The point is that you know full well that if the dog ran out 2m in front of you and you ran it down, you would not consider it to be your fault, but you ducked the question.
So how fast would you have been driving? At what distance would you say that it's reasonable to be able to stop?
You are required to drive no faster than you can "see". If you are driving down a wall and you hit someone that steps out of an opening in that wall it is your fault for driving too fast. You can play around with your stupid question all you want. If you want an answer you will have to provide *far* more information. Post a picture or two, maybe a video. As it is your question is stupid and is getting the answer it deserves.
>
What does that mean? Sounds very vague.
Ducking the issue because you can't really answer it without admitting that with the exception of being over or under the speed limit, "driving too fast" is a value judgment for a given situation.
You can't give an absolute rating to it by saying simplistically that if a driver hits something he had to be driving too fast. As has been illustrated, in extremis you would have to be traveling at zero speed to achieve zero risk.
I was going to suggest a whip round to put a contract out on Dennis, then I heard that the poor buggers at HSBC were on their uppers, so the 50p is going there instead.
How fast would he have been driving with a cardiac arrest patient on board?
Sorry Andy, I have to take you to task here. You really don't understand the points Dennis is making;
The ambulance should have been doing 29 mph, because getting the cardiac arrest patient that they hadn't yet picked up, who was in the ambulance, which was driven by a competely untrained person, who couldn't give drugs not used for cardiac arrests, to hospital wasn't time critical, because they hadn't picked him up. This resulted in the police, who know nothing about traffic accidents having never seen one before, having to ask Dennis, who wasn't even there, for his advice, but they couldn't get hold of him, because he misunderstood the phone ringing for a virus alert on his PC. Had they got hold of him, they would have known that the dog had once been within 1000 metres of a smoker and was therefore dead anyway and his owner had mistaken the blues & two's and siren for a new type of speed camera.
I hope that clears things up for you. If not, let me know & I will twist the facts and make up a story that supports my paranoia - if I can remember what it is today.
There's nothing wrong with having 'hang ups' about smoking.
The downside of the guvmint legislation regarding smoking is that smokers are now making the streets even more intolerable, standing in shop/office/pub/whatever doorways to suck at their cancer-sticks, perhaps making said establishments even less approachable than hitherto.
There's even a certain pedestrianised street here, fairly narrow with tallish buildings either side, which seems to have a permanent stench of stale smoke (almost like old railway stations/tunnels but much more obnoxious).
At 2 miles away you probably wouldn't see it.
Don't forget that UK legislation regarding distances/speeds on roads remains in miles/yards format.
Wow. I hope all these people remember the interactions between all of them.
I'd hate the idea of being injected/whatever with 27 drugs, even if I was in the back of a nambulance.
and ended up HGV positive?
I suspect even a half-decent trick cyclist could have him sussed in a matter of minutes. The comments regarding the ambulance team's sense of humour would tell them most of what they needed to know.
Regards,
I do not know how many mile you do each year, but if I had an eye test every
100 thousand miles that would be 3 eye tests a year. Yes, I got a speeding ticket. I challenged it and won. I was not speeding.
They are dead at 70 or 100 mph.
Adam
Goes to show - should be doing 30, or less. :-)
Didn't think you could get that from yourself. And that is clearly where Dennis is up. :-)
300,000 miles per year, assuming 6 day week, no holidays, that is 962 miles per day.
average 106mph at 9h/day
or 17h/day at average 56mph
Really?
It is, that's why you have to learn to drive, try it sometime and you will understand.
It is and having an accident is evidence you got it wrong, even nearly having an accident is evidence you got it wrong.
You can if that object was already in the path of the vehicle as the dog was in that TMA description. to paraphrase what he said as you appear to have a problem "the owner stepped back but the dog didn't". This implies that the ambulance saw a dog in the way and ran it down. You can claim that the dog wasn't under control if you want but the driver still ran a dog down that was already in his path. Its the sort of driving that would get you banned.
Just remember emergency vehicles are only allowed to exceed the speed limits not to drive dangerously. Sirens and flashing lights are there to warn other but it is still the drivers responsibility to ensure that anyone has heard and/or seen them and has reacted in a safe way. They are the ones that are trained not the pedestrians and dogs.
"The Medway Handyman" wrote more lies in message news:YVLlk.37660$ snipped-for-privacy@text.news.virginmedia.com...
They appear to survive quite well.
I expect the traffic isn't doing 100 mph.
No.My typo. Every 30 thousand, my typical annual milage:) Well spotted.
Adam
The dog wasn't in the path at some point and was at another.
I dont think it implies that at all.
That wasn't implied either
That would depend on the circumstances. As A reminder.... you still haven't answered the question about where the fault would lie if something or somebody steps out 2m in front of you.
How would you have handled the situation had you been driving the ambulance?
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required