Ambulance behind, red light, what's your move?

Davidth88 · 09-07-2012 11:23AM

I think there have been people done by ' safety ' cameras in this situation in the UK ( I am sure the Daily Fail will have examples )

Basically a person pulls forward ( which by the way would have been the right action ) and sets off the camera set up to catch people breaking the lights.

My opinion , the driver in lane 1 should have moved forward, I am sure ther would be enough room .

Indeed as if by magic

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204944/Driver-gets-60-fine-moving-yard-red-light-let-police-van-999-pass.html

corktina · 09-07-2012 12:26PM

Lane 1? thats about 4 lanes away....

Davidth88 · 09-07-2012 12:28PM

corktina wrote: »

Lane 1? thats about 4 lanes away....

I see that now , the left hand lane of the right hand filter lane......

listermint · 09-07-2012 01:49PM

Davidth88 wrote: »

I think there have been people done by ' safety ' cameras in this situation in the UK ( I am sure the Daily Fail will have examples )

Basically a person pulls forward ( which by the way would have been the right action ) and sets off the camera set up to catch people breaking the lights.

My opinion , the driver in lane 1 should have moved forward, I am sure ther would be enough room .

Indeed as if by magic

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204944/Driver-gets-60-fine-moving-yard-red-light-let-police-van-999-pass.html

uk has no relevance here....

Davidth88 · 09-07-2012 02:14PM

listermint wrote: »

uk has no relevance here....

I am fully aware that it has no relevance here . However there is at least one of these ' safety ' camera's in place here in Ireland . If the driver happened to pull forward on that junction and got photographed he would get an automatic letter even though what he did was correct .

I was only using the UK as a reference point because I was aware that people have been done over there .

mathepac · 09-07-2012 02:57PM

robbie7730 wrote: »

... Were you there at the time? Will that junction shape be different tomorrow? ...

Apart from the driver of the car on the video none of us was there in that situation. This is the crux of the matter, the point you miss.

All the discussion about "he should have done this" or "he could have done that" or "I'd have done the right thing (my own definition of the right thing of course)" is irrelevant and dismissive of a person who found him/herself in an awkward situation in an emergency. Not everyone in an emergency situation has the hindsight, calmness and total control of a key-board but total lack of knowledge of the ROTR as some posters here.

robbie7730 wrote: »

... No, a car blocked an ambulance. ...

I see an ambulance stuck in traffic. You and some other posters seem to see an easy target for criticism and derision.

robbie7730 wrote: »

... You believe that`s fine because you say the ROTR say it is.

Firstly I never said "that's fine" or stated that was my belief, check my posts.

Secondly I quoted the ROTR from the RSA web-site, precisely because I anticipated the "you say" accusation. I didn't say - I quoted the source. Maybe you believe the ROTR are irrelevant or just something you make up on the spur of the moment like the posters who were quick to condemn until two or three posters showed them that their knowledge of the ROTR and traffic laws are, shall we say, not quite perfect?

Some posters even went so far as to describe the driver as the "offending driver". What offence did the driver commit? Did s/he offend their dress sense or their taste in cars? S/he certainly committed no driving or traffic offence that I could see.

robbie7730 wrote: »

... So then, you are confirming that car could do nothing more?

Cars don't yet make decisions in situations like the one the driver is in.

The driver, based on what I have seen taking the ROTR into account, made a safe and for them correct decision not to move.

frankled · 09-07-2012 03:58PM

People often have the tendency to refer to the fact that it is easy to make a judgement in hindsight from the comfort of being behind a keyboard.

However, to be on the road I believe you should be able to make an efficient and timely decision leading to an appropriately safe manouvre to ensure the safe passage of an ambulance which is quite clearly in a huge rush. So to say 'hindsight is wonderful' etc. is a bit redundant. Yes I'm sure many could panic in such a situation as the above, my opinion is that if they are on the road in the first place they should be capable of making a decision and not freezing uselessly.

Furthermore, this particular video is debatable, I, like many others, feel the car in question could have done a lot more to get out of the way of the ambulance.

mathepac · 09-07-2012 04:34PM

robbie7730 wrote: »

Yes, because you are argueing over red lights, ROTR and wet roads. ...

All of which are relevant to the discussion, to road-safety and no doubt the driver's decision-making at the time. Fair play to the driver for making the correct decision for him / her in the circumstances with so many complex factors in play.

Anyone failing to see the relevance of these factors, must find it challenging to make good, safe decisions in emergency situations.

frankled wrote: »

People often have the tendency to refer to the fact that it is easy to make a judgement in hindsight from the comfort of being behind a keyboard. ....

I seem to be the only one pointing out the obvious in this thread, time and time again. For example, "know, understand and use the ROTR" might seem redundant, yet a number of posters here who apparently feel themselves competent to comment clearly had no knowledge of the ROTR or traffic laws. I've also pointed this out before.

frankled wrote: »

... However, to be on the road I believe you should be able to make an efficient and timely decision leading to an appropriately safe manouvre to ensure the safe passage of an ambulance which is quite clearly in a huge rush. ...

Your beliefs are irrelevant here. What is relevant is what the ROTR say. Refer to the quote in my post above to refresh yourself with the precise content.

There is no obligation on a civilian road-user " to ensure the safe passage of an ambulance ". Again perhaps you might refer to the quote in my earlier post above to familiarise yourself with the obligations of a civilian road-use and the caveat contained therein.

frankled wrote: »

... Yes I'm sure many could panic in such a situation as the above, my opinion is that if they are on the road in the first place they should be capable of making a decision and not freezing uselessly...

While you are certainly entitled to an informed opinion, there is no evidence that the driver failed to make a decision, made a bad decision, panicked or froze. The only evidence is that the car didn't move which in all the circumstances appears to be the correct decision from a safety perspective.

Idbatterim · 09-07-2012 05:31PM

the driver had at least another half meter, before jutting out any further than the kerbing! the person in the jeep or SUV could have crossed the median, could have been dodgy though. If i were in that ambulance, id have probably lost the plot and shunted the driver in what appears to be a 3 door vw, most likely a polo...

mathepac · 09-07-2012 06:18PM

Idbatterim wrote: »

... If i were in that ambulance, id have probably lost the plot and shunted the driver in what appears to be a 3 door vw, most likely a polo...

You're probably in the safest place for all concerned though, here, driving a keyboard.

Idbatterim · 09-07-2012 06:20PM

You're probably in the safest place for all concerned though, here, driving a keyboard.

would you think the same if that the person either in or waiting on the ambulance lost their life due to that crucial one minute? there is no excuse for that driving (or lack of it, whatsoever). The ambulance arrives at the junction, at 00:04 and when the car drives by at 01:06, so it was delayed for over a minute and god knows how long after that... There was an alternative, the silver car could have reversed, it had about 20 seconds before another car came up behind it...

frankled · 09-07-2012 07:24PM

mathepac wrote: »

All of which are relevant to the discussion, to road-safety and no doubt the driver's decision-making at the time. Fair play to the driver for making the correct decision for him / her in the circumstances with so many complex factors in play.

Anyone failing to see the relevance of these factors, must find it challenging to make good, safe decisions in emergency situations.
I seem to be the only one pointing out the obvious in this thread, time and time again. For example, "know, understand and use the ROTR" might seem redundant, yet a number of posters here who apparently feel themselves competent to comment clearly had no knowledge of the ROTR or traffic laws. I've also pointed this out before.
Your beliefs are irrelevant here. What is relevant is what the ROTR say. Refer to the quote in my post above to refresh yourself with the precise content.

There is no obligation on a civilian road-user " to ensure the safe passage of an ambulance ". Again perhaps you might refer to the quote in my earlier post above to familiarise yourself with the obligations of a civilian road-use and the caveat contained therein.
While you are certainly entitled to an informed opinion, there is no evidence that the driver failed to make a decision, made a bad decision, panicked or froze. The only evidence is that the car didn't move which in all the circumstances appears to be the correct decision from a safety perspective.

My overall point is, that regardless of what the ROTR say, what happened in this video is not what should have happened. If every road user was to have no practical inclination whatsoever then we'd have chaos. The ROTR have to be there, but there comes a point where common sense must prevail in certain situations.

vectra · 09-07-2012 07:57PM

corktina wrote: »

Id have broken the lights without hesitation...no Gard would do you for it.

Often did it here for the ambulance/Garda/Fire service.. Never a word said to me.

colm_mcm · 09-07-2012 08:44PM

Given the speed and line the drivers turning onto the naas road, you could forgive the driver for not wanting to drive out. If someone walloped the persons car it'd be their fault,

At least there'd be an ambulance nearby

mathepac · 09-07-2012 09:43PM

frankled wrote: »

My overall point is, that regardless of what the ROTR say, what happened in this video is not what should have happened. If every road user was to have no practical inclination whatsoever then we'd have chaos....

