Ambulance Close Pass

[jonny jeez]

FYI: they won't put the siren on in some cases if the patient is in certain conditions. Adds to distress

Good point but in those circumstances surely they must appreciate the need to drive suitably.

Edit, I see someone has already made this point...ish

 

[GrasB]

I haven't disagreed with this. I've just put forward other possible scenarios that could have been played out that would have meant the ambulance driver would not have attempted that pass in the first place. Others have pointed out another scenario of taking primary which again is a good option.

The phrase "And the ambulance driver did miss the cyclist." imply that what happened was acceptable. In actual fact it was not acceptable.

 

[400bhp]

If you just cut this right back and strip everything away.

There's not much point in an ambulance saving the life of the patient in the back, if they kill another on the way to hospital.

 

[GrasB]

Cyclist fails to see an ambulance and fails , therefore, to impart correct roadcraft to allow ambulance to proceed unhindered. Counts not adopting a road position which would impede the progress of an emergency vehicle even further as their only failing...Cyclist is largely supported .
Driver fails to see a cyclist even an unlit one..Hang him.

And people wonder why some dislike cyclists.....

But we're looking at two different scenarios here. The lights issue, assuming we're talking in town at night where one can clearly see unlit pedestrians! If you can clearly see pedestrians then you should be able to clearly see a cyclist. Where what happens is a quick glance and go where the motorist won't have spotted a pedestrian or cyclist when they were clearly visible.

The overtake at a pinch point is different. The driver of the ambulance should have had a perfect view of the road & the OP. They then decided to ignore the fact a vehicle in front had not responded to their presence & was at a width restriction & charge through a small gap at speed to regardless of their presence. Also remember that there's no legal requirement for you to do anything about an emergency vehicle,. In fact...

Emergency and Incident Support vehicles. You should look and listen for ambulances, fire engines, police, doctors or other emergency vehicles using flashing blue, red or green lights and sirens or flashing headlights, or Highways Agency Traffic Officer and Incident Support vehicles using flashing amber lights. When one approaches do not panic. Consider the route of such a vehicle and take appropriate action to let it pass, while complying with all traffic signs. If necessary, pull to the side of the road and stop, but try to avoid stopping before the brow of a hill, a bend or narrow section of road. Do not endanger yourself, other road users or pedestrians and avoid mounting the kerb. Do not brake harshly on approach to a junction or roundabout, as a following vehicle may not have the same view as you.

 

[Lemond]

But we're looking at two different scenarios here. The lights issue, assuming we're talking in town at night where one can clearly see unlit pedestrians! If you can clearly see pedestrians then you should be able to clearly see a cyclist. Where what happens is a quick glance and go where the motorist won't have spotted a pedestrian or cyclist when they were clearly visible.

The overtake at a pinch point is different. The driver of the ambulance should have had a perfect view of the road & the OP. They then decided to ignore the fact a vehicle in front had not responded to their presence & was at a width restriction & charge through a small gap at speed to regardless of their presence. Also remember that there's no legal requirement for you to do anything about an emergency vehicle,. In fact...

Or maybe the ambulance driver used training, judgement and experience to simply pass the cyclist? No "charging through gaps" or ignoring other road users. No harm, no foul, no wreckless abandon as you seem to imply.

 

[GrasB]

Or maybe the ambulance driver used training, judgement and experience to simply pass the cyclist? No "charging through gaps" or ignoring other road users. No harm, no foul, no wreckless abandon as you seem to imply.

Going though a pinch point with a cyclist present IS reckless end of story.

 

[Studley]

No legal requirement perhaps, but for some there's a moral requirement to help emergency services when lives are at risk.
Highlighting the fact that there's no legal requirement just comes across as being totally selfish imho.
I'm sure both cyclist and driver will learn from the experience, both having a reasonable level of intelligence. Difficult to make a judgement without hearing what the driver experienced.

 

[Lemond]

Going though a pinch point with a cyclist present IS reckless end of story.

The video evidence would suggest otherwise.

 

[Lemond]

[QUOTE 3368113, member: 45"]That's not how they're trained.[/QUOTE]

They're not trained to use judgement and experience?

 

[Lemond]

[QUOTE 3368114, member: 45"]Problem highlighted.[/QUOTE]

Opinion highlighted, don't you mean?

 

[CopperBrompton]

It's not an unreasonable assumption, though. Having watched the video again, I still can't understand how the cyclist did that shoulder-check and failed to see the ambulance.

 

[GrasB]

The video evidence would suggest otherwise.

erm...

You seriously need a lesson in road safety if you think that is anywhere near safe!

It's not an unreasonable assumption, though.

Did the cyclist show any sign of acting as though he'd seen the ambulance at any point prior to the pass at the pinch point? No! So it wasn't a reasonable assumption.

Having watched the video again, I still can't understand how the cyclist did that shoulder-check and failed to see the ambulance.

Easy, shoulder checks were too short in duration.

 

[Lemond]

So the ambulance is close. Not close enough to hit the cyclist. Not close enough to force him to move from the looks of the video. Just close.

I'm sure the ambulance passing gave the cyclist a scare. But maybe he should have checked what was approaching from behind before entering the pinch point?

You have to assume he didn't, otherwise why didn't he slow down and allow the ambulance to pass?

 

[CopperBrompton]

[QUOTE 3368269, member: 45"]It clearly is wrong to assume the cyclist would get out of the way, because he didn't.[/QUOTE]
I didn't say it was correct, I said that it was reasonable. By definition, we can only know whether an assumption or expectation is correct after the event.

 

[Lemond]

[QUOTE 3368367, member: 45"]He says that he didn't see it, but that's irrelevant. It was the actions of the driver which brought this close pass about.[/QUOTE]

Granted the ambulance did the passing. But to me, passing doesn't equate to dangerous in this instance. Just my opinion, of course.