When to go through Red Traffic Lights?

fadetogrey

Yes I WAS walking......................:D

Scooby_Doo.

Outpost wrote: »

It seems to me that if you go through a red light while trying to let an emergency vehicle through and inadvertently cause a collision with another car, possibly even a fatality, they won't be holding the emergency vehicle responsible.

bigjl wrote: »

It would be the fault of the emergency vehicle. They are called "proximity accidents".

We were warned about them on our driving course.

Why do you say that?

The emergency services vehicle would be recorded as being involved in the collision but they are not responsible for the other driver electing to travel through a red light. They would therefore not be classed as being at fault, what have they done wrong?

The only case that they could be seen as being at fault is if it were a police vehicle and they directed the other vehicle through a red light and the had a collision.
But even then the other driver as a duty of case. You said it yourself red lights are to be treated as giveways.

bigjl

I will say it again, if an Emergency Vehicle uses it's audible and visual warnings to warn that it is about to claim an exemption from the RTA, and a collision occurs that would not have occurred if the Emergency Vehicle wasn't using its Audible and Visual warnings then it is considered to be the fault of the EV, as the accident wouldn't have occurred if they hadn't been there.

This is called a "proximity accident", though they probably call it a "proximity collision or incident" in these PC times.

Tell me scooby, do you tell your GP he is wrong when you go there for advice, or do you call a lawyer then try to argue that they are wrong.


Sometimes in life you just have to accept that somebody knows more about something than you do, this is called life, if I didn't know it to be factual why would I post it.


This isn't an endorsable offence, but the Police, Ambulance or Fire bods will end up paying for the damage if it can be proved that the accident wouldn't have accured without their actions.


I know one bloke that was driving through a large junction up near Baker Arms, he approached the red light, stopped, with all the noise going, car to his right stopped to allow him to go, he started through the junction and as he was halfway over a muppet drove straight into the back of the car that had stopped to allow him to cross, now you could say that the driver was not looking where he was going, which is almost certainly true.

However, matey boy gets lawyered up, the car he hit claimed off him, he claimed off the LAS, you couldn't make it up, but that is the way things are.

This isn't the start of a debate about "proximity accidents/incidents/collisions" or whatever they call them now, it is purely a statement of fact, take it or leave it, but no amount of discussion will change the facts.


The important word to consider scooby is PROXIMITY, the accident can be blamed solely on the fact that the Emergency Vehicle was there going neenaw.

Perhaps to say they are at fault is the wrong term, but they are liable for insurance reasons.

Scooby_Doo.

bigjl wrote: »

I will say it again, if an Emergency Vehicle uses it's audible and visual warnings to warn that it is about to claim an exemption from the RTA, and a collision occurs that would not have occurred if the Emergency Vehicle wasn't using its Audible and Visual warnings then it is considered to be the fault of the EV, as the accident wouldn't have occurred if they hadn't been there.

This is called a "proximity accident", though they probably call it a "proximity collision or incident" in these PC times.

Tell me scooby, do you tell your GP he is wrong when you go there for advice, or do you call a lawyer then try to argue that they are wrong.


Sometimes in life you just have to accept that somebody knows more about something than you do, this is called life, if I didn't know it to be factual why would I post it.


This isn't an endorsable offence, but the Police, Ambulance or Fire bods will end up paying for the damage if it can be proved that the accident wouldn't have accured without their actions.


I know one bloke that was driving through a large junction up near Baker Arms, he approached the red light, stopped, with all the noise going, car to his right stopped to allow him to go, he started through the junction and as he was halfway over a muppet drove straight into the back of the car that had stopped to allow him to cross, now you could say that the driver was not looking where he was going, which is almost certainly true.

However, matey boy gets lawyered up, the car he hit claimed off him, he claimed off the LAS, you couldn't make it up, but that is the way things are.

This isn't the start of a debate about "proximity accidents/incidents/collisions" or whatever they call them now, it is purely a statement of fact, take it or leave it, but no amount of discussion will change the facts.


The important word to consider scooby is PROXIMITY, the accident can be blamed solely on the fact that the Emergency Vehicle was there going neenaw.

Perhaps to say they are at fault is the wrong term, but they are liable for insurance reasons.

In some cases yes, but not all the time. You have never worked for the police, you work for the ambulance service and worked in a garage. Have you ever worked in insurance deal with such things?
I suspect not ye still you claim to know it all.