So your overall point is to disregard the ROTR and their clear instructions in order to avoid chaos. That's akin to saying that in order to avoid dying we all commit mass suicide. Oh and another line of "shudda, cudda, wudda ...".

frankled wrote: »

... The ROTR have to be there, but there comes a point where common sense must prevail in certain situations.

You follow up by saying the ROTR should be set aside as impractical and that common sense should be used at the driver's discretion.

That'll be another fine mess you'll get us into then if we follow your extremely odd line of reasoning and logic.

conzy · 09-07-2012 09:48PM

I would have gotten the fook out of the way, they obviously have no common sense, they only needed to move forward and to the side 3 metres and didnt have to put themselves in danger. The ambulance could have edged into the junction then until cars were aware and drove on.

wonski · 09-07-2012 11:25PM

mathepac wrote: »

So your overall point is to disregard the ROTR and their clear instructions in order to avoid chaos. That's akin to saying that in order to avoid dying we all commit mass suicide. Oh and another line of "shudda, cudda, wudda ...".
You follow up by saying the ROTR should be set aside as impractical and that common sense should be used at the driver's discretion.

That'll be another fine mess you'll get us into then if we follow your extremely odd line of reasoning and logic.

The general rule for me is to give a way/ get out of a way for emergency vehicle regardless of what the rules of the road say, and any rules really. One thing - i only do it when i am sure it is safe to do so. And it is me - the driver to decide if it is safe, and to make decision. Even if the ambulance was behind me flashing and honking, with sirens on - i would not move unless it is safe. Better safe than sorry they say.

As for the clip - i can't say for sure if he had enough clearance to move or not, so can't comment. Doesn't matter now anyway...

frankled · 09-07-2012 11:37PM

mathepac wrote: »

So your overall point is to disregard the ROTR and their clear instructions in order to avoid chaos. That's akin to saying that in order to avoid dying we all commit mass suicide. Oh and another line of "shudda, cudda, wudda ...".
You follow up by saying the ROTR should be set aside as impractical and that common sense should be used at the driver's discretion.

That'll be another fine mess you'll get us into then if we follow your extremely odd line of reasoning and logic.

Do you drive?

Although you seem to be ignoring it for the sake of making out I'm some nutjob who thinks we should all disregard the rules of the road- my point is that in a situation such as the above it really is sensible, for the sake of potentially saving a life, to use some pragmatism and common sense on the road. There are plenty of incidents when driving where people may be forced to break a rule of the road, albeit cautiously. I'm not suggesting for one second the rules of the road should be broken constantly.

Akin to suggesting we commit mass suicide to avoid dying? No. Dunno where that's coming from.

I hate to think that if you're faced with a situation such as the above or similar you would just sit there and say "no, sorry, rules of the road say I must keep my hands at ten and two and not pass this line."

ROTR are there for a reason but common sense is needed for any driver, the driver in this clip did not show it, and it could have led to a death.

I've made my point repeatedly, so in that sense I'm going to attempt to sign out of this thread now.

cormie · 10-07-2012 12:32AM

mathepac wrote: »

So your overall point is to disregard the ROTR and their clear instructions in order to avoid chaos. That's akin to saying that in order to avoid dying we all commit mass suicide. Oh and another line of "shudda, cudda, wudda ...".

Would you cross a solid white line in order to avoid a car that's lost control and is in your lane coming towards you even if it meant breaking the ROTR?

mathepac · 10-07-2012 02:29AM

frankled wrote: »

Do you drive? ...

In more cars, in places and for times and distances that you can't even imagine

frankled wrote: »

... I've made my point repeatedly, so in that sense I'm going to attempt to sign out of this thread now.

That's good because all I've taken from your posts is your encouragement to people to ignore the ROTR and to possibly place themselves and others in harm's way.

@robbie7730 thanks for highlighting the spelling & grammar mistakes

mathepac · 10-07-2012 02:33AM

cormie wrote: »

Would you cross a solid white line in order to avoid a car that's lost control and is in your lane coming towards you even if it meant breaking the ROTR?

If you want to start a thread on a different topic, then please do so. You started a good thread here, it's good stuff, but your last question is OT IMHO so I won't answer it.

Bruthal · 10-07-2012 02:50AM

mathepac wrote: »

In more cars. in places and for times and distances that you can't even imagine

That says it all imo.

cormie · 10-07-2012 07:17AM

mathepac wrote: »

If you want to start a thread on a different topic, then please do so. You started a good thread here, it's good stuff, but your last question is OT IMHO so I won't answer it.

