Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: speeding going to the hospital
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
cenci
my girlfirend was done by a mobile camera unit doing 37mph in a 30 zone new years eve taking her sister to the hospital (who had a suspected stroke)

my question is if she writes a letter explaining the above will she be likely to be let off?

i have read about the pace statement but dont want to go down the route of court action

thanks for your help
Peter_D
You can try but you will need to supply evidence from the hospital time and date stamped and even then the CPS will say that's what ambulances are for. Sorry. Regards Peter.
H&Ps
i would get all the proof/paperwork you can from the hospital that you were indeed there with your sister for what you claim

then i would copy it all and write a very opologetic letter to the scameras explaining why you were speeding and see what happens

it may be of no use but you won't know till you try

i once read of someone doing exactly this in the same situation as you and the scamers let them off (37 in a 30 you may be offered a speed awareness course even) still i'd do the letter first and see what happens
The Rookie
It may be possible to argue special reasons not to punish after pleading guilty, but that will still mean going to court, the Scammers are highly unlikely to let that go, but there is nothing to be lost by trying. If thats the route you want to go, I would suggets writing to them ASAP to that effect and offer to get confirmation from the hospital as 'evidence'.

Simon
Ziltro
Was the vehicle being used 'for ambulance purposes'?
If so, there are no speed limits.
Or that's how I understand it...?
silversquirrel01
Ziltro,

From where do you understand that the vehicle merely has to be used for ambulance purposes?
ScouseMick
QUOTE
From where do you understand that the vehicle merely has to be used for ambulance purposes?


the back of a cornflakes box??
Ziltro
QUOTE (silversquirrel01 @ Tue, 16 Jan 2007 - 20:15) *
Ziltro,

From where do you understand that the vehicle merely has to be used for ambulance purposes?

I read it somewhere that looked like law. I'm supprised someone else hasn't posted it up here, I'm not too good at finding laws. That's why I didn't look for it before, I hoped someone else would do the hard work for me. wink.gif

Ok, I believe it is in the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (which isn't online yet).
Copied from another thread on PePiPoo:
QUOTE
87. Exemption of fire brigade, ambulance and police vehicles from speed limits
No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes, if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion.

Which doesn't say that the vehicle must have blue flasheys and nee-naws, only that it is used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes.

You really can't be expected to obey speed limits when driving someone to hospital in an emergency. That would be nasty.

I'm sure we will know more when they finally get around to putting the RTOA 1988 online.

Speed camera catches you 'driving swiftly' on the way to hospital you get a demand for money and points. Police officer catches you they escort you to the hospital. rolleyes.gif
anton
You might also need documents that show that drugs given for stroke need to be given within a few goulden hours to have the best affect.
BriTTa
QUOTE (anton @ Wed, 17 Jan 2007 - 07:45) *
You might also need documents that show that drugs given for stroke need to be given within a few goulden hours to have the best affect.


The Stroke Association (http://www.stroke.org.uk/) guidelines are basically "get to hospital as soon as possible" as early treatment is vital. They are not going to start clot-busters in the back of an ambulance, so the main thing going round in your head would have been getting your GF's sister to hospital, not getting a doctor out to stabilise her at the scene. You therefore made a judgement call that you could get to hospital quicker under your own steam (even allowing for the lack of flashing lights and ability to plough thru traffic) than waiting for an ambulance to come out. It will have been a highly stressful time for you and I don't expect you to have been thinking analytically about things like journey times, but you might consider retrospectively estimating what the journey time to hospital would have been if you had called an ambulance (you may be able to get response times from the local PCT and then add in there-and-back times). The response time (report coming in, filtering down to a crew etc) is particularly important if you live close to a hospital and know you can get there in a few minutes.

As others have said, I would write as soon as possible outlining your situation. Explain the importance of your journey (life and death) and that for whatever reason you made a judgement call that you taking the patient was a better option than the inevitable delay that an ambulance callout would entail.

What police force is this, by the way (perhaps you could fill out the NIP wizard and post the results?)? Some appear to work on a largely automatic, process-driven basis (making it pointless to argue with them) whereas some others do seem to have staff with brain cells and glimmers of common sense. In essence you'll need to cascade this story thru the system until you meet some with a icon_syda.gif.

