On Tue, 13 May 2008 16:55:01 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:
>
>>Secondly, there would be *many*
>>drivers that apparently did the same thing, providing lots of
>>corroborative evidence that I was legitimately following the
>>directions of a police officer.
>Surely a police car sitting behind you with the twos and blues going is
>tantamount to being given a direction by a police officer.
Nope.
The law requires it to be a constable in uniform directing traffic.
The blues and twos give no direction at all, they just warn other
traffic that the emergency vehicle is in a hurry and may not be
obeying the normal laws of the road.
They do NOT give other drivers the licence to disobey any of the laws
of the road.
> But it seemed
>to carry no weight when that driver got nicked for driving through the
>lights so he could move out of the way.
>
Because it doesn't.
>>Thirdly, the copper on point duty
>>would be clearly visible in the photographs.
>Undoubtedly indisputable evidence. Were the police in the car with the
>twos and blues going never asked to confirm that they did want the
>driver to move out of the way?
They would have had to get out of the car to do so, or to have used
their scrolling lights sign, but I'm not sure that can be used forward
facing.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Disinformation is not as good as datinformation.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |