You really do want to keep digging...
"Woman walked onto the crossing in front of her, then 'spotted' the ambulance & stepped backwards - leaving the dog on the end of the lead. "
So at one point there was a person and a dog in the path of the ambulance.
Will you either get it right or shut up?
I wonder what would have been said if it were a horse.. you can't use sirens when approaching a horse as it may startle them.. come to think of it they startle dogs too.
.. and?
So dog wasn't under proper control for a street situation.
ther is a fine point here: under adequate control for a normal sub
35mpgh traffic flow, or under adequate control for a vehicle grossly exeeding te speed limit.I dont WANT to go off at a tangent, but one of the downsides to any sort of limit, is that it lulls people into a sense of security that the odd person speeding - even legally - may fatlly disrupt.
It all very well to say 'I was in the right, but I am now dead' rather than 'I was in the right, but sill vigilant, and am not dead' Or even 'I wasn't in the right or the wrong: its up to me to be bloody careful around lethal weapons of mass destruction (== vehicles)
Neither was the ambulance.
And its bloody hard to control any animal when there is some nutcase blaring a loud siren at the animal.
Its either a very bad case of driving or he made it all up.
So what would have been your solution in terms of the speed employed?
I do hope you need the services of the ambulance service one day.
Maybe then you'll appreciate what they do.
MBQ
Why do you persist in circular arguments?
You know as well as I that the driver was going too fast and killed a dog and endangered their patient as a result.
At what speed would you have been driving?
How would I know? What speed would you be driving 350 m down the road from me?
At one that was legal for whatever that implies in terms of road plus conditions.
You seem so utterly confident that it was the speed of the ambulance, I thought you must have some idea of what would be sensible.
Answer this very simple question Dennis. Do you have a PSV licemse?
A simple yes or no will do.
Are you suggesting that they were doing something worse than driving too fast to stop? If so what exactly do you think a well trained crew would be doing to cause the crash???
A simple question is not a circular argument. If you can't or don't want to answer it then fine.
I asked you "At what speed would you have been driving?".
If you can change that into suggesting that the ambulance crew were doing anything untoward, you have a future in front of you as a lawyer. Well you would have if you could get a jury to believe you.
Do you have a brain? A simple yes or no will do.
Can you now define too fast for me please?
Dave
And I have already answered. I will do so again "Too fast".
You are the one that is questioning too fast. If it wasn't too fast then it was something else, maybe they weren't looking, maybe they were drunk? I think too fast is the most likely as they did see the woman and the dog but failed to avoid.
Of course any driver knows that a pedestrian crossing starts on the pavement at the side of the road and not actually in the road so they should have been expecting the woman to cross, she could have been deaf or blind and wouldn't know the ambulance was there.
Unless there is a different story there is no way the crew were not at fault. You can't just ignore people and animals at crossings and hope they won't cross.
You have just written that *you* would have been driving too fast.
I give up.
The only think that is getting worse here are your meandering thoughts. Do you suffer from paranoia at all?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.