Right or Wrong?

[Liam_c]

Anyone think the punishment this firefighter got is right or wrong?

Not going to write an essay here but i personally think its wrong - The driver of the escort that died should never of been driving if he was deaf.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7546903.stm

[Hibrandenburg]

Anyone think the punishment this firefighter got is right or wrong?

Not going to write an essay here but i personally think its wrong - The driver of the escort that died should never of been driving if he was deaf.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7546903.stm

Right

When driving emergency service vehicles it's the drivers responsibility to make sure he can react to all actions or non actions taken by other road users.

To say someone shouldn't drive because they're deaf! Dear oh dear oh dear :bitchy:

[scott7_0(Prague)]

The driver of the escort that died should never of been driving if he was deaf.



Why?

Just because you have a disability does not mean you cannot drive!!!

My Father drives and has a false right leg, he still drives a manual car without any issue, so would you say that is wrong too?

[sg7nil]

Some of my friends are deaf and a few of them drive, I don't see a problem with that.

They shouldn't use sign language while they drive, but I know that some of them do, it's hard not to, especially if they are discussing directions etc. (I know, I've been in the car with them and had to give them directions in sign language myself!)

This was a tragic accident, however the fireman was in the wrong. He has to be sure that it's OK to run a red light before he does so. At this particular junction it looks like it wasn't possible to be sure, so he should have slowed down to check.

[JimBHibees]

Interesting that he was only charged with careless driving and not causing death by dangerous driving which can be punishable by a custodial sentence.

I wonder how the policeman can say that the fire vehicle was only going 37mph, would be surprised if it was as low as that.

[Sylar]

It's a complex one really, isn't it?

The deaf driver, if unable to rely on his hearing for observing the sirens, should have been additionally vigilant with his mirrors and aware of what's going on around him - if for any reason his hearing impairment also reduces his ability to maintain an awareness, then i'd question the ability of that person to drive, but not based on the fact that he is deaf alone.

The fireman was rushing to an emergency call where people(s) life/lives were in danger - by the same token as above, if he is unable to maintain such an awareness that means his driving becomes dangerous, then the ability and responsibility of that persons' actions should be brought to task. Most people WILL yield to an emergency vehicle, but if for any reason someone doesn't/cannot, that does not entitle the driver of said vehicle to go to dangerous lengths to pass - if there was any doubt surrounding the junction/vehicle, the driver should have slowed down - no questions asked.

Emergency vehicles are (with certain extreme exceptions) bound to the traffic laws of the road, but drivers should not be reliant upon hearing these vehicles approaching alone - the deaf driver should have been paying additional attention at a junction if he is reliant upon sight alone, just as the driver of the fire engine should have been paying more attention to the road and any obstacles.

As above - just a tragic accident.

[Sergio sledge]

This was a tragic accident, however the fireman was in the wrong. He has to be sure that it's OK to run a red light before he does so. At this particular junction it looks like it wasn't possible to be sure, so he should have slowed down to check.

:agree: However this does raise an important issue, driving without one of our senses is very dangerous, and whilst I'm not saying deaf people shouldn't be allowed to drive, its something that needs to be thought about, perhaps some sort of visual warning system so that these people are able to know when a fire engine or ambulance or police car is coming. I'm not absolving the fireman of any blame however, he shouldn't have run the red light unless he knew it was clear to do so.

[HIBEES 4 LIFE]

IMO
Tragic accident, heart goes out to the family of the dead man, and to say he shouldn't be driving due to being deaf.........ridiculous!!!

However i also feel bad for the fireman who will have to live with this for the rest of his days. I don't feel he should be prosecuted as i'm positive he was only doing what he believed to be right at the time and perhaps living with it is punishment enough:dunno:

Just my thoughts

[hibsboy90]

Why?

Just because you have a disability does not mean you cannot drive!!!

My Father drives and has a false right leg, he still drives a manual car without any issue, so would you say that is wrong too?

Slightly unfair comparison there. A false leg does not impair ability to know what is going on around you on the road.

[steakbake]

Anyone think the punishment this firefighter got is right or wrong?

Not going to write an essay here but i personally think its wrong - The driver of the escort that died should never of been driving if he was deaf.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7546903.stm

He cannot hear, it's not as if he cannot see where he is going or anything like that.

Fire Engines also have lights for such occasions - if you are deaf, you tend to look out for warning lights than listening out for sirens - for example, fire alarms etc.

A terrible accident but the question remains about a junction - just because he was flying to an emergency with all sirens and lights on doesn't mean he can cut across a junction without any thought that someone might not see or hear him from another direction.

Hearing or deaf, it is possible that someone could have pulled out without seeing him.

[scott7_0(Prague)]

Slightly unfair comparison there. A false leg does not impair ability to know what is going on around you on the road.


