sword
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:14:21 +0100, Chris Green wrote:

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/blue-light-use/

Oh for goodness sake, it's quite simple. If a vehicle has blue
flashing lights, you get out of their way, no questions asked. If you
don't and

However the trouble often is that it's far from obvious where "out of
the way" is going to be.

It's VERY obvious. I've always spotted the blue lights about 10 seconds
or more before they reach me, and simply slowed down, mounted a pavement
or verge, and let them past. I don't see what the problem is you're
having.

You'll get fined if you go into a bus lane to let them past.

It's also illegal to drive on the pavement, but I do it every time I see an ambulance.

Why do you bother involving yourself in these conversations as it's
obvious *you think* there is one rule for you and one rule for
everyone else (or there are no rules at all)?

Irrespective of the circumstances, it is illegal to do anything
illegal (road traffic laws wise we are talking about here) under any
circumstances unless explicitly instructed to by a uniformed Police
officer.

Why do you take the law so literally? If there's an emergency and someone's life is at stake, anyone with half a brain will bend the rules to help them. If I was a policeman and I saw you NOT going into a bus lane and obstructing an ambulance, I wouldn't instruct you to move over, I'd ****ing arrest you.

Don't you?

Drive on? No. Mount to make some room and stop ... possibly.

I do whatever it takes to let the ambulance past. If you don't, you're a worthless piece of evil scum and I hope one day another idiot like you holds up your ambulance and you die a slow painful death.

Even
driving across the pavement to access your own property without the
use of a proper dropped kerb / crossover is against the rules (there
may be some exceptions, like service vehicles).

Which nobody bothers with as it's a stupid law. A pavement isn't magically different if the kerb is lowered.

Emergencies override normal laws.

Whilst there is a good chance that with the right evidence you may be
able to get an offence squashed, the RULES state that the RULES
continue to apply, even during an emergency situation ... otherwise we
would have idiots like you thinking they could take the rules into
their own hands and potentially make matters worse.

No, only when an ambulance wants past.

And don't confused your illegal activity not being spotted, or being
seen but a 'blind eye turned' or a Police officer using their
discretion ... with something being legal.

I'll not be correcting you again as there is obviously no point.

You're clearly suffering from OCD.

--
A blue whale's heart is roughly the size of a VW Beetle, and its aorta is large enough for a human to crawl through.

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 23:19:07 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 17:35:07 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article , James Wilkinson Sword
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:14:21 +0100, Chris Green wrote:

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/blue-light-use/

Oh for goodness sake, it's quite simple. If a vehicle has blue
flashing lights, you get out of their way, no questions asked. If
you
don't and

However the trouble often is that it's far from obvious where "out of
the way" is going to be.

It's VERY obvious. I've always spotted the blue lights about 10
seconds
or more before they reach me, and simply slowed down, mounted a
pavement
or verge, and let them past. I don't see what the problem is you're
having.

You'll get fined if you go into a bus lane to let them past.

It's also illegal to drive on the pavement, but I do it every time I see
an ambulance.

Why do you bother involving yourself in these conversations as it's
obvious *you think* there is one rule for you and one rule for
everyone else (or there are no rules at all)?

Irrespective of the circumstances, it is illegal to do anything
illegal (road traffic laws wise we are talking about here) under any
circumstances unless explicitly instructed to by a uniformed Police
officer.

Don't you?

Drive on? No. Mount to make some room and stop ... possibly. Even
driving across the pavement to access your own property without the
use of a proper dropped kerb / crossover is against the rules (there
may be some exceptions, like service vehicles).

Emergencies override normal laws.

Whilst there is a good chance that with the right evidence you may be
able to get an offence squashed, the RULES state that the RULES
continue to apply, even during an emergency situation ... otherwise we
would have idiots like you thinking they could take the rules into
their own hands and potentially make matters worse.

I don't doubt that rules state that you can't break laws even to get out the
way of the emergency vehicle. In my mind that is irrelevant.

