"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
news:wYjqYdTiuhKIFwcu@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
> In message <0vmdnWuba_59ibfVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@giganews.com>, nightjar
> writes
>>
>>"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
>>news:SWOCLyBVnbKIFwZz@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
>>...
>>> Surely a police car sitting behind you with the twos and blues going is
>>> tantamount to being given a direction by a police officer. 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...
>>
>>Except that, according to the reports of the case, the Police car was NOT
>>using blues and twos, nor had the officers inside made any indication to
>>the
>>driver. It was on a routine missing person enquiry and had simply drawn up
>>behind the car at the red light. The car then crossed the red light and
>>accelerated off; which is not quite the normal behaviour of someone who
>>was
>>genuinely trying to make way for an emergency vehicle. The Police car only
>>turned on the blues and two to stop the driver after they caught up with
>>him. His claim was that, because he had been overtaken earlier by a Police
>>car with blues and twos going, he assumed that the one behind him would
>>also
>>want to overtake. It reads to me as if he had just not seen that the car
>>behind him was a Police car when he decided to jump a red light.
>>
>>Colin Bignell
>>
> I see. I was under the mistaken impression that the twos and blues were
> on. That seems to explain it all.
> --
> Ian
A natural assumption, given the claim the driver made.
Colin Bignell
|