It does if it falls off whilst driving, which happened yesterday :greengrin

[hibsboy90]

It does if it falls off whilst driving, which happened yesterday :greengrin

Well that's slightly different then :wink:

[GlesgaeHibby]

Interesting that he was only charged with careless driving and not causing death by dangerous driving which can be punishable by a custodial sentence.

I wonder how the policeman can say that the fire vehicle was only going 37mph, would be surprised if it was as low as that.

Simple laws of physics, momentum transfer.

[Hibrandenburg]

Slightly unfair comparison there. A false leg does not impair ability to know what is going on around you on the road.

Using that argument you can also say there are grounds to ban car stereos, mobile phones, sat navs and babies from cars.

[Lucius Apuleius]

Using that argument you can also say there are grounds to ban car stereos, mobile phones, sat navs and babies from cars.


And women.:agree:

[Hibrandenburg]

And women.:agree:

Can I lend you this :tin hat:

:greengrin

[RyeSloan]

Using that argument you can also say there are grounds to ban car stereos, mobile phones, sat navs and babies from cars.

All of which I believe are considered an imparement to your driving if used incorrectly (i.e stereo balreing so you can't hear approaching emergency services!) or in the babies case distraction. Therefore i think someone being deaf HAS to effect their performance whilst driving, I know of many occasions where I have heard something before I have seen it and have therefore been warned early of it's presence and as we all know reaction and stopping time is key to avoiding accidents.

I think it's a fair point to say that this man's disability certainly had a part to play in this accident, whether that means deaf people shouldn't drive is another thing but it's definately a factor that should be taken into account and might be the reason for the lesser charge.

I agree with most of Scott M's post on this.

[--------]

Interesting that he was only charged with careless driving and not causing death by dangerous driving which can be punishable by a custodial sentence.

I wonder how the policeman can say that the fire vehicle was only going 37mph, would be surprised if it was as low as that.

He'd likely have been doing around 50-55 approaching the junction, seen the Escort, started to brake, and got the fire-engine down to 37 at the moment of impact. The photo suggests a long straight approach to the crossing - there also appears to be a blind summit about 200 yards beyond, which Trotter should have been aware of as well.

Drivers of emergency vehicles should know their areas well enough to know which junctions they can just press on through and which ones they need to slow down for. Sounds as if this guy was pushing it too hard at a known bad crossing.


Using that argument you can also say there are grounds to ban car stereos, mobile phones, sat navs and babies from cars.

There's a valid argument for doing just that. (I don't think you can ban babies, can you?)

I know that my driving efficiency is reduced if I have the CD player on loud. I don't use my mobile phone in the car at all. I don't have sat nav because I'd rather do my homework and sort out the route to where I'm going before I leave the house; I don't want Tom-Tom or whoever distracting me on the way.

And when my son was a baby, I'd pull over, stop the car, and settle him down if he became distressed during a car journey. There's no way I would try to drive with a baby crying in the back seat. I sometimes see folks driving with two or three screaming toddlers in the back - that's dangerous and I believe that the police can pull the driver over in these circumstances. In my car, children sit quiet, or they get out and walk.

Drivers of emergency vehicles have the same duty of care to other drivers as you or I. The police and the Fiscal wouldn't have gone to court on this case if there hadn't been good reason to question the fireman's driving - they know well enough the pressures on emergency services to get where they're needed ASAP.

Ban deaf folks from driving? Why not give them a bell and make them shout "Unclean! unclean!" as well?

[Hibrandenburg]

All of which I believe are considered an imparement to your driving if used incorrectly (i.e stereo balreing so you can't hear approaching emergency services!) or in the babies case distraction. Therefore i think someone being deaf HAS to effect their performance whilst driving, I know of many occasions where I have heard something before I have seen it and have therefore been warned early of it's presence and as we all know reaction and stopping time is key to avoiding accidents.
I think it's a fair point to say that this man's disability certainly had a part to play in this accident, whether that means deaf people shouldn't drive is another thing but it's definately a factor that should be taken into account and might be the reason for the lesser charge.

I agree with most of Scott M's post on this.


The driver of a vehicle using emegency lights and siren has to be ready for any reaction from other road users, especially non reaction.

[creebo1875]

where do you draw the line though. Its a gray area, this is a tragic accident which only piles on more pressure to the emergency services who are having a hard time of it as it is. What would happen if they didn't respond in time and somebody died, they would get slated.

Unfortunately this thing is going to happen whether we like it or not.

[MrRobot]

I think it was very harsh what the judge said to the firefighter. IMO, I think it was a tragic accident. Yes, he should have been a bit mroe careful, but he was rushing to save(s) of other people. He wanted to waste no time getting there. It's just tragic that the deaf guy obviously couldn't hear the siren henceforth the reason why he kept going.

I think this guy is going to be going through hell right now, jsut for tryign to do his job and save other people, and a tradegy has happened as a result of him trying to get there as soon as possible. I really don't think anybody can be blamed. It can only go down as a tradegy IMO.