What matters is whether the rules *should* say this? I agree with JWS that
emergencies override everything else. If I see a rule that I think is wrong,
I see nothing wrong with debating whether the rule should be there or
whether it should be changed.

Too many people say "that's what the law says" without questioning whether
it's a *good* law and the *right* law. I'm not saying that I would move into
a bus lane or got through red traffic lights or increase my speed if there
was nowhere for an emergency vehicle to get past, but only because of the
fear of being prosecuted, not because I would think I was doing wrong;
indeed I think by breaking the law I was doing right if it let the emergency
vehicle get there sooner.

I would make sure I only broke the law if I could see no alternative was of
letting the ambulance past, and in the expectation that I would be asked to
substantiate why I did it, but I would expect to be believed and for the law
to be flexible enough to apply common sense.

Ideally I'd like emergency vehicles (via a tannoy) to direct traffic in
front of them what that want it to do to make way for them, so as to remove
any uncertainty and doubt.

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 14:37:30 +0100, "NY" wrote:

snip

Whilst there is a good chance that with the right evidence you may be
able to get an offence squashed, the RULES state that the RULES
continue to apply, even during an emergency situation ... otherwise we
would have idiots like you thinking they could take the rules into
their own hands and potentially make matters worse.

I don't doubt that rules state that you can't break laws even to get out the
way of the emergency vehicle.

You would be right to not doubt that fact. ;-)

In my mind that is irrelevant.

Well, then you might be onto a 'sticky wicket'.

What matters is whether the rules *should* say this?

Yes they should and I'll explain why in a while.

I agree with JWS that
emergencies override everything else.

Then you could both be considered a liability ITRW.

If I see a rule that I think is wrong,
I see nothing wrong with debating whether the rule should be there or
whether it should be changed.

Agreed, that's democracy for you.

Too many people say "that's what the law says" without questioning whether
it's a *good* law and the *right* law.

They do indeed ... and some also question the laws and sometimes have
them changed / amended.

I'm not saying that I would move into
a bus lane or got through red traffic lights or increase my speed if there
was nowhere for an emergency vehicle to get past, but only because of the
fear of being prosecuted, not because I would think I was doing wrong;

Quite, you and most the population then. ;-)

indeed I think by breaking the law I was doing right if it let the emergency
vehicle get there sooner.

Of course, if all things go to plan, but what if in pulling though the
lights you cause an accident? Do you think the rules should allow that
.... you could maybe kill a motorcyclist in the hope that the 3 seconds
you shave off an ambulance journey helps someone who passes out in
shopping centre get seen quicker (and sent home)?

I would make sure I only broke the law if I could see no alternative was of
letting the ambulance past, and in the expectation that I would be asked to
substantiate why I did it, but I would expect to be believed and for the law
to be flexible enough to apply common sense.

But they maybe you haven't worked in a local authority manning a bus
lane camera and 'heard it all before'? Do you think you could ask the
ambulance driver if he would be a witness that you only broke the law
for him / her?

Ideally I'd like emergency vehicles (via a tannoy) to direct traffic in
front of them what that want it to do to make way for them, so as to remove
any uncertainty and doubt.

Unless it was a uniformed Police officer I don't believe they would
have the authority, just as any emergency vehicle driver would have to
account for their actions. should something go wrong? This also
includes *not* chasing potential criminals in cars or on bikes if
there are signs that in doing so could put others at risk. I'm pretty
sure that whilst they wouldn't care much of a real crim takes
themselves out whilst being chased by a Police car it's just they
would have a real load of paperwork (and worse) if they also took out
a bus stop full of innocent people for someone who had stolen a 4 pack
of beer.

Now don't get me wrong, I have already said that I do all I can to
ensure emergency vehicles can get though as unhindered as possible and
I (personally) may also push the limits under extreme circumstances
but unlike JWS, I am under no illusion that I don't have the authority
to break the rules and therefore must be willing to pay the price if I
do. There may be no magic wand or 'get out of jail card' should a
potentially innocent act actually make matters worse.

That's why the rules are there ... not for when good intentioned
things go right, but for when they don't.

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 15:29:39 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:
snip

The current system works fine, siren and blue light, people slow down and move over a bit, leaving a nice clear path for them.

Correct.

Or at a junction everyone lets the ambulance through on the red light.

Correct, as long as they do so legally.

I've never actually seen anyone as stupid as Tim blocking an ambulance, there can't be too many of him around.

Because you have never seen me blocking any emergency vehicles because
I am observant and plan ahead.

Perhaps ambulances should film what's happening in front of them, and the footage can be analysed later if they were delayed, and anyone who didn't get out of the way gets points on their licence,

Luckily, in this country law abiding citizens don't usually get fined
for not breaking the law.

or is held partially accountable for the death of the person they didn't get to on time.

What if they cause the death of an innocent person by trying to move
out of the way?

"But it was a bus lane" should not be an excuse.

It's not an excuse, it's the rules and break them at your own
discretion / peril..

However, here is a nice video you can watch that even you should be
able to understand (and hopefully learn (the current UK road traffic
rules) from).

http://www.bluelightaware.org.uk/#nf

An some other *facts* to counter you everlasting BS ...

http://www.thecarexpert.co.uk/giving...ency-vehicles/

"Can I be fined for breaking the law to assist an emergency vehicle?

Yes, you can. Councils and local authorities are heartless
bureaucracies at the best of times, but in this case they do have the
law on their side. There is nothing in the Highway Code which says you
can break the law if you are trying to get out of the way of an
emergency vehicle."

"There are also plenty of stories and old wives’ tales about how you
can write to the relevant authority and explain how you were trying to
assist an emergency vehicle, but there are no legal provisions to get
you out of a traffic penalty. Sometimes these fines are withdrawn if
the driver appeals and there is supporting evidence, but certainly not
always."

So like I said elsewhere, maybe you could stop the ambulance driver on
a shout and ask him to be your witness if you get done for say
crossing the white line at some traffic lights.

You are welcome.

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 23:53:19 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 15:29:39 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:
snip

The current system works fine, siren and blue light, people slow down and move over a bit, leaving a nice clear path for them.

Correct.

Or at a junction everyone lets the ambulance through on the red light..

Correct, as long as they do so legally.

I've never actually seen anyone as stupid as Tim blocking an ambulance, there can't be too many of him around.

Because you have never seen me blocking any emergency vehicles because
I am observant and plan ahead.

If your only options (due to where other people (possibly idiots) had placed themselves) we
1) Obstruct the ambulance.
2) Break the law and let it past.
Are you seriously saying you'd do 1)? You need your head examined. Most people put common sense above the law.

Perhaps ambulances should film what's happening in front of them, and the footage can be analysed later if they were delayed, and anyone who didn't get out of the way gets points on their licence,

Luckily, in this country law abiding citizens don't usually get fined
for not breaking the law.

They should if it means they blocked an ambulance.

or is held partially accountable for the death of the person they didn't get to on time.

What if they cause the death of an innocent person by trying to move
out of the way?

Well obviously driving onto a pavement full of pedestrians is stupid. But I never suggested that.

"But it was a bus lane" should not be an excuse.

It's not an excuse, it's the rules and break them at your own
discretion / peril..

Obstructing a bus is hardly the end of the world.

However, here is a nice video you can watch that even you should be
able to understand (and hopefully learn (the current UK road traffic
rules) from).

http://www.bluelightaware.org.uk/#nf

An some other *facts* to counter you everlasting BS ...

http://www.thecarexpert.co.uk/giving...ency-vehicles/

"Can I be fined for breaking the law to assist an emergency vehicle?

Yes, you can. Councils and local authorities are heartless
bureaucracies at the best of times, but in this case they do have the
law on their side. There is nothing in the Highway Code which says you
can break the law if you are trying to get out of the way of an
emergency vehicle."

"There are also plenty of stories and old wives tales about how you
can write to the relevant authority and explain how you were trying to
assist an emergency vehicle, but there are no legal provisions to get
you out of a traffic penalty. Sometimes these fines are withdrawn if
the driver appeals and there is supporting evidence, but certainly not
always."

So like I said elsewhere, maybe you could stop the ambulance driver on
a shout and ask him to be your witness if you get done for say
crossing the white line at some traffic lights.

I will not read government hype, propaganda, and utter bull****. As I said before, intelligent people put common sense above the law.

--
You know you've spent too much time on the computer when you spill milk and the first thing you think is, 'Edit, Undo.'

On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 23:24:48 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 14:37:30 +0100, "NY" wrote:

snip

Whilst there is a good chance that with the right evidence you may be
able to get an offence squashed, the RULES state that the RULES
continue to apply, even during an emergency situation ... otherwise we
would have idiots like you thinking they could take the rules into
their own hands and potentially make matters worse.

I don't doubt that rules state that you can't break laws even to get out the
way of the emergency vehicle.

You would be right to not doubt that fact. ;-)

In my mind that is irrelevant.

Well, then you might be onto a 'sticky wicket'.

What matters is whether the rules *should* say this?

Yes they should and I'll explain why in a while.

I agree with JWS that
emergencies override everything else.

Then you could both be considered a liability ITRW.

You're the liability. An emergency overrides all laws, end of story.

If I see a rule that I think is wrong,
I see nothing wrong with debating whether the rule should be there or
whether it should be changed.

Agreed, that's democracy for you.

Can't you think for yourself? Why do you just agree with the majority? (If you assume we even have a true democracy).

Too many people say "that's what the law says" without questioning whether
it's a *good* law and the *right* law.

They do indeed ... and some also question the laws and sometimes have
them changed / amended.

But most ignore the ones they know are wrong or petty.

I'm not saying that I would move into
a bus lane or got through red traffic lights or increase my speed if there
was nowhere for an emergency vehicle to get past, but only because of the
fear of being prosecuted, not because I would think I was doing wrong;

Quite, you and most the population then. ;-)

indeed I think by breaking the law I was doing right if it let the emergency
vehicle get there sooner.

Of course, if all things go to plan, but what if in pulling though the
lights you cause an accident? Do you think the rules should allow that
... you could maybe kill a motorcyclist in the hope that the 3 seconds
you shave off an ambulance journey helps someone who passes out in
shopping centre get seen quicker (and sent home)?

Why would any decent driver cause an accident? When an ambulance is around, everybody stops or slows down. Crashing into someone is almost impossible.

I would make sure I only broke the law if I could see no alternative was of
letting the ambulance past, and in the expectation that I would be asked to
substantiate why I did it, but I would expect to be believed and for the law
to be flexible enough to apply common sense.

But they maybe you haven't worked in a local authority manning a bus
lane camera and 'heard it all before'? Do you think you could ask the
ambulance driver if he would be a witness that you only broke the law
for him / her?

The camera should show there was an ambulance present, otherwise the camera is not fit for purpose. "He ran a red light" is not enough information.

Ideally I'd like emergency vehicles (via a tannoy) to direct traffic in
front of them what that want it to do to make way for them, so as to remove
any uncertainty and doubt.

Unless it was a uniformed Police officer I don't believe they would
have the authority,

They should. They're the ones that have to get to the emergency. And the drivers are highly trained.

--
A man goes home early and catches another man in bed with his wife.
He drags the naked man out of the house and into his garden shed.
There he secures man's penis in a vice and removes the handle, then starts to sharpen a knife.
The naked man shouts, "You're not going to cut it off are you?"
"No, you are," was the reply. "I'm going to set fire to the shed"

"T i m" wrote in message
news
That's why the rules are there ... not for when good intentioned
things go right, but for when they don't.

Yes. Fair enough. You make a good case.

It feels wrong and inhuman and callous not to do everything humanly possible
to let the ambulance past.