I know it may sound like a bit of an extreme comparison, but one is breaking the ROTR to save yourself from a definite collision, while still putting yourself in a high danger situation (there may be other cars coming, you may also lose control with such urgent evasive measures), the other is breaking the ROTR to possibly assist in the saving of one's life, while putting yourself and others in minimum danger. They are different, but not miles apart

Bruthal · 10-07-2012 08:38AM

mathepac wrote: »

@robbie7730 thanks for highlighting the spelling & grammar mistakes

What???

Bruthal · 10-07-2012 09:22AM

cormie wrote: »

I know it may sound like a bit of an extreme comparison, but one is breaking the ROTR to save yourself from a definite collision, while still putting yourself in a high danger situation (there may be other cars coming, you may also lose control with such urgent evasive measures), the other is breaking the ROTR to possibly assist in the saving of one's life, while putting yourself and others in minimum danger. They are different, but not miles apart

Since his driving experience is so vast, and beyond our imaginations, all while never straying outside the ROTR, what you say is likely irrelevant like I was told.

So, I ask him this.

mathepac, would you go through a red light if an ambulance was directly behind you, and the red light was a pedestrian one with no junction and no one crossing? Or would you stick to you`re ROTR?

dr.fuzzenstein · 10-07-2012 09:48AM

Right, this has just turned into an "IS!", "ISN'T!", "IS!", "ISN'T!", "IS!", "ISN'T!" slagging match.
Just to re-iterate my points:
The driver could easily have moved one more lousy inch to let the ambulance past. Some trolls are taking up a contrary position because they simply enjoy 25 pages of ranting and arguing and come out with ever more ridiculous and convoluted arguments. Especially comparing that tosser moving one more inch with mass suicide.
That was class! It is hyperbole on a scale that I cannot ever hope to match.
Whoever made that argument would have to be 12 years old.
Anyways, it's time to bow out of this thread, it's been going in circles since page 5, as they usually do, so the vultures can pick the bones of it clean in peace. Thread unfollowed.

mathepac · 10-07-2012 10:57AM

cormie wrote: »

... They are different, but not miles apart

There you go. See how easy that was? You that knew all along didn't you, you little chancer you?

robbie7730 wrote: »

...
So, I ask him this.

mathepac, would you go through a red light if an ambulance was directly behind you, and the red light was a pedestrian one with no junction and no one crossing? Or would you stick to you`re ROTR?

Sorry I can't answer that here as IMHO it's OT.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

... Thread unfollowed.

Eggsellent, Smithers, eggsellent. My plan is working, working I tell you.

With the latest batch of unfollowers the IQ level will be so high soon, we'll enter Larry's "Just a Minute Quiz". We'll lose but we'll enter in the Olympic spirit. Feck the rules, come join us on the highways and byways of Ireland the last remaining rule-free environment, the home of true adventurers and free-spirits. We'll kill each other but we'll have such fun doing it Smithers we won't even notice we're dead. Pedal harder Smithers, we must make up for lost time here, pedal I say, pedal.

dr.fuzzenstein · 10-07-2012 11:24AM

mathepac wrote: »

With the latest batch of unfollowers the IQ level will be so high soon, we'll enter Larry's "Just a Minute Quiz". We'll lose but we'll enter in the Olympic spirit. Feck the rules, come join us on the highways and byways of Ireland the last remaining rule-free environment, the home of true adventurers and free-spirits. We'll kill each other but we'll have such fun doing it Smithers we won't even notice we're dead. Pedal harder Smithers, we must make up for lost time here, pedal I say, pedal.

I did check in again out of morbid curiosity and this just supports my 12 year old troll argument.

Bruthal · 10-07-2012 11:31AM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I did check in again out of morbid curiosity and this just supports my 12 year old troll argument.

Yes, looks like you were spot on.

frankled · 10-07-2012 12:06PM

mathepac wrote: »

In more cars, in places and for times and distances that you can't even imagine
That's good because all I've taken from your posts is your encouragement to people to ignore the ROTR and to possibly place themselves and others in harm's way.

@robbie7730 thanks for highlighting the spelling & grammar mistakes

That's all YOU have taken from my posts. That's not what I said. I hope when faced with such a situation on the road you might be capable of utilizing some common sense as well as clutching the ROTR bible you worship so much.

And by the way, I shouldn't have to stress this, but I am NOT undermining the ROTR or saying they shouldn't be followed, etc.. Believe that if it makes you happy though.

Ambulance behind, red light, what's your move?

Comments