ADUK Archive

Further to the suggestion in another thread that when we are waiting at a red light we should be prepared to take risks to our personal safety in order to assist the driver of an emergency vehicle wishing to get passed, I thought I would conduct a poll to determine how far people would go when faced with this situation.

The scenario is you are waiting at traffic lights, first in the queue and the driver of the emercency vehicle behind is making it clear he wants you to move out of the way. Crossing the stop line is your only option. (Please ignore the situation of a Police officer 'directing' you from his vehicle to avoid complications).

Should have had a middle option, I'd go through safely without a second thought about a ticket, however if they subsequently tried to prosecute me I go to court and contest it all the way.

Whilst I sympathise with Red Herring's view, I have to say "what would be the point?". So much that I read from the Police (including posters on here) and on other forums, and everything one can divine from the utterings of our Government ministers, is that conformity to the rules is valued above all else. Don't think, just do as we tell you.

Then again, just writing that invokes a rebellious streak in me, so scrap that. I'm with you Red Herring. I would rather go down fighting than give in to the idiotic Rules based path we are heading down. I'm for intelligent personal responsibility - on this point, and most things to do with driving (or anything else). And I'm for a Government (and its agencies) that encourages intelligent personal responsibility (within a sensible framework of laws) through training, encouragement and a justice system that is sufficiently sophisticated to work in that environment.

(Apologies for perhaps going a bit far, but a system that turns me into a sheep make me very cranky.)

Kind regards

Steve

Red Herring wrote:Should have had a middle option, I'd go through safely without a second thought about a ticket, however if they subsequently tried to prosecute me I go to court and contest it all the way.

ditto

Red Herring wrote:Should have had a middle option, I'd go through safely without a second thought about a ticket, however if they subsequently tried to prosecute me I go to court and contest it all the way.

All the way? To the highest court in the land? You'd be risking maybe £100,000 in costs, years of torment and stress, for what was initially a £60 or so fine and three points? Justice and taking a stand for your principles I respect, but the court option is a tiger I'd avoid getting on in the first place - I'd take my slap on the wrist.

I opted for 3.

Interestingly now hackney carriage drivers are refusing to budge at ANY red light in Lonodn, so much so that using blue lights these days in town doesnt really save you much time. It will go the same way as the police, the government and the country, i.e it will get worse and worse and worse.

I very much agree with Steve's feelings.

One could incur enormous costs fighting a ticket, so although RH's attitude appeals to me in theory, I wouldn't go that route.

I voted option 3 and would not risk getting a ticket. If freed from that risk I'd be very willing to help an Emergency Services vehicle driver.

Officialdom really is fouling things up IMHO.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

stefan einz wrote:Whilst I sympathise with Red Herring's view, I have to say "what would be the point?". So much that I read from the Police (including posters on here) and on other forums, and everything one can divine from the utterings of our Government ministers, is that conformity to the rules is valued above all else. Don't think, just do as we tell you.

Then again, just writing that invokes a rebellious streak in me, so scrap that. I'm with you Red Herring. I would rather go down fighting than give in to the idiotic Rules based path we are heading down. I'm for intelligent personal responsibility - on this point, and most things to do with driving (or anything else). And I'm for a Government (and its agencies) that encourages intelligent personal responsibility (within a sensible framework of laws) through training, encouragement and a justice system that is sufficiently sophisticated to work in that environment.

(Apologies for perhaps going a bit far, but a system that turns me into a sheep make me very cranky.)

Kind regards

Steve

As always Steve, well put. I'm sure many will identify with your view.

I don't think you could fight liability for the offence but you may be able to plead 'special reason' so as to avoid a fine and the points.

Ideally it would be better if one could make representations to those initiating the prosecution process in order for those reasons to be considered.

MGF wrote:Ideally it would be better if one could make representations to those initiating the prosecution process in order for those reasons to be considered.

Ideally it would be better if those writing the laws allowed such "common sense" situations not to end up in prosecutions in the first place.

I imagine those running the prosecution will be given targets (just like every other poor sod in the public sector), so won't be interested in reasonable excuses if they've got you for a statutory offence with a low burden of proof that makes it easy to get a conviction.

I don't see a problem with the drafting of the laws in these cases. Those charged with the responsibility of initiating prosecutions are not bound to do so in every case. Both the Police (or whoever it is dealing with camera evidence) and the CPS have some discretion.

Is there evidence that the government set targets for red-light offences or that they count towards general targets?

Even if this is the case those initiating prosecutions are still required to exercise discretion and in particular to consider each prosecution on an individual basis in terms of not only the available evidence but also the public interest.

MGF wrote:in particular to consider each prosecution on an individual basis in terms of not only the available evidence but also the public interest.

Interesting, I wasn't aware of the public interest part. Any more info on how that is defined and who defines it?

Chris

ScoobyChris wrote:

MGF wrote:in particular to consider each prosecution on an individual basis in terms of not only the available evidence but also the public interest.

Interesting, I wasn't aware of the public interest part. Any more info on how that is defined and who defines it?

Chris

The Attorney General (Baroness Patricia Scotland) and Solicitor General (Vera Baird) have overall responsibility for the Treasury Solicitor and supervise the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, the Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office, HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate and the DPP for Northern Ireland.

Part of the duties of the Attorney General and Solicitor General are to be the Guardians of Public Interest.

Very recently there has been a revue of the role of the Attorney Generals Office (AGO) which included devolving more decision making to the DPP (head of CPS) so in most cases it would be the DPP making the decisions whilst still being answerable to the AGO. In practice this means that fewer cases are passed to the AGO and in the main, but not exclusively, are cases that might affect national security which are referred up to them.

Hope that helps, Chris.

Thanks, John! Very detailed as usual So that leaves the question, do they think it is in the public interest to prosecute drivers safely assisting an emergency vehicle ...? I can take a wild stab at the answer

Chris

ScoobyChris wrote:Thanks, John! Very detailed as usual So that leaves the question, do they think it is in the public interest to prosecute drivers safely assisting an emergency vehicle ...? I can take a wild stab at the answer

Chris