Blue Lights

Chippy_Minton_2

goldspanners wrote: »

i used to know a blood transfusion driver who did drive under blues for years but apparently the legislation al changed about this and who could drive under blues a few years ago. i haven't read the whole thread because A i can't be arsed and B im pished.so thisd may have been pointed out previously.

One thing that does make me laugh about the blood transfusion service is when you see them on blues travelling down the motorway. Stuck out in lane 3 all lit up at 70mph. They are not keeping pace with the vehicles in front and holding uo the ones behind.

cyclonebri1

goldspanners wrote: »

i used to know a blood transfusion driver who did drive under blues for years but apparently the legislation al changed about this and who could drive under blues a few years ago. i haven't read the whole thread because A i can't be arsed and B im pished.so thisd may have been pointed out previously.

Reminder to gs not to post when "pished", ;):rotfl::rotfl:

goldspanners

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Reminder to gs not to post when "pished", ;):rotfl::rotfl:

i won't remember the next time im pished.

cyclonebri1

Chippy_Minton wrote: »

One thing that does make me laugh about the blood transfusion service is when you see them on blues travelling down the motorway. Stuck out in lane 3 all lit up at 70mph. They are not keeping pace with the vehicles in front and holding uo the ones behind.[/QUOTE]


So other vehicles should be travelling at over 70mph

Chippy_Minton_2

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

So other vehicles should be travelling at over 70mph

Whether they should or shouldn't it a fact some do. Not everyone is perfect like yourself.:rolleyes:

mikey72

beefcarrot wrote: »

I'm a responder in Cornwall. Even responder cars with full livery are not allowed to use blues.

Our village first responsers have blues and twos.

mikey72

Wig wrote: »

Someone earlier in the thread, quoted the relevant section of RTA, whoever it was has now deleted it, but I remember it saying words similar to

"except those vehicles used exclusively for emergency response"

What I believe it was saying is if the vehicle is used exclusively for emergency response (as defined) it could have blue lights fitted and that included mountain rescue, fire, blood transfusion etc etc etc etc

If the car has full emergency livery, as long as it is not used exclusively for emergency response it cannot have blues, i.e. the car also goes to Asda for the weekly shopping and to & from work. There must however be (or may be) an exception to this rule because I'm thinking of Fire chief cars and "The Bill" (the TV series ) when they put a blue light on the dash.... ???

The OPs vehicle (I imagine) is used exclusively for emergency response.

OP what is the vehicle? I am curious, is it an ATV or Quad bike?

Definately exceptions, I've know a plain white corsa 1.5d with grille lights, and siren, used by a paramedic, his own personal car, and definately used for asda shopping. Working as IT manager in the control room, but available for emergencies as required.

DaveMacD

mikey72 wrote: »

Our village first responsers have blues and twos.

Where are you? I know there's at least one group in the Edinburgh area that has blues.

sebdangerfield

Premier wrote: »

I don't see anything in that link suggesting you are obliged to stop

I can't see anything in the highway code about it either.


http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069858

It wasn't anything specific, although this part touches on it;

if drivers in the emergency services were not allowed to drive their vehicles on the basis that pedestrians would recognise their warning lights and sirens and give them proper priority by keeping out of their paths.

It was the actual case I was talking about, It was held by the court of appeal that drivers of other vehicles are obliged to get out of the way of vehicles clearly responding to emergencies.

I don't understand the last bit, I didn't mention the highway code, I only quoted from the specific case law in which it was proven that members of the public are obliged to move.

Nilrem

sebdangerfield wrote: »

It wasn't anything specific, although this part touches on it;



It was the actual case I was talking about, It was held by the court of appeal that drivers of other vehicles are obliged to get out of the way of vehicles clearly responding to emergencies.

I don't understand the last bit, I didn't mention the highway code, I only quoted from the specific case law in which it was proven that members of the public are obliged to move.

However it's also been (IIRC) upheld that you should only move if it is safe to do so, and you are not breaking any laws in doing so, unless instructed specifically by a Police officer (the lights of the car aren't enough).
From memory that comes from cases where people have been done for moving forward at red lights, even just a few feet to allow an emergency vehicle past.

Basically you should make way as long as it is safe, and you are not breaking any other rules/laws by doing so.