Getting a ticket for moving out of the way of an emergency vehicle

Car_54

ElephantBoy57 said:

Car_54 said:

The official police advice is to comply with the law, and NOT to cross the stop line unless directed to do so by a uniformed police officer.

But in busy built up areas, people use common sense.

... and get caught on camera.

A_Lert

The law is indeed quite clear. Making way for an emergency vehicle does not justify breaking traffic rules.

The bus lane case invariably prompts the question, why not let the ambulance use the bus lane! While at red lights, advancing could both be dangerous and incurs a more severe penalty.

In practice a police officer would I think be very unlikely to stop you for this. But cameras have no discretion and once issued the penalty is extremely unlikely to be rescinded. And remember at a red light, if any part of your vehicle crosses the stop line when the light is red, the law considers that an offence, even if it's just six inches of bumper and poses no conceivable hazard to anyone.

Supersonos

Deleted_User said:

Supersonos said:

spiritus said:

I recently heard of someone who moved into a bus lane to allow an ambulance to get past him. His car reg was clocked by a camera and he ended up getting a ticket.
The more I read into this the more it seems that you should not move out of the way of emergency vehicles if that involves entering box junctions, bus lanes, red lights etc.
Can anyone shed any light on whether the law allows some tolerance in these situations?

This is basic driving skills.  It was covered by my driving instructor when I learnt to drive and I'm pretty sure it's mentioned in the highway code.

I'm sure quality of driving lessons has slipped since the introduction of a multiple-choice theory test.  Middle lane driving is endemic, very few people seem to be aware of speed limits or the need to "make good progress" and now people are questioning if it's ok to break the rules to let through an ambulance.

I find that interesting, obviously as all good drivers know, the speed limit is a limit, not a target (rule 146 and also 125). However, I found a driving test site which advises on where instructors count a fault under "making progress" as  

• Crawls along at slow speeds on clear roads.
• Makes no attempt to achieve maximum speeds for the road when safe to do so

Crawls is quite a subjective word, to some people you are crawling if you do 55 in a 60 limit or even 80 on the motorway, but others might say even 40 in a 60 is fine. Similarly, the idea you must attempt to achieve maximum speed is interesting as it's a direct contradiction of the highway code. The word progress doesn't appear in the highway code

I always thought the "making good progress" part of the exam is there to show confidence.  If the driver only ever manages 45 in a 60 (assuming it's dry/clear etc and safe to go faster) then the driver probably isn't confident enough and shouldn't pass.

But for experienced drivers, I assume this is because they're distracted or just don't pay attention to the limits/road conditions and the queue of cars behind them.

AdrianC

Supersonos said:

Deleted_User said:

Supersonos said:

I'm sure quality of driving lessons has slipped since the introduction of a multiple-choice theory test.  Middle lane driving is endemic, very few people seem to be aware of speed limits or the need to "make good progress" and now people are questioning if it's ok to break the rules to let through an ambulance.

I find that interesting, obviously as all good drivers know, the speed limit is a limit, not a target (rule 146 and also 125). However, I found a driving test site which advises on where instructors count a fault under "making progress" as  

• Crawls along at slow speeds on clear roads.
• Makes no attempt to achieve maximum speeds for the road when safe to do so

Crawls is quite a subjective word, to some people you are crawling if you do 55 in a 60 limit or even 80 on the motorway, but others might say even 40 in a 60 is fine. Similarly, the idea you must attempt to achieve maximum speed is interesting as it's a direct contradiction of the highway code. The word progress doesn't appear in the highway code

I always thought the "making good progress" part of the exam is there to show confidence.  If the driver only ever manages 45 in a 60 (assuming it's dry/clear etc and safe to go faster) then the driver probably isn't confident enough and shouldn't pass.

But for experienced drivers, I assume this is because they're distracted or just don't pay attention to the limits/road conditions and the queue of cars behind them.

Or because they've lost the confidence they used to have.

I don't think it's particularly controversial to suggest that a heck of a lot of drivers would not pass the driving test if they had to take one tomorrow.
Yes, many would just give themselves a shake, pay a bit more attention, and pass with ease. But a LOT would struggle badly - because either they're simply no longer capable physically or mentally, or because they're too arrogant to accept that their skills have slipped to a level below the minimum acceptable.

There is a VERY strong argument for periodic retesting of all drivers.
The costs would be covered by fees. The fees would be relatively low, when viewed across the retest interval.
I suggest something like 1yr/4yrs/10yrs after first test, then 10yr intervals until age 70, at which point it's linked to licence renewal.
One retest within 2 months of a fail, else back to provisional and L-plates.
For those on a provisional, whether for the first time or back on one, maximum five test attempts in any 5yr period.

Biggus_Dickus

AdrianC said:

Supersonos said:

Deleted_User said:

Supersonos said:

I'm sure quality of driving lessons has slipped since the introduction of a multiple-choice theory test.  Middle lane driving is endemic, very few people seem to be aware of speed limits or the need to "make good progress" and now people are questioning if it's ok to break the rules to let through an ambulance.

I find that interesting, obviously as all good drivers know, the speed limit is a limit, not a target (rule 146 and also 125). However, I found a driving test site which advises on where instructors count a fault under "making progress" as  

• Crawls along at slow speeds on clear roads.
• Makes no attempt to achieve maximum speeds for the road when safe to do so

Crawls is quite a subjective word, to some people you are crawling if you do 55 in a 60 limit or even 80 on the motorway, but others might say even 40 in a 60 is fine. Similarly, the idea you must attempt to achieve maximum speed is interesting as it's a direct contradiction of the highway code. The word progress doesn't appear in the highway code

I always thought the "making good progress" part of the exam is there to show confidence.  If the driver only ever manages 45 in a 60 (assuming it's dry/clear etc and safe to go faster) then the driver probably isn't confident enough and shouldn't pass.

But for experienced drivers, I assume this is because they're distracted or just don't pay attention to the limits/road conditions and the queue of cars behind them.

Or because they've lost the confidence they used to have.

I don't think it's particularly controversial to suggest that a heck of a lot of drivers would not pass the driving test if they had to take one tomorrow.
Yes, many would just give themselves a shake, pay a bit more attention, and pass with ease. But a LOT would struggle badly - because either they're simply no longer capable physically or mentally, or because they're too arrogant to accept that their skills have slipped to a level below the minimum acceptable.

There is a VERY strong argument for periodic retesting of all drivers.
The costs would be covered by fees. The fees would be relatively low, when viewed across the retest interval.
I suggest something like 1yr/4yrs/10yrs after first test, then 10yr intervals until age 70, at which point it's linked to licence renewal.
One retest within 2 months of a fail, else back to provisional and L-plates.
For those on a provisional, whether for the first time or back on one, maximum five test attempts in any 5yr period.

...you’re all heart, Adrian. 

AdrianC

You want to share the roads with those too perennially incompetent to pass a test? I don't.

Homer_home

AdrianC said:

You want to share the roads with those too perennially incompetent to pass a test? I don't.

Most of us do every day on the drive to work!

And for all we know you're one of them!

AdrianC

Homer_home said:

AdrianC said:

You want to share the roads with those too perennially incompetent to pass a test? I don't.

Most of us do every day on the drive to work!

And for all we know you're one of them!

And that's a situation you want to continue, is it?

Wouldn't it be preferable to address that by removing the terminally incompetent and "up-skilling" the rest?

A driving test currently costs £62. Is six quid a year too much to ask? We already pay a quarter of that for the photocard.