I've was once stuck as the first car at lights with an ambulance right
behind me wanting get past. I knew that if I wasn't there he would have had
authority to got through the lights on red. He was blocked from overtaking
on the wrong side by traffic coming from my right which was turning left (ie
towards us). That traffic really should have stopped at their green light to
let the ambulance through, but for whatever reason it didn't - not one
single car had the common decency to let the ambulance overtake.

I was very frustrated that there was nothing (legal) I could do to let the
ambulance past until the lights turned green and I was able to go through
and turn left to let him past. I actually wanted to go straight on but if
I'd done that he'd have had to overtake me after the lights and there was a
long stream of traffic queueing for the lights that would have prevented him
doing so for some distance.

I wish I'd been able to say "sorry: I *want* to let you through but I'm
prevented only by the fear of being done for going through red lights. I
just hope those 30 seconds or so weren't critical for the life of the
patient.

There really does need to be a better way of letting emergency vehicles
through, but I can see the problems with changing the law to let road users
proceed, even with caution, through red lights or into a bus lane. Perhaps
the only solution is for emergency vehicles to be able to turn red lights
green, which would a) stop conflicting traffic coming from left and right,
and b) allow vehicles in front to go though legally. I suppose security of
such a mechanism against abuse and hacking is the main reason why it's never
been implemented.

On Sun, 09 Apr 2017 00:06:28 +0100, NY wrote:

"T i m" wrote in message
news
That's why the rules are there ... not for when good intentioned
things go right, but for when they don't.

Yes. Fair enough. You make a good case.

It feels wrong and inhuman and callous not to do everything humanly possible
to let the ambulance past.

I've was once stuck as the first car at lights with an ambulance right
behind me wanting get past. I knew that if I wasn't there he would have had
authority to got through the lights on red. He was blocked from overtaking
on the wrong side by traffic coming from my right which was turning left (ie
towards us). That traffic really should have stopped at their green light to
let the ambulance through, but for whatever reason it didn't - not one
single car had the common decency to let the ambulance overtake.

I was very frustrated that there was nothing (legal) I could do to let the
ambulance past until the lights turned green and I was able to go through
and turn left to let him past. I actually wanted to go straight on but if
I'd done that he'd have had to overtake me after the lights and there was a
long stream of traffic queueing for the lights that would have prevented him
doing so for some distance.

I wish I'd been able to say "sorry: I *want* to let you through but I'm
prevented only by the fear of being done for going through red lights. I
just hope those 30 seconds or so weren't critical for the life of the
patient.

There really does need to be a better way of letting emergency vehicles
through, but I can see the problems with changing the law to let road users
proceed, even with caution, through red lights or into a bus lane. Perhaps
the only solution is for emergency vehicles to be able to turn red lights
green, which would a) stop conflicting traffic coming from left and right,
and b) allow vehicles in front to go though legally. I suppose security of
such a mechanism against abuse and hacking is the main reason why it's never
been implemented.

You're as big an idiot as Tim. I would have moved out of the way, breaking whatever laws were required to let the ambulance past. You and every single driver that went through the green light on your right should receive a jail sentence and/or have your licenses permanently removed. You make me sick.

--
My younger sister was having one of her first gynecological appointments and she had some questions for the doctor.
"Doctor" she asked, "I can't ask my parents, They would kill me but my boyfriend wants to have anal sex. I don't know what to tell him, I mean I don't know anything about it. Can I get pregnant?"
The kindly old doctor smiled whimsically and replied "Of course, you can my dear. Where do you think lawyers come from?"

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 00:06:28 +0100, "NY" wrote:

"T i m" wrote in message
news
That's why the rules are there ... not for when good intentioned
things go right, but for when they don't.

Yes. Fair enough. You make a good case.

Thanks. Unfortunately they aren't 'my cases' but the laws of that lad
that are set in place by (in most cases) common sense (for the
circumstances) and our democracy.

It feels wrong and inhuman and callous not to do everything humanly possible
to let the ambulance past.

Agreed, and most do, however there are limits and you have to consider
just how much danger you might put someone else in whilst trying to
allow an ambulance though that *might* only be going to what turns out
to be a false alarm or (in comparison to the motorcyclist you now have
under your car), 'low priority'.

I've was once stuck as the first car at lights with an ambulance right
behind me wanting get past. I knew that if I wasn't there he would have had
authority to got through the lights on red. He was blocked from overtaking
on the wrong side by traffic coming from my right which was turning left (ie
towards us). That traffic really should have stopped at their green light to
let the ambulance through, but for whatever reason it didn't - not one
single car had the common decency to let the ambulance overtake.

Yup.

I was very frustrated that there was nothing (legal) I could do to let the
ambulance past until the lights turned green and I was able to go through
and turn left to let him past. I actually wanted to go straight on but if
I'd done that he'd have had to overtake me after the lights and there was a
long stream of traffic queueing for the lights that would have prevented him
doing so for some distance.

Yup, very frustrating for them I'm sure.

I wish I'd been able to say "sorry: I *want* to let you through but I'm
prevented only by the fear of being done for going through red lights. I
just hope those 30 seconds or so weren't critical for the life of the
patient.

Yup, we have all been there and 'of course' try to do what we can.
However, the laws re exactly what we can do are there fore a good
reason and those who actually know what they are can decide when and
where they break them, if that's what they feel inclined to do.

There really does need to be a better way of letting emergency vehicles
through, but I can see the problems with changing the law to let road users
proceed, even with caution, through red lights or into a bus lane.

Quite, and hence why we have what we have now. Pull into a bus lane or
hard shoulder to allow a police car though and then block the
ambulance that's following up. Pull across the lights and hit a
motorcycle or block access to the fire engine coming in from the other
direction.

Perhaps
the only solution is for emergency vehicles to be able to turn red lights
green, which would a) stop conflicting traffic coming from left and right,
and b) allow vehicles in front to go though legally.

They can already, although I'm not sure if they do over here atm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_signal_preemption

http://www.ambulancetoday.co.uk/news...16-copenhagen/

I suppose security of
such a mechanism against abuse and hacking is the main reason why it's never
been implemented.

https://www.wired.com/2005/08/traffi...hit-red-light/

But it has been implemented (see above) and may be coming for
passenger cars as well. ;-)


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scie...led-in-UK.html

I just hope if I do need an emergency vehicle that the Wilkinson troll
isn't out on the road ignoring the laws of the land and potentially
causing even more accidents (that said vehicles are obliged to stop
and deal with).

The rules aren't setup for you or me, they are set up to be able to
prosecute Wilkinson or anyone else taking the rules into their own
hands.

Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 09 Apr 2017 09:48:00 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 00:06:28 +0100, "NY" wrote:

"T i m" wrote in message
news
That's why the rules are there ... not for when good intentioned
things go right, but for when they don't.

Yes. Fair enough. You make a good case.

Thanks. Unfortunately they aren't 'my cases' but the laws of that lad
that are set in place by (in most cases) common sense (for the
circumstances) and our democracy.

It's not a democracy as far as laws are concerned. We pick one of a few parties closest to our ideals, then THEY set the laws.

Most laws are nothing like common sense, so you should use your own common sense to override them whenever necessary. Laws are just a guide.

It feels wrong and inhuman and callous not to do everything humanly possible
to let the ambulance past.

Agreed, and most do, however there are limits and you have to consider
just how much danger you might put someone else in whilst trying to
allow an ambulance though that *might* only be going to what turns out
to be a false alarm or (in comparison to the motorcyclist you now have
under your car), 'low priority'.

Why would you run over a motorcyclist? Can't you see where you're going? How do you manage to drive at all? It's EASIER when there's an emergency vehicle about, because everything drives slower or stops.