Good luck.
chadders
QUOTE
You can try but you will need to supply evidence from the hospital time and date stamped and even then the CPS will say that's what ambulances are for. Sorry. Regards Peter.
Not strictly true, I have been told by both hospital/ambulance staff and 999 operator in the past that it would be alot better for myself to drive my old man to the hospital (similar circumstances) rather than the longer journey of amublance out and back to hospital.

QUOTE
It may be possible to argue special reasons not to punish after pleading guilty.


Specifically, a "special reason" not to endorse with points, and thus only pay fine of £60?
fatboytim
S87 RTRA,

87. No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes, if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion.

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?...mp;filesize=674

And the whole thing went on line recently.

I would say the speed quoted is not excessive for the purpose under these circumstances.

fatboytim
BriTTa
QUOTE (fatboytim @ Wed, 17 Jan 2007 - 09:36) *
S87 RTRA,

87. No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes, if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion.

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?...mp;filesize=674

And the whole thing went on line recently.

I would say the speed quoted is not excessive for the purpose under these circumstances.

fatboytim


Does "ambulance purpose" get interpreted as "use of a vehicle by members of the ambulance service or medical professionals", or does it apply to a vehicle being used for transport of a sick person to hospital by anyone?
The Rookie
Remember the case of the ambulance driver driving a ford galaxy with an organ in it, it went to court (although dropped before actual trial) as the interpretation placed on the law was that it was for vehicles specifically converted to be (and only to be) ambulances that counted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yo...ire/2937910.stm

this report gives some info, but the clearer definition of ambulance isn't in this report!

Simon
Mike P
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 17 Jan 2007 - 12:08) *
Remember the case of the ambulance driver driving a ford galaxy with an organ in it, it went to court (although dropped before actual trial) as the interpretation placed on the law was that it was for vehicles specifically converted to be (and only to be) ambulances that counted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yo...ire/2937910.stm

this report gives some info, but the clearer definition of ambulance isn't in this report!

Simon


I had never seen that, but it fair made my blood boil!

My mate `allegedly` saw a police car in our town turn the blue lights on just to go through a Truvelo, then straight off again, in a 30 limit, built up area. Wonder if that got investigated? One of our local Police officers recently escaped a FPN for speeding on the way to a takeaway (he claimed he had diverted to go to a nearby RTA, then heard he wasnt needed)!

Whilst being no expert in this field, i would suggest that if the suggestions here fall on deaf ears, i would personally consider local media involvement
silversquirrel01
After reading the RTRA S87, it looks like any vehicle, if used for ambulance purposes, is exempt from the statutory speed limit. The BBC article tells that the driver was prosecuted because he was speeding due to carrying organs, which, apparently is not an ambulance use, rather than because the driver was driving a vehicle which was not specially converted to be an ambulance.
The Rookie
QUOTE (silversquirrel01 @ Thu, 18 Jan 2007 - 19:15) *
After reading the RTRA S87, it looks like any vehicle, if used for ambulance purposes, is exempt from the statutory speed limit. The BBC article tells that the driver was prosecuted because he was speeding due to carrying organs, which, apparently is not an ambulance use, rather than because the driver was driving a vehicle which was not specially converted to be an ambulance.


You'll notice you contradicted yourself, first it was carrying an organ, and then it wasn't converted - I'm not sure what the correct interpretation is though! Although an 'empty' ambulance can speed whilst on route to a casualty of course - but is still converted!

Simon
Iccle
QUOTE
(The Rookie @ Thu, 18 Jan 2007 - 23:46)
QUOTE
(Silversquirrel01 @ Thu, 18 Jan 2007 - 19:15)
After reading the RTRA S87, it looks like any vehicle, if used for ambulance purposes, is exempt from the statutory speed limit. The BBC article tells that the driver was prosecuted because he was speeding due to carrying organs, which, apparently is not an ambulance use, rather than because the driver was driving a vehicle which was not specially converted to be an ambulance.



You'll notice you contradicted yourself, first it was carrying an organ, and then it wasn't converted - I'm not sure what the correct interpretation is though! Although an 'empty' ambulance can speed whilst on route to a casualty of course - but is still converted!

Simon


Seems clear to me.
The driver was being prosecuted because he was on Non-Ambulance business (ie Organs aren't important). Not because the vehicle was a green & yellow box.

I think you could go so far as to state, he could have been done, if driving an ambulance, carrying organs. Due to the organs non-importance.

However, if he carrying a body in his Ford Galaxy, no problem, speed away.

(NB, I don't consider Organ's to be of non importance, just my interpretation of the information provided.)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.