PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Emergency Response Drivers (Protections) Bill 2017-19
cp8759
post Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 19:29
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,315
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Should the courts be able to take into account the higher levels of training that appropriately trained emergency drivers have?

http://www.polfed.org/newsroom/5210.aspx
https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-1...rotections.html

I don't disagree with the principles behind the bill (if an advanced pursuit driver cannot drive to a higher standard than a "careful and competent" driver, his training can't be that advanced), but I'm curious as to what others think.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 17)
Advertisement
post Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 19:29
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
666
post Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 20:25
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 854
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,602



What are the principles?

Why would an "advanced" driver fall below the "careful and competent" threshold? And if he did, why should be protected?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 20:44
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,315
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (666 @ Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 20:25) *
What are the principles?

Why would an "advanced" driver fall below the "careful and competent" threshold? And if he did, why should be protected?

As I understand it the proposed logic is that, in deciding whether the driving is dangerous, the court will be allowed to take into account their high specialist training and skills. This is not a blanket "protection", it simply means that their training and skills will be one of the (many) factors the court will be allowed to take into account (As opposed to the current position which is that the court is prohibited from attaching any weight whatsoever to their specialist training and skills).


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 21:58
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,050
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



As a Private Members Bill it’s not very likely to pass.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
typefish
post Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 23:50
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,098
Joined: 28 Mar 2014
From: Corby
Member No.: 69,758



But would this also affect drivers who are not emergency drivers yet are also qualified as a police-level advanced driver?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
baggins1234
post Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 00:02
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 812
Joined: 17 Aug 2010
Member No.: 39,849



QUOTE (typefish @ Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 23:50) *
But would this also affect drivers who are not emergency drivers yet are also qualified as a police-level advanced driver?


Do you mean IAM or something else?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 00:13
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,050
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (baggins1234 @ Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 00:02) *
QUOTE (typefish @ Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 23:50) *
But would this also affect drivers who are not emergency drivers yet are also qualified as a police-level advanced driver?


Do you mean IAM or something else?

I don’t know what he means but for example you (in a few years) or I, as persons who have held police driving qualifications.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
baggins1234
post Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 00:20
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 812
Joined: 17 Aug 2010
Member No.: 39,849



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 00:13) *
QUOTE (baggins1234 @ Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 00:02) *
QUOTE (typefish @ Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 23:50) *
But would this also affect drivers who are not emergency drivers yet are also qualified as a police-level advanced driver?


Do you mean IAM or something else?

I don’t know what he means but for example you (in a few years) or I, as persons who have held police driving qualifications.


Years? You did of course mean months....

Weren’t you A to B only in a noddy car?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 01:38
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,315
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (typefish @ Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 23:50) *
But would this also affect drivers who are not emergency drivers yet are also qualified as a police-level advanced driver?

No this would be restricted to drivers who's qualification allows them to exceed the speed limits, who are on duty and in an appropriate vehicle. The idea isn't to allow off-duty police to go and get their weekly shopping really quickly.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
666
post Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 08:52
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 854
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,602



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 01:38) *
QUOTE (typefish @ Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 23:50) *
But would this also affect drivers who are not emergency drivers yet are also qualified as a police-level advanced driver?

No this would be restricted to drivers who's qualification allows them to exceed the speed limits,


Is there such a thing? The exemption in law [Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, section 87(1)] applies to the vehicle and its purpose, regardless of who is driving.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 13:09
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,050
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (baggins1234 @ Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 00:20) *
Weren’t you A to B only in a noddy car?


And only on days without a y in them.

QUOTE (666 @ Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 08:52) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 01:38) *
QUOTE (typefish @ Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 23:50) *
But would this also affect drivers who are not emergency drivers yet are also qualified as a police-level advanced driver?

No this would be restricted to drivers who's qualification allows them to exceed the speed limits,


Is there such a thing? The exemption in law [Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, section 87(1)] applies to the vehicle and its purpose, regardless of who is driving.

IIRC, some exemptions only apply if the driver has done an appropriate course.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 16:42
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,315
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (666 @ Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 08:52) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 01:38) *
QUOTE (typefish @ Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 23:50) *
But would this also affect drivers who are not emergency drivers yet are also qualified as a police-level advanced driver?

No this would be restricted to drivers who's qualification allows them to exceed the speed limits,


Is there such a thing? The exemption in law [Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, section 87(1)] applies to the vehicle and its purpose, regardless of who is driving.

