On 12 May, 21:35, Alex Heney wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 09:01:26 -0700 (PDT), sleepalot
>
>
>
>
>
> wrote:
> >On 12 May, 15:57, "M.I.5=BE" wrote:
> >> "Alasdair" wrote in message
>
> >>news:ffkb24h32smnin18h8hissd8abo8nha0v7@4ax.com...> Not to pull off the =
road to let a police car with blues and twos
> >> > through?
>
> >> > I remember getting a tongue-lashing from a policeman because I
> >> > wouldn't go on to the footpath to allow a prison van he was escorting=
> >> > past. =A0I asked him if the police would pay for new tyres if they go=
t
> >> > damaged and pay the cost of tracking the steering on my car.
>
> >> > He muttered something about obstructing the police but drove off when=
> >> > the van climbed the other pavement and carried on.
>
> >> But do remember that the police themselves regard it as an offence to c=
ross
> >> the stop line when traffic lights are red to allow a police vehicle to =
pass.
> >> You may recall that the police refused to cancel a NIP when a driver wa=
s
> >> snapped by a red light camera when he pulled over to allow a police veh=
icle
> >> to pass and crossed the line while doing so.
>
> >Arbut there's a name for that ("I could do no other")?
> >Isn't that a defence?
>
> It would be, if true.
>
> But it wasn't true.
>
> If the police car had shunted you over the line, then it would have
> been true.
>
> Or if the uniformed occupants of the car had given you explicit
> instructions to cross the line, then that would have been a defence.
>
> But just having the blues and twos on is NOT an explicit instruction
> for you to break the normal laws of the road.
> --
> Alex Heney, Global Villager
Hmm. Well I've learned something, thanks.
|