home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!mdisea!uw-coco!nwnexus!remote!UUCP
- From: Terry.Gendreau@f17.n275.z1.fidonet.org (Terry Gendreau)
- Newsgroups: misc.emerg-services
- Subject: Oops!
- Message-ID: <722039258.F00020@remote.halcyon.com>
- Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 07:00:00 -0800
- Sender: UUCP@remote.halcyon.com
- Lines: 36
-
- Z >Western Australia has a nice 'out', a person acting "... in good
- faith
- Z >responce to an emergency call is imune from prosecution. There is
- also
- Z >a provision
- Z >in the criminal code that provides imunity "... from all laws or
- legal
- Z >where reasonable in an emergency... "
- Z >
-
- But what is reasonable ? It sure seems like (here in the states anyway)
- that anyone and everyone else other than the perpetrator is responsible
- for the accident and not the person that actually caused it. Would
- responding to an incident at 120 kph in a 25 ton vehicle on a straight
- road then passing a cyclist and having your backwash/turbulence cause
- the
- cyclist to veer into the path of oncoming traffic and get hit be
- reasonable ? In a previous msg, some commented on the drunk running a
- red
- and smacking the side of an ERV and the driver of the ERV being held
- responsible. This is STUPID, our laws don't appear to be able to grasp
- the
- concept of responsibility. As pros, we should be the first to assume
- responsibility, for ourselves, our equipment, and, our responses to
- emergencies. We aren't "kings of the road" and should conduct ourselves
- as
- pros. Good faith is a well intentioned lip-service, but it still boils
- down to common sense and respect.
-
- * FastBytes BBS - Your Alabama RaceNet HQ (205) 774-9946
-
- PCRelay:TANDY -> #51 RaceNet (tm)
- 4.11 TandyLand 803-875-2093/ 803-875-2019
-
- * Origin: The Computer Forum Va Beach, VA (804) 471-0736 (1:275/17)
-
-