I've was once stuck as the first car at lights with an ambulance right
behind me wanting get past. I knew that if I wasn't there he would have had
authority to got through the lights on red. He was blocked from overtaking
on the wrong side by traffic coming from my right which was turning left (ie
towards us). That traffic really should have stopped at their green light to
let the ambulance through, but for whatever reason it didn't - not one
single car had the common decency to let the ambulance overtake.

Yup.

Probably morons like you following the law. Light says green, ambulance has to wait.

I was very frustrated that there was nothing (legal) I could do to let the
ambulance past until the lights turned green and I was able to go through
and turn left to let him past. I actually wanted to go straight on but if
I'd done that he'd have had to overtake me after the lights and there was a
long stream of traffic queueing for the lights that would have prevented him
doing so for some distance.

Yup, very frustrating for them I'm sure.

Easily avoided by getting out of their way like any decent human being. It's about time they fitted bull bars to ambulances to shove idiots out of the way.

I wish I'd been able to say "sorry: I *want* to let you through but I'm
prevented only by the fear of being done for going through red lights.. I
just hope those 30 seconds or so weren't critical for the life of the
patient.

Yup, we have all been there

Not me, I always let them past, no exceptions.

and 'of course' try to do what we can.
However, the laws re exactly what we can do are there fore a good
reason and those who actually know what they are can decide when and
where they break them, if that's what they feel inclined to do.

Only if you have OCD. Most people can interpret the law sensibly under different conditions.

There really does need to be a better way of letting emergency vehicles
through, but I can see the problems with changing the law to let road users
proceed, even with caution, through red lights or into a bus lane.

Quite, and hence why we have what we have now. Pull into a bus lane or
hard shoulder to allow a police car though and then block the
ambulance that's following up.

Impossible, the ambulance would be taking the same path as the police car. Obviously.

Pull across the lights and hit a
motorcycle

Look first then! Jesus Christ!

or block access to the fire engine coming in from the other
direction.

You missed a fire engine with flashing lights on it? Please go to specsavers before you get into your car again.

Perhaps
the only solution is for emergency vehicles to be able to turn red lights
green, which would a) stop conflicting traffic coming from left and right,
and b) allow vehicles in front to go though legally.

They can already, although I'm not sure if they do over here atm.

They just run the red. No need to change the lights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_signal_preemption

http://www.ambulancetoday.co.uk/news...16-copenhagen/

I suppose security of
such a mechanism against abuse and hacking is the main reason why it's never
been implemented.

https://www.wired.com/2005/08/traffi...hit-red-light/

There should be no such thing as red lights. Roundabouts and normal give way lines are just fine.

But it has been implemented (see above) and may be coming for
passenger cars as well. ;-)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scie...led-in-UK.html

Soon to be on Ebay for £40.

I just hope if I do need an emergency vehicle that the Wilkinson troll
isn't out on the road ignoring the laws of the land and potentially
causing even more accidents (that said vehicles are obliged to stop
and deal with).

You'll be fine, because if you're the one needing the ambulance, then you won't be on the road obstructing it. I ALWAYS GET OUT OF THEIR WAY IMMEDIATELY. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? Then you say it's ME holding them up? Do you have any grasp of English at all?

The rules aren't setup for you or me, they are set up to be able to
prosecute Wilkinson or anyone else taking the rules into their own
hands.

You need to be prosecuted for causing an obstruction to an emergency vehicle. I'd give you 2 years jail time.

--
Paper clips are the larval stage of coat hangers.

In article , James Wilkinson Sword
writes
Well obviously driving onto a pavement full of pedestrians is stupid. But I never suggested that.
You said you drive on the pavement whenever you see an ambulance. You
did not qualify it in any way.
--
bert

In article , James Wilkinson Sword
writes
Why would any decent driver cause an accident? When an ambulance is around, everybody stops or slows down. Crashing into someone is almost
impossible.
Drives me up the wall. All these brainless idiots immediately slowing
down when they see an emergency vehicle instead of assessing the traffic
and gauging when they will meet the emergency vehicle or when it will be
behind them and pulling in at the appropriate time.
--
bert
Formerly qualified blue lights driver.