Legal Advice on Emergency Vehicles.

drummerboi1985

Hi Folks!!

Hope someone can help me out here although i'm not sure if this is the right area to be posting this. I have a bit of a debate going on with one of my friends regarding the legal ramifications of emergency vehicles going through red lights (regardless to whether there siren is active, or if they cause an accident.) I maintain that, although it is accepted and tolerated, the law states that any vehicle that passes through a red light is breaking the law, whilst my friend maintains that this particular law doesn't count for emergency vehicles if it be ambulance, police or others in this field.

I have tried looking online for guidance in this matter, but as you can imagine, it is not easily come by. Any help in resolving this would be much appreciated and any links that might relate to this topic would be welcome.

Thanking you in advance,
Mark

Victor

We don't do legal advice.

Most of the Road Traffic Acts don't apply to such drivers. However, that doesn't mean they can act dangerously. Successful claims have been made against ambulances that ran red lights.

Road Traffic Act 1994.

antoobrien

You'd need to ask a solicitor about it but AFAIK there are exceptions for emergency vehicles in emergencies.

Amtmann

Moved from Roads.

MagicSean

There is an exemption form most traffic laws for emergency vehicles. The exception being drink driving and dangerous driving offences.

Paulzx

The emergency driver will be exempt from prosecution for breaking the red light.

However, if he breaks a red light, causes a crash and is deemed to have acted dangerously he can be prosecuted for dangerous driving.

He will not be liable for the breaking of the red light but obviously a dangerous driving charge is much more serious.

Bosh

Paulzx wrote: »

The emergency driver will be exempt from prosecution for breaking the red light.

However, if he breaks a red light, causes a crash and is deemed to have acted dangerously he can be prosecuted for dangerous driving.

He will not be liable for the breaking of the red light but obviously a dangerous driving charge is much more serious.

Wot 'e said:

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 2004

27.—Requirements under the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2004 relating to vehicles and requirements, restrictions and prohibitions relating to the driving and use of vehicles, other than those provided under sections 49 and 50 (inserted by sections 10 and 11, respectively, of the Act of 1994), 51A and 52 (inserted by sections 49 and 50, respectively, of the Act of 1968) and 53 of the Principal Act and sections 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Act of 1994, do not apply to a driver of a fire brigade vehicle, an ambulance or the use by a member of the Garda Síochána of a vehicle in the performance of the duties of that member or a person driving or using a vehicle under the direction of a member of the Garda Síochána, where such use does not endanger the safety of road users.

Bosh

Bosh wrote: »

Wot 'e said:

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 2004

27.—Requirements under the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2004 relating to vehicles and requirements, restrictions and prohibitions relating to the driving and use of vehicles, other than those provided under sections 49 and 50 (inserted by sections 10 and 11, respectively, of the Act of 1994), 51A and 52 (inserted by sections 49 and 50, respectively, of the Act of 1968) and 53 of the Principal Act and sections 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Act of 1994, do not apply to a driver of a fire brigade vehicle, an ambulance or the use by a member of the Garda Síochána of a vehicle in the performance of the duties of that member or a person driving or using a vehicle under the direction of a member of the Garda Síochána, where such use does not endanger the safety of road users.

That section has been repelled by the Road Traffic Act 2010.

87.— (1) Requirements under the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2010 relating to vehicles and requirements, restrictions and prohibitions relating to the driving and use of vehicles, other than those provided under sections 49, 50, 51A, 52 and 53 of the Principal Act, sections 12, 13 and 15 of the Act of 1994 and sections 4 , 5 , 12 and 14 of this Act, do not apply to—

(a) the driving or use by a member of the Garda Síochána, an ambulance service or a fire brigade of a fire authority (within the meaning of the Fire Services Act 1981 ) of a vehicle in the performance of the duties of that member, or

(b) a person driving or using a vehicle under the direction of a member of the Garda Síochána,

where such use does not endanger the safety of road users.

(2) Section 27 of the Act of 2004 is repealed.

Bosh

Wot 'e said too

mediwheel

Well I have been both the driver and passenger of an emergency vehicle breaking lights that have resulted in collisions. Newlands X is a regular some vehicles stop and others dont and rear end the ones that do ! If the emergency vehicle does not make direct contact with any of the crashed vehicles its not involved in the collision. I once was contacted by an insurance company and asked for my account of a collision as the driver that drove into several cars that had stopped then fled the scene before the garda arrived !

TylerIE

drummerboi1985 wrote: »

Hi Folks!!

Hope someone can help me out here although i'm not sure if this is the right area to be posting this. I have a bit of a debate going on with one of my friends regarding the legal ramifications of emergency vehicles going through red lights (regardless to whether there siren is active, or if they cause an accident.) I maintain that, although it is accepted and tolerated, the law states that any vehicle that passes through a red light is breaking the law, whilst my friend maintains that this particular law doesn't count for emergency vehicles if it be ambulance, police or others in this field.

Just recalled that in the UK their Ambulance Training says that you MUST stop at a Red light before proceeding.... Perhaps thats where you got the idea from? Or there where NOBODY can cross a level crossing when the lights are red.

Or in some of the EMT / Para textbooks they refer to the law in some parts of the US that is similar.

DeltaEightOne

"That section has been repelled by the Road Traffic Act 2010"

This act creates some potentially dangerous anomalies for voluntary & other emergency services that operate fire engines, rescue vehicles etc

Civil Defence is one area that springs to mind straight away, this act states that "a fire brigade vehicle used by a fire authority (within the meaning of the Fire Services Act 1981)" is exempt from the regulations...

Civil Defence is not a fire authority... So does that mean that a Civil Defence fire engine, rescue unit etc is not covered by this exemption? Obviously ambulances of any description are covered (as ambulances are exempt carte blanche in this act)

There are also other companies/individuals offering fire engines for providing fire cover/flood relief etc, does this mean that if a privately owned fire engine was responding to a genuine emergency, its not covered either?

This section of the act seems rather half baked to me and totally inadequate and out of date... a typical Irish solution to an Irish problem... I'd say any prosecution case would be laughed at and/or ripped apart if it was ever brought to court

Paulzx

DeltaEightOne wrote: »

"That section has been repelled by the Road Traffic Act 2010"

This act creates some potentially dangerous anomalies for voluntary & other emergency services that operate fire engines, rescue vehicles etc

Civil Defence is one area that springs to mind straight away, this act states that "a fire brigade vehicle used by a fire authority (within the meaning of the Fire Services Act 1981)" is exempt from the regulations...

Civil Defence is not a fire authority... So does that mean that a Civil Defence fire engine, rescue unit etc is not covered by this exemption? Obviously ambulances of any description are covered (as ambulances are exempt carte blanche in this act)

If a Civil Defence fire appliance is responding to a fire or flood on blues it has obviously been requested and tasked by the Local Authority. This to me means they are then a fire brigade vehicle being used by the Fire Authority and would be covered.

If the Civil Defence decide inilaterally to respond without tasking then maybe they could be in trouble.

The legal eagles might have a better interpratation than that