Erm, humans *are* applying the law. Two Police forces came to differing decisions...
Erm, humans *are* applying the law. Two Police forces came to differing decisions...
Exactly, do what you have to in the *full knowledge* of what you are doing and accept the consequences later.
I'll look out for the cigarette lighter...
:-)
BChrist, is this thread still going ?
It's very clear. The law says it was a criminal act, and the regulations that cover ambulance drivers say it was a criminal act. How much clearer do you want it ?
Well spotted :)
Agreed, it was a conversation opener tho :)
He did not make a "mistake". He deliberately broke the law relying on the fact that if he was caught he would be let off for extenuating circumstances. And he did it in the full knowledge of what he was doing.
I agree, but neither yours nor my opinion of 'excessive' is relevant to anything. And regardless, 104 actual is likely to have been somewhere in the region of 115mph to 120mph indicated speed on his dashboard.
Since the law does not say it was a criminal act and "the regulations that cover ambulance drivers" appear to be a figment of your imagination, it's not at all clear cut.
You are claiming that speeding is not an offense ?
I know this group spouts some shit about speed limits not being fair, but you can't just stick your fingers in your ears and pretend they don't exist...
Actually it's called "Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984", so if you don't believe me I suggest you go and look for yourself.
Ambulance drivers transporting patients are exempted from speed limits under the regulations, as are police and fire engines. Vehicles carrying transplant organs or blood are not included in the act and are subject to normal speed limits and any other applicable laws (no running red lights, etc). For Gods sake, it even says on the website of the union that are supporting him that he was guilty of both speeding and abusing his position as an ambulance driver by using flashing blue lights in circumstances when he is not allowed to (the link that was provided at the start of this thread).
A quick Google picks this up;
So like I said, how much clearer do you want it ?
It's *very* clear cut, it just seems some people are blinded by the other factors in the case and unable to look at it as a whole. That or they just can't be arsed, considering their own opinions more important that the actual facts. I know some people on here have 'issues' with you, Steve, but I thought you were better than that :/
HTH
What may change is the legislation itself, as a result of the controversy surrounding the case. It will probably be brought into line with other newer legislation (such as signs), which differ in their definition of ambulances from the 1984 act, directly referencing an ambulance as a vehicle conveying injured people *or* organs.
When is the actual case now anyway, last I heard it was on June 11th, I assume it got adjourned again ?
The only thing that the case will do is to establish precedent. It's a grey area of the law that needs clarification. There's nothing in law that clearly states that a vehicle being used to transport blood or other tissues is exempt from speeding regulations nor OTOH does the law clarify that a vehicle being used for this purpose is not an ambulance. The statements that you have been reading have statements of the interpretation of the law, not the strict letter of the legislation.
That, presumably, is why the case has been brought before a court. To gain clarification of the status of ambulances being used to transport organs for transplant.
I thought it was September but I'm not sure.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.