[Hibrandenburg]

I think it was very harsh what the judge said to the firefighter. IMO, I think it was a tragic accident. Yes, he should have been a bit mroe careful, but he was rushing to save(s) of other people. He wanted to waste no time getting there. It's just tragic that the deaf guy obviously couldn't hear the siren henceforth the reason why he kept going.

I think this guy is going to be going through hell right now, jsut for tryign to do his job and save other people, and a tradegy has happened as a result of him trying to get there as soon as possible. I really don't think anybody can be blamed. It can only go down as a tradegy IMO.


The fact is that there are deaf people out there on the roads and if you're to be trusted to drive a vehicle with 2's and blues you have to be aware of this and be ready for it. The driver wasn't and therefore in my opinion not fit to be driving in the first place.

[--------]

I think it was very harsh what the judge said to the firefighter. IMO, I think it was a tragic accident. Yes, he should have been a bit mroe careful, but he was rushing to save(s) of other people. He wanted to waste no time getting there. It's just tragic that the deaf guy obviously couldn't hear the siren henceforth the reason why he kept going.

I think this guy is going to be going through hell right now, jsut for tryign to do his job and save other people, and a tradegy has happened as a result of him trying to get there as soon as possible. I really don't think anybody can be blamed. It can only go down as a tradegy IMO.

The rules are absolutely clear.

An emergency vehicle - police car, ambulance, fire engine, whatever - approaching a lights-controlled junction can go through without stopping PROVIDED THE LIGHTS ARE AT GREEN. If the lights are at RED, the driver must treat that red light as a "GIVE WAY" - in other words, slow off and check that there's nothing coming. he can only enter the junction without stopping if the junction is clear.

The onus of responsibility is on the driver of the emergency vehicle to make sure that the junction is clear. He isn't allowed to run red lights regardless of other people's safety. This firefighter did just that, and he's guilty as charged.

Because of this guy's irresponsibility, a man died. And whoever had called the fire brigade obviously didn't get them, did they? The crew had to stop to cut the bloke out of the Escort their own fire engine had totalled.

I think the family of the man who died have every reason to feel aggrieved at the way this case has been treated. It wasn't the Escort driver's fault. He did nothing wrong. And his disability is irrelevant - even when I hear a siren, it takes me a few moments to figure out where it's coming from. That could have been me killed in that car.


The fact is that there are deaf people out there on the roads and if you're to be trusted to drive a vehicle with 2's and blues you have to be aware of this and be ready for it. The driver wasn't and therefore in my opinion not fit to be driving in the first place.

Totally agree.

[capitals_finest]

The rules are absolutely clear.

An emergency vehicle - police car, ambulance, fire engine, whatever - approaching a lights-controlled junction can go through without stopping PROVIDED THE LIGHTS ARE AT GREEN. If the lights are at RED, the driver must treat that red light as a "GIVE WAY" - in other words, slow off and check that there's nothing coming. he can only enter the junction without stopping if the junction is clear.

The onus of responsibility is on the driver of the emergency vehicle to make sure that the junction is clear. He isn't allowed to run red lights regardless of other people's safety. This firefighter did just that, and he's guilty as charged.

Because of this guy's irresponsibility, a man died. And whoever had called the fire brigade obviously didn't get them, did they? The crew had to stop to cut the bloke out of the Escort their own fire engine had totalled.

I think the family of the man who died have every reason to feel aggrieved at the way this case has been treated. It wasn't the Escort driver's fault. He did nothing wrong. And his disability is irrelevant - even when I hear a siren, it takes me a few moments to figure out where it's coming from. That could have been me killed in that car.



Totally agree.


Top post Doddie. :agree:

[Hibrandenburg]

The rules are absolutely clear.

An emergency vehicle - police car, ambulance, fire engine, whatever - approaching a lights-controlled junction can go through without stopping PROVIDED THE LIGHTS ARE AT GREEN. If the lights are at RED, the driver must treat that red light as a "GIVE WAY" - in other words, slow off and check that there's nothing coming. he can only enter the junction without stopping if the junction is clear.

The onus of responsibility is on the driver of the emergency vehicle to make sure that the junction is clear. He isn't allowed to run red lights regardless of other people's safety. This firefighter did just that, and he's guilty as charged.

Because of this guy's irresponsibility, a man died. And whoever had called the fire brigade obviously didn't get them, did they? The crew had to stop to cut the bloke out of the Escort their own fire engine had totalled.

I think the family of the man who died have every reason to feel aggrieved at the way this case has been treated. It wasn't the Escort driver's fault. He did nothing wrong. And his disability is irrelevant - even when I hear a siren, it takes me a few moments to figure out where it's coming from. That could have been me killed in that car.



Totally agree.

Exactly what I was trying to say just a little bit more eloquent. :agree: