Calling all firefighters

[Plumber]

Since you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe the law...........

Condition 2: the emergency vehicle
For the purposes of this exemption, an emergency vehicle

is a vehicle which is used to respond to emergencies, and
either: has fixed to it a lamp designed to emit a flashing light for use in emergencies (“fixed” indicates that the light must be a permanent fitting to vehicle. It need not be permanently fixed to the exterior of the vehicle, but a vehicle with only a light which can be removed from the vehicle is not an ‘emergency vehicle’ for the purposes of this exemption)
or: would have such a lamp fixed to it but for the fact that a special threat to the personal physical security of those using it would arise by reason of it being apparent that they were employed in an emergency service (This text has been withheld because of exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000)).
Note that the type of emergency vehicle is not defined, so it could (in its non-emergency vehicle form) be a car or a van.

Note the bottom bit.



Section 87 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1987


a. Speed Limits Section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 19784 exempts certain emergency vehicles fromspeed limits if observance would hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose it was being used for on that occasion.

b. Red Traffic Lights (Sec 36 RTA 1988)The red signal shall convey the prohibition that traffic shall not proceed beyond the stop line. However, this is subject to: Exceptions to stopping at red or red/amber signal:-When a vehicle is being used for police purposes and the observance of the prohibitionconveyed by the red signal would be likely to hinder the use of that vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used, and the red signal shall convey the prohibition that that vehicle shall notproceed beyond the stop line in a manner or at a time likely to endanger any person or to cause the driver of any vehicle proceeding in accordance with the indications of light signalsoperating in association with the signals displaying the red signal to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident

c. Keep Left / Right signs (Sec 36 RTA 1988)The regulation also states that on an occasion where a vehicle is being used for police purposes and the observance of the requirement specified above would be likely to hinder the use of that vehicle then the requirement conveyed by the sign in question shall be that the vehicle shall not proceed beyond that sign in such a manner or at such a time as to be likely to endanger any person.

Just to reiterate, the law pertains to drivers excemptions not the vehicles they are driving, whether it is private or otherwise. It is for the driver to justify his actions.

As I said I know of several people who use their PRIVATE vehicles for police and fire purposes when on call. Specifically, police negotiators and at least 2 senior fire officers.

Didn't Bluntend say there was nothing more than a sign in the cars window saying "firefighter on call"? No mention of flashy blue lights and sirens, so by my reckoning it must have been a private vehicle.

 

[Tigger]

I wasn't being specific to that guy, just the generlisation that there are no excemptions for private vehicles. The excemptions are for the driver to justify.

Thing is if he was a retained firefighter and was genuinely on a shout, and an appliance came blatting out a few minutes later, then I would have said fair enough. Apply a bit of common sense. If he's late for work though, I would stick him on.

 

[firestorm]

So, are you saying that non-RAF fire fighters use their private vehicles in this way regularly?

Retained ones responding to a call would need to get to their station quickly. As I said before I have very little knowledge of retained ffs.

 

[firestorm]

Oh, very sharp tonight aren't you!

Just to clarify...

I have been a serving military firefighter for a little over 14 years now. However during that time I have been a retained firefighter in Cornwall for 4 Years, and a retained firefighter in Lincolnshire for 3 years.

I have also spent 3 years as a first responder for Avon ambulance authority, as well as being a crewman on an inshore lifeboat for 3 years.

My current posting prevents me from carrying out any of the above, or similar activities, but as soon as I can I will.

However the fact remains that throughout my service with the RAF, a local authority brigade, the ambulance service or the RNLI. I have never driven in such an irresponsible manner.

If the person in question was a retained firefighter, which I suspected all along, then they should be made to account for there actions. After all one of the conditions of joining the retained is that you must live or work within a specified distance or travveling time. usually 3-5 minutes, or 3 miles. Therefore with such a short distance to cover there is no excuse for risking lives.

....or put it into perspective. The said ff was en-route to his station because one of his friends/relatives or neighbours house or business was alight. Would you still sit in the nose to tail jam or drive as safe as you can to get to work and deal with the incident?

 

[firestorm]

I wasn't being specific to that guy, just the generlisation that there are no excemptions for private vehicles. The excemptions are for the driver to justify.

Thing is if he was a retained firefighter and was genuinely on a shout, and an appliance came blatting out a few minutes later, then I would have said fair enough. Apply a bit of common sense. If he's late for work though, I would stick him on.

Spot on Tigger.

 

[skevans]

I wasn't being specific to that guy, just the generlisation that there are no excemptions for private vehicles. The excemptions are for the driver to justify.

Thing is if he was a retained firefighter and was genuinely on a shout, and an appliance came blatting out a few minutes later, then I would have said fair enough. Apply a bit of common sense. If he's late for work though, I would stick him on.

Well at least we agree on something. The common sense approach. However Bluntend didnt say whether a fire appliance emerged from the station shortly after, and so in the abscence of this knowledge none of us can make any firm conclusions.

As you quite rightly said, the exemptions would need to be justified from the driver. Therefore they are not out and out exemptions. For example, there is a section of the law that says that vehicles over a certain age are exempt from paying road fund licence. This is an out an out exemption, as it is not an option that the driver may have to justify at a later time.

The Acts concerned state various lines of reasoning that generally ammount to 'when driving to an incident you can decide whether to stick to the letter of the law, or not if it is likely to hinder the purpose for which the vehicle is being used'. I would say that a collision with another vehicle/person/object is likely to hinder the purpose for which the vehicle is being used. furthermore in certain sects/para's such an action could constitute dangerous driving and a prosecution could be made.

I don't believe that any Police officer would want to prosecute someone who was driving an ambulance/appliance/patrol car, however that doesn't mean that it hasn't happened in the past, nor does it prevent it happening in the future. After all, where there is blaim there's a claim, so where the CPS say 'no prosecution' it doesnt prevent a private action being carried out.

I also know of police officers, and fire staff who use private vehicles when on duty, once again, these vehicles are normally equipped with either permanent or magnetic lights. I have never known of a case when such vehicles have been driven at speed to incidents without at least a visual warning device, though I doubt any of them have sirens fitted. (Its bad enough when car alarms go off at night, imagine siren!!!)

Note that the type of emergency vehicle is not defined, so it could (in its non-emergency vehicle form) be a car or a van.

I quite agree after all, what is a PTS vehicle without its lights horns and livery? Its a minibus. Fire support and BA support vehicle's are generally vans prior to being equipped with lights etc, and whats a police car when its striped of lights etc? It's a car. They are still used by us in there 'emergency vehicle form' On this note has anyone noticed the number of BA support vehicles used by the fire service these days that are fitted with amber lights not blue lights?

I don't believe that there are any TRUE exemptions from the RT Act, you can be held to account for your actions, and prosecuted. This is much the same as the shoot or not to shoot question when on guard, provided you stay within the guidance of card alpha you will be supported, however there is no guarantee that you wont be prosecuted.

On a lighter note it would appear that you can break the law and get away with it! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/567909.stm

 

[Tigger]

I don't believe that there are any TRUE exemptions from the RT Act,

Eh ? The road traffic act specifically lists 4. Thought you had done a fast response course ? You learn that on day 1 along with IPSGA.

 

[skevans]

Eh ? The road traffic act specifically lists 4. Thought you had done a fast response course ? You learn that on day 1 along with IPSGA.

But how can they be exemptions in the full meaning of the word, when you can be prosecuted for dangerous driving when using an 'exemption'? Any one of us can use it, but we can also be made to account for our actions.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exemption

check out the definition, am I really immune from prosecution if for example I go right at a keep left sign and have a collision?

 

[Tigger]

am I really immune from prosecution if for example I go right at a keep left sign and have a collision?

I guess you haven't done the fast response course then, given that answer.

Heres another word for you since you like them....'semantics'

 

[skevans]

I guess you haven't done the fast response course then, given that answer.

More a rhetorical question than an answer. but therein lies the nub of it all. I am not immune from prosecution, therefore I am not truly exempt from the law. Although I do have the ability to choose how and when to apply the law in certain circumstances.

You mentioned earlier that private vehicles could be used as emergency vehicles. you might like to read about the bad time this guy has had
http://www.paramedic.org.uk/news_archive/2004/06/News_Item.2004-06-18.1136/view
http://www.paramedic.org.uk/news_archive/2004/02/News_Item.2004-02-18.0304/view

It would also seem that sometimes we dont help ourselves
http://www.paramedic.org.uk/news_archive/2004/08/News_Item.2004-08-25.3527/view

And sometimes we cant
http://www.paramedic.org.uk/news_archive/2004/01/News_Item.2004-01-27.0804/view

But maybe one day there will be some true exemptions.
http://www.paramedic.org.uk/news_archive/2003/11/News_Item.2003-11-06.3227/view

 

[Tigger]

you might like to read about the bad time this guy has had

So what's ur point ? He was prosecuted by CPS in Lincs because of a loophole in the law which has now been closed, thanks to this case.