Subsection (3) to section 87 RTRA:

But (except where it is being used for training the person by whom it is being driven) subsection (1) above does not apply in relation to a vehicle by virtue of subsection (2) above unless it is being driven by a person who has been trained in driving vehicles at high speeds.

Incidentally as far as I'm aware this only applies to speed restrictions, so if you're taking someone to hospital in an emergency the other exemptions (such as treating red lights as give way signs) still apply, providing you can justify that it is severe enough an emergency.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 16:44


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 17:33
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,050
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 16:42) *
QUOTE (666 @ Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 08:52) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 01:38) *
QUOTE (typefish @ Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 23:50) *
But would this also affect drivers who are not emergency drivers yet are also qualified as a police-level advanced driver?

No this would be restricted to drivers who's qualification allows them to exceed the speed limits,


Is there such a thing? The exemption in law [Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, section 87(1)] applies to the vehicle and its purpose, regardless of who is driving.

Subsection (3) to section 87 RTRA:

But (except where it is being used for training the person by whom it is being driven) subsection (1) above does not apply in relation to a vehicle by virtue of subsection (2) above unless it is being driven by a person who has been trained in driving vehicles at high speeds.

Incidentally as far as I'm aware this only applies to speed restrictions, so if you're taking someone to hospital in an emergency the other exemptions (such as treating red lights as give way signs) still apply, providing you can justify that it is severe enough an emergency.

There are exemptions for red lights too.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 19:08
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,315
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 17:33) *
There are exemptions for red lights too.

That's what I said, the point I was making is I don't believe you need any special training to use the red light exemption, the "high speed training" only applies to those who wish to use the speed exemption.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 19:12
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,050
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 19:08) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 17:33) *
There are exemptions for red lights too.

That's what I said, the point I was making is I don't believe you need any special training to use the red light exemption, the "high speed training" only applies to those who wish to use the speed exemption.

Oh, I see.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
666
post Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 22:30
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 854
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,602



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 16:42) *
QUOTE (666 @ Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 08:52) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 01:38) *
QUOTE (typefish @ Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 23:50) *
But would this also affect drivers who are not emergency drivers yet are also qualified as a police-level advanced driver?

No this would be restricted to drivers who's qualification allows them to exceed the speed limits,


Is there such a thing? The exemption in law [Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, section 87(1)] applies to the vehicle and its purpose, regardless of who is driving.

Subsection (3) to section 87 RTRA:

But (except where it is being used for training the person by whom it is being driven) subsection (1) above does not apply in relation to a vehicle by virtue of subsection (2) above unless it is being driven by a person who has been trained in driving vehicles at high speeds.

Incidentally as far as I'm aware this only applies to speed restrictions, so if you're taking someone to hospital in an emergency the other exemptions (such as treating red lights as give way signs) still apply, providing you can justify that it is severe enough an emergency.


Thank you. But - forgive me if I'm being thick - doesn't the reference to subsection (2) mean that subsection (3) applies only to National Crime Agency purposes?

Even if I'm wrong, and subsection (3) applies generally, then it seems pretty meaningless in the absence of any definiton of either "training" or "high speed".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 15 Jan 2018 - 01:36
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,315
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (666 @ Sun, 14 Jan 2018 - 22:30) *
Even if I'm wrong, and subsection (3) applies generally, then it seems pretty meaningless in the absence of any definiton of either "training" or "high speed".

Definitions of both should become available once section 19 of the Road Safety Act 2006 is brought into force, but I think you are correct, as things stand only NCA purposes are covered by the training requirement. I haven't looked into it further, but I assume that absent a statutory definition, the courts would use the ordinary rules of statutory construction to determine what "training" and "high speed" means for the purposes of this section.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
samthecat
post Mon, 15 Jan 2018 - 10:08
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 281
Joined: 21 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,881



The Police Federation have quite a bit of stuff about this on their website.

The way it's been put across internally was that on an emergency response it is very likely the drive would in one way or another fit in to the definition of careless driving and there is no exemption from this. Whilst there wouldn't be a prosecution for speeding or failing to adhere to a red light these actions could still be used to support careless driving.

(Wether the Feds view is correct or not is another question!)


--------------------
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 25th May 2018 - 05:23
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.