On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:00:07 +0100, Lordy wrote:

esp as ambulance purposes do not require the use of an ambulance,
something which is forgotten by people who can't read legislation
properly

I tell you what, seeing as you can read so "properly", have a go with
this little quote and see if you can comprehend what it means;

"As the law currently stands, there is no exemption from speed
limits for the carriage of blood and human organs. This was
specifically excluded from the legislation by those writing
the law."

Then obviously the law needs changing, along with many many others.

Bob

esp as ambulance purposes do not require the use of an ambulance, something
which is forgotten by people who can't read legislation properly

Quite. Hell, the relevant legislation is in the uk.transport FAQ.

But you're such a ****ing idiot, you can't even post the correct link to
your own website in in your own sig.
How funny is that (*cough* retard *cough*).

Once you actually find it, the information in
http://www.axalotl.demon.co.uk/transport/FAQ.html is a poorly researched
(that's assuming it has even been researched at all beyond personal
opinions) blanket statement and - as such - not correct.

To quote this FAQ;

"No statutory provision imposing a speed limit ... shall apply
to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire
brigade, ambulance or police purposes".

This conflicts with the actual legislation in which an ambulance (of any
form whatsoever, official or unmarked) is *not* exempt from speed limits
whilst transporting organs.


And that's just the accuracy of the first article in this "FAQ" that
I've had cause to look at. Doesn't hold out much hope for the rest of it
being any better, perhaps this is why it was hidden. Either way, might
be best to keep it like that.

HTH.


--
Lordy

esp as ambulance purposes do not require the use of an ambulance,
something which is forgotten by people who can't read legislation
properly

I tell you what, seeing as you can read so "properly", have a go with
this little quote and see if you can comprehend what it means;

"As the law currently stands, there is no exemption from speed
limits for the carriage of blood and human organs. This was
specifically excluded from the legislation by those writing
the law."

Then obviously the law needs changing

I'm not denying otherwise, clearly it does. Hopefully the decisions that
are made in the progress of this case may go some way towards changing
that, if only by the means of case law.

People here just seem to be under a few mis-conceptions as to what is
actually currently legal and what isn't. The driver in question
committed a crime hoping that on the slim offchance he got caught that
they would just get 'let off the hook' because it was such an important
journey. I agree completely with that decision, I would do the same
thing myself. And one of the Police forces involved clearly agreed it
was an important enough not to prosecute as well.

There is a clear difference between being 'let off the hook' and acting
lawfully. He was just unlucky to get caught by two Policeforces, and
that one of them was unfortunately not willing to overlook his crime.


--
Lordy

esp as ambulance purposes do not require the use of an ambulance,
something which is forgotten by people who can't read legislation
properly

I tell you what, seeing as you can read so "properly", have a go with
this little quote and see if you can comprehend what it means;

"As the law currently stands, there is no exemption from speed
limits for the carriage of blood and human organs. This was
specifically excluded from the legislation by those writing
the law."

Then obviously the law needs changing,

No it doesn't. He's wrong.


rotflmao. Be careful, if you stick your fingers any further down your
ears they'll meet in the middle


The GMB says he committed an offense - it says so on their webpage as
linked to at the start of this thread - that's good enough for me. I'll
take the word of one of the biggest legal organisations in this country
over the word of someone who think's their own opinion is the only one
that matters (that would be you, Mr Huge).

Of course, if you know more than the GMB then please inform them. I'm
sure they will be glad for the information...


--
Lordy

In article ,
spouted forth into uk.rec.cars.modifications...
The road was the A557 in Runcorn,
just heading down to J12 on the M56.


I've had a similar experience on Winwick road in Warrington (not that
far away from Runcorn). Gatso does the double blink, and it was like
staring directly into a lightening flash, or a normal handheld camera
flash a very close quarters.

Bloody more dangerous in my opinion that going a couple of MPH above a
trigger speed of the camera.

BTW, this camera is in a 40MPH section of a Dual carriageway that was
until last year a National speed limit area. the camera has been there
for atleast 3 years, but has only recently become active. It is in the
central reservation, and can be rotated.
--
Carl Robson
(The poster formerly known as Skodapilot)
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

There is a clear difference between being 'let off the hook' and acting
lawfully. He was just unlucky to get caught by two Policeforces, and
that one of them was unfortunately not willing to overlook his crime.

Crime??

What planet are you from?

Pillock!

There is a clear difference between being 'let off the hook' and acting
lawfully. He was just unlucky to get caught by two Policeforces, and
that one of them was unfortunately not willing to overlook his crime.

Crime??

What planet are you from?


Clearly if it wasn't a crime they wouldn't be able to press charges. It WAS
a crime, the question is should he have been done for it.

--
Dan

There is a clear difference between being 'let off the hook' and acting
lawfully. He was just unlucky to get caught by two Policeforces, and
that one of them was unfortunately not willing to overlook his crime.

Crime??

What planet are you from?

Read the posts, read the GMB website.

1 - Speeding.
2 - Illegally using blue lights.

Both of these are offenses. They may be justifiable given the
circumstances, but the law still says they are offenses.

Which part don't you understand ?

Pillock!

Oooh, name calling. Can I play ?

"******".


--
Lordy

Clearly if it wasn't a crime they wouldn't be able to press charges.
It WAS a crime, the question is should he have been done for it.

Which is obviously a big no, they shouldn't consider prosecuting him
given the extenuating circumstances of both his journey's intention and
travelling conditions.

The second Police force are just being ******* over it, but then -
that's generally the Police all over for you so it's nothing to really
get surprised about :/




--
Lordy

Pillock!

Oooh, name calling. Can I play ?

"******".
Lordy

I just hope you never need their services

The Gatso stuff should have been binned at source - harrasing emergency
services is completely rediculous.

I think you may find this is just the start and that it will start a war
against Gatsos