fewer prosecutions for emergency services

Originally Posted by danielf

I'm not sure if it's an accident when an offence has been committed. There's rules that Emergency services need to adhere to. If they flout these rules and people get injured/die, then prosecution is in order in my opinion.

They are allowed to commit certain offences in the course of their job

Blue Light Exemptions
There is no authority that issues permission to use blue, green or amber lights on your vehicle. You must just follow the law.
Any driver can drive using blue lights without needing any higher qualification that a driving licence. Most services do insist on their drivers undergoing some form of advanced driver training though, and there are moves to establishing a national standard.
While using blue lights, drivers are exempt from a number of motoring regulations, including

• treating a red traffic light as a give way sign
• passing to the wrong side of a keep left bollard
• driving on a motorway hard shoulder (even against the direction of traffic)
• disobeying the speed limit (police, fire and ambulance services only)

However, they are not allowed to

• ignore a 'no entry' sign
  
  
• ignore a 'stop' or 'give way' sign
• drive the wrong way down a one-way street
• ignore flashing signs at level crossings or fire stations
• cross a solid white line down the middle of the road*

*except in the same circumstances as everyone else (for instance to pass a stationary vehicle, slow moving cyclist or horse, or a road maintenance vehicle). This can cause problems for emergency drivers when other road users slow to let them pass where road markings indicate no overtaking.

Sometimes emergency vehicles may need to disobey other signs and regulations. This will depend on the professional judgment of the driver.

http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/index.p...&Itemid=61#ble

---------- Post added at 12:24 ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 ----------

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

your view on PC Dougal's innocence is not shared by all either

nor was his guilt

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

That's the problem though ,acting irresponsibly can be very subjective and leave emergency drivers wondering if they speed to a heart attack or a bomb threat will they get prosecuted if a pedestrian gets in the way .That's what happened to PC Dougal ,he responded to a ANPR event hit a girl and got sent to prison .Turned out that the ANPR was at fault but he still got sent to prison for basically doing his job

No. He was sent to prison because he killed someone whilst doing 94mph without blue lights and siren. If that's not irresponsible I don't know what is.

What's more, this wasn't even a life or death scenario. Just a suspect car. The fact that the ANPR was faulty is neither here nor there. He needlessly put lives at risk, and someone died. I think time in jail is more than warranted in this case.

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by danielf

I'm not sure if it's an accident when an offence has been committed.

Fair point. Missed that

There's rules that Emergency services need to adhere to. If they flout these rules and people get injured/die, then prosecution is in order in my opinion.

Maybe.

http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/index.p...&Itemid=61#ble

Any driver can drive using blue lights

That's worrying

[Taf]

Any driver can drive using blue lights

That's worrying

I think that refers to any policeman, fireman or ambulance driver, not Joe Public.

But don't Customs and Excise, Coastguard, Mountain Rescue, and a few others use blue lights as well?

Originally Posted by danielf

No. He was sent to prison because he killed someone whilst doing 94mph without blue lights and siren. If that's not irresponsible I don't know what is.

What's more, this wasn't even a life or death scenario. Just a suspect car. The fact that the ANPR was faulty is neither here nor there. He needlessly put lives at risk, and someone died. I think time in jail is more than warranted in this case.

He reacted to information given and followed accepted protocol .The decision, was his to make ,he made what he thought was the right decision given his local knowledge and got punished for it and because of cases like this many drivers are scared to pursue criminals or drive fast to emergencies and given that emergency drivers have a specific response time they are stuck between a rock and a hard place

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

He reacted to information given and followed accepted protocol .The decision, was his to make ,he made what he thought was the right decision given his local knowledge and got punished for it and because of cases like this many drivers are scared to pursue criminals or drive fast to emergencies and given that emergency drivers have a specific response time they are stuck between a rock and a hard place

That's not what the IPCC thought (which rather suggests he did not follow accepted protocol; I'm not sure why you even say that, because it's not mentioned anywhere in the article.)

After the trial Gary Garland, the North East Commissioner for the Independent Police Complaints Commission, said the tragedy "should have been totally avoidable".

He added: "PC John Dougal is a highly trained police driver, yet he chose to take totally unnecessary and unacceptable risks and travel at high speed on a residential road.

"He had no justification whatsoever to drive at such excessive speed.

"Being a highly trained police driver should never be used as licence to take unnecessary risks on public roads."

I accept that there may be situations where time is essential and use of lights and sirens not advisable, but this does not appear to be one of those situations. Someone died as a result of a decision he made and he is held responsible. It seems right to me that where someone can put the life of others at risk in his or her job they cannot do so with impunity.