He wasn't driving a private vehicle, he was driving a marked car on blues and two's, the crux of the case was the justification for the use of the excemption.

He came through our patch on that run and set off our cameras, we didn't prosecute.

As I understand Lincs CPS failed to appreciate that human organs have a very tight timespan to be transplanted.

 

[firestorm]

Anyhoo....I hope some of this answered bluntends questions?

 

[Bluntend]

Er, yeah. Cheers guys. I think next time I'll just keep schtum.

 

[skevans]

So what's ur point ? He was prosecuted by CPS in Lincs because of a loophole in the law which has now been closed, thanks to this case.

He wasn't driving a private vehicle, he was driving a marked car on blues and two's, the crux of the case was the justification for the use of the excemption.

He came through our patch on that run and set off our cameras, we didn't prosecute.

As I understand Lincs CPS failed to appreciate that human organs have a very tight timespan to be transplanted.

Just pointing out that this is similar to the case law you mentioned earlier, namely a supposedly private vehicle being used as an ambulance. It even mentions it was a private vehicle.


'The prosecution claims Ashton was travelling in his own car on his way to work and that his Shogun could not be construed as an emergency ambulance.
They allege he was only authorised to use blue lights on ambulances and therefore was not exempt from speeding or failing to comply with red lights'.

In the later article it says
'Magistrates did not accept his Mitsubishi Shogun was an emergency vehicle, and so exempt from the usual road rules, even though he was responding to the top-priority call'.

there is no mention of markings or sirens whatsoever.

What I find strange, and no doubt some others will, is that mountain rescue, cave rescue, lowland rescue, and the multitude of water rescue organisations are not covered by the same 'exemptions' that we are.

 

[Tigger]

Magistrates heard that Ashton was on his way to the depot to collect an ambulance which he drove to Birmingham Children’s Hospital, to take doctors and nurses to a sick baby in Stourbridge.

So he was driving to a depot to collect an ambulance. Hardly an emergency, regardless of the transport run he was about to undertake. Patient transport runs like that can take a while to organise even for the sickest baby, my wifes done loads. As I said before, and I'm bored saying it now, the driver has to justify it. I'll bet the real story is actually somewhat different.


You still haven't answered my question. have you completed the 3 week response driving course ?

 

[skevans]

Yes I have, with Avon & Somerset Police in 2000, to enable me to drive ambulances. I also completed a tac ops course in 1994, EFAD 1995, 1999, and 2005, (missed my 2003 resit due to operations).

I have also completed EFAD's with both the local authorities I have been retained with.

Most brigades have their firefighters resit EFAD in some form every two-six years. the policy is very hit and miss at the moment, although the VSG is trying hard to come to some overarching strategic plan. in my view, that won't be published for at least another two years!

 

[skevans]

So he was driving to a depot to collect an ambulance. Hardly an emergency, regardless of the transport run he was about to undertake. Patient transport runs like that can take a while to organise even for the sickest baby, my wifes done loads. As I said before, and I'm bored saying it now, the driver has to justify it. I'll bet the real story is actually somewhat different.

I agree, it wasn't an emergency, but he was proceeding under blue lights in an otherwise private vehicle.

I am also bored with agreeing with you that the driver has to justify it, and therin lies the exemption or no exemption connundrum.

 

[Tigger]

What I find strange, and no doubt some others will, is that mountain rescue, cave rescue, lowland rescue, and the multitude of water rescue organisations are not covered by the same 'exemptions' that we are.

Thats a valid point, I wonder what would happen if that was ever challenged over a camera activation ?

I know one of our officers got a roasting for setting off a camera in a 30mph limit at 78 mph !!

 

[skevans]

Thats a valid point, I wonder what would happen if that was ever challenged over a camera activation ?

I know one of our officers got a roasting for setting off a camera in a 30mph limit at 78 mph !!

Not sure on that, but i do know of an inshore lifeboat crew that were rapped on the knuckles for speeding in a harbour!

 

[firestorm]

I also completed a tac ops course in 1994, EFAD 1995, 1999, and 2005, (missed my 2003 resit due to operations).

I have also completed EFAD's with both the local authorities I have been retained with.

Most brigades have their firefighters resit EFAD in some form every two-six years. the policy is very hit and miss at the moment, although the VSG is trying hard to come to some overarching strategic plan. in my view, that won't be published for at least another two years!

TAC OPS? Only relevant to RAF. EFAD (extremely fast and dangerous) is what a lot of fire authorities aim for...but most fail to achieve. I've been driving for over 10 years and have never done one, nor am I likely to do so.