Originally Posted by danielf

That's not what the IPCC thought (which rather suggests he did not follow accepted protocol; I'm not sure why you even say that, because it's not mentioned anywhere in the article.)

.

http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/di...1020001110.pdf

it gives complete guidelines for the use of lights and sirens ,scroll to the bottom paragraph i cannot copy the document as it's security doesn't allow it

I accept that there may be situations where time is essential and use of lights and sirens not advisable, but this does not appear to be one of those situations. Someone died as a result of a decision he made and he is held responsible. It seems right to me that where someone can put the life of others at risk in his or her job they cannot do so with impunity.

The problem faced by the driver is who and how the decision is made that the risk was unacceptable.Had the car being chased by PC Dougal been full of drugs would that then have been acceptable? .What happens if a ambulance driver refuses to speed and someone dies as a result ,is it acceptable that he chose to safeguard the general public but someone died as a result.The decision to drive at speed and break normal traffic rules is one faced by all emergency vehicle drivers and if they face prosecution for doing what is required of them if it goes wrong then what are they supposed to do ?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/di...1020001110.pdf

it gives complete guidelines for the use of lights and sirens ,scroll to the bottom paragraph i cannot copy the document as it's security doesn't allow it

It says that the decision is ultimately upto the driver, but that the safety of the public and the MPS staff must remain the priority. I would think that approaching the crest of a hill without lights or sirens is not putting the safety of the public first.

The problem faced by the driver is who and how the decision is made that the risk was unacceptable.Had the car being chased by PC Dougal been full of drugs would that then have been acceptable?.What happens if a ambulance driver refuses to speed and someone dies as a result ,is it acceptable that he chose to safeguard the general public but someone died as a result.The decision to drive at speed and break normal traffic rules is one faced by all emergency vehicle drivers and if they face prosecution for doing what is required of them if it goes wrong then what are they supposed to do ?

Yes, it is a decision they have to make, and no-one is suggesting they should be prosecuted if 'it goes wrong', but rather if they demonstrably 'get it wrong'. Yes, there will be accidents in situations where the course of action is justifiable, and that will be just that. Accidents. Regrettable, but a consequence of having emergency services travelling at speed. However, that does not mean members of the Emergency Services don't have to justify their decision. If it turns out their decision resulted in an unacceptable level of risk given the circumstances, there should be consequences.

Originally Posted by danielf

It says that the decision is ultimately upto the driver, but that the safety of the public and the MPS staff must remain the priority. I would think that approaching the crest of a hill without lights or sirens is not putting the safety of the public first.

.

It says a lot of things besides that and most is open to interpretation

Yes, it is a decision they have to make, and no-one is suggesting they should be prosecuted if 'it goes wrong', but rather if they demonstrably 'get it wrong'. Yes, there will be accidents in situations where the course of action is justifiable, and that will be just that. Accidents. Regrettable, but a consequence of having emergency services travelling at speed. However, that does not mean members of the Emergency Services don't have to justify their decision. If it turns out their decision resulted in an unacceptable level of risk given the circumstances, there should be consequences.

That is the proposal ,at the moment it seems that the default position is to prosecute .

[Derek]

Originally Posted by martyh

That is the proposal ,at the moment it seems that the default position is to prosecute .

My god, the CPS are accepting that when you go faster and ignore certain road traffic laws accidents might happen??

About time as well.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by martyh

That's the problem though ,acting irresponsibly can be very subjective and leave emergency drivers wondering if they speed to a heart attack or a bomb threat will they get prosecuted if a pedestrian gets in the way .That's what happened to PC Dougal ,he responded to a ANPR event hit a girl and got sent to prison .Turned out that the ANPR was at fault but he still got sent to prison for basically doing his job

He got dent to prison for hitting her at 94 mph with no prior warning from his blue lights and siren which is he had thought to have switched them on may well have prevented him killing her.

Remember the was no valid reason for him to drive with such scant regard for the rules of the road simply for a ANPR hit which could have been simply an out of date tax disc, he was justifiably jailed for this offence and should have received longer as to act as a warning to other officers as to the consequences of driving in such a dangerous and lethal manner.

---------- Post added at 20:27 ---------- Previous post was at 20:26 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

He reacted to information given and followed accepted protocol .The decision, was his to make ,he made what he thought was the right decision given his local knowledge and got punished for it and because of cases like this many drivers are scared to pursue criminals or drive fast to emergencies and given that emergency drivers have a specific response time they are stuck between a rock and a hard place

Protocol does not tell him to drive at 94 mph without his blues and twos being on.

---------- Post added at 20:30 ---------- Previous post was at 20:27 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

The problem faced by the driver is who and how the decision is made that the risk was unacceptable.Had the car being chased by PC Dougal been full of drugs would that then have been acceptable?

Still unacceptable to drive with such disregard for other peoples safety and the control room will tell a driver to back off if the is a danger to the public, but on this occasion he was the danger to the public and was rightly jailed.

Remember he still has a life to live unlike his victim who never stood a chance being hit at 94 mph.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by martyh

They are allowed to commit certain offences in the course of their job



http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/index.p...&Itemid=61#ble

---------- Post added at 12:24 ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 ----------



nor was his guilt

The police are fond of driving the wrong way down Clifton street in Cardiff which is a one way street. I haven't seen them do it for a while which is probably due to the nasty accident they caused last year when they sped the wrong way down Clifton street and hit a car as they emerged out of the junction. I didn't see the accident but I heard the bang a few streets away. I was on my way to the shops and people saying that as well as the one-way street and speeding they also went through a red light, that I can't confirm.

I don't know how badly hurt the woman was in the car they collided with but they swerved and hit a building, the fire services had to cut the roof off the car to extract the 3 officers.

I believe the police driver should be prosecuted in these circumstances.

Originally Posted by Peter_

He got dent to prison for hitting her at 94 mph with no prior warning from his blue lights and siren which is he had thought to have switched them on may well have prevented him killing her.

Remember the was no valid reason for him to drive with such scant regard for the rules of the road simply for a ANPR hit which could have been simply an out of date tax disc, he was justifiably jailed for this offence and should have received longer as to act as a warning to other officers as to the consequences of driving in such a dangerous and lethal manner.

.

actually the ANPR reported the car stolen (falsely) and in that area a stolen car usually leads to a drug shipment ,a bank robbery ,a body dump ......

Protocol does not tell him to drive at 94 mph without his blues and twos being on.

In some instances it does ,it is left up to the drivers discretion who uses his judgement and local knowledge ,that applies to fire engines and ambulance drivers as well

Still unacceptable to drive with such disregard for other peoples safety and the control room will tell a driver to back off if the is a danger to the public, but on this occasion he was the danger to the public and was rightly jailed

.

Empty wide road ,well lit ,stolen car ,late at night the 2nd best scenario for a chase if there must be one ,the only better scenario is a daylight empty road but how many of those do you see .The control room rely on the drivers info to decide if the chase goes ahead

I should add that i don't want to turn this thread into a debate on the conviction of PC Dougals conviction ,that has been done to death in it's own thread ,it is being used as a relatively current event that shows perfectly the dilemma faced by any emergency vehicle driver .They can pootle around at 30mph and let the fires burn ,the patients die and the crims get away or they can do their job without the fear of prosecution if things go wrong through no fault of their own

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Peter_

He got dent to prison for hitting her at 94 mph with no prior warning from his blue lights and siren which is he had thought to have switched them on may well have prevented him killing her.

And turning them on may have alerted the driver of the potentially stolen vehicle.

Originally Posted by Peter_

Remember the was no valid reason for him to drive with such scant regard for the rules of the road simply for a ANPR hit which could have been simply an out of date tax disc

Except the ANPR hit was for a stolen vehicle and not just a tax disc. I'll tell you what if your car ever gets nicked when you report it make sure that you mention to the Police they can't ever drive after it just in case.

Originally Posted by Peter_

Remember he still has a life to live unlike his victim who never stood a chance being hit at 94 mph.

He hadn't gone into a pursuit either so the control room wouldn't have called off anything.

Have you actually seen the footage? If not it's here.

From when he turned the car to pursue there was approximately 30 seconds before the impact. In that time he had to follow the car, make the control room aware of what was happening, confirm why the car was wanted, make progress on it to confirm the number of persons within and that the VRM was correct and it wasn't a misread and then if necessary activate the lights and sirens.

He wasn't hooring the car for hours round an estate.

Anyway I've had enough of the presumption that emergency service workers will be charged for crashes when they are going to emergencies when it's clear its not entirely their fault. A bit of common sense is long overdue.

Originally Posted by Escapee

The police are fond of driving the wrong way down Clifton street in Cardiff which is a one way street. I haven't seen them do it for a while which is probably due to the nasty accident they caused last year when they sped the wrong way down Clifton street and hit a car as they emerged out of the junction. I didn't see the accident but I heard the bang a few streets away. I was on my way to the shops and people saying that as well as the one-way street and speeding they also went through a red light, that I can't confirm.

I don't know how badly hurt the woman was in the car they collided with but they swerved and hit a building, the fire services had to cut the roof off the car to extract the 3 officers.

I believe the police driver should be prosecuted in these circumstances.

It's quite clear in the rules that they are not allowed to drive the wrong way down a one way street but are allowed to go through a red light with care,so yes going the wrong way down a one way street would and should result in prosecution if it ended badly