The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most ISP NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: Vince Brannigan
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
References: Vince Brannigan wrote:
> > Steve wrote:
> >> Now the fireman is traffic.
> > The fireman is directing the vehicles. Traffic is the flow of
> > vehicles. The fireman is controlling the traffic
> Don't add to it. You are the only vehicle on a laned two way street. The
> firetruck is not blocking the road, but the fireman is in place to direct
> traffic. For what ever reason not known to you the fireman directs you to
> stop. Stopping in the street is not legal. Can he know make that illegal
> act legal. You say the statue says on. I say it says yes.
the sttute clearly relates to directing traffic. It is tyopical; of such
traffic flow statutes in emergency response areas for example
Subchapter B. Right-Of-Way.
§ 3327. Duty of driver in emergency response areas.
(a) General rule.--When approaching or passing an emergency response area, no
person shall drive a vehicle:
1.at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions,
having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing; or
2.in disobedience of instructions or indications relating to traffic flow
which are made, either verbally or through the use of signs, flares, signals,
lights or other
traffic control devices, by law enforcement personnel or emergency service
(b) Penalty.--Any person violating subsection (a) commits a summary offense and
shall, upon conviction, pay a fine of $85.
(c) Marking.--An emergency response area shall be clearly marked with road
flares, caution signs or any other traffic-control device which law enforcement
officials may have at their immediate disposal.
Please do not confuse emergecny repsonse areas with the gneral contorl of
> >> Please. So he is in an intersection, car on
> >> fire. He directs you through the red light.
> > If the fire is in the intersection itself there are different
> > rules.. This is normally covered under separate statutes on the
> > "scene of a fire", which gives the fire commander plenary power on
> > the scene. .
> Different rules. Oh now you think the rules change.
Yes see above
> No the statue doesn't
> say the fireman can only direct you to disregard the red-light if the fire
> is in the intersection.
yes see above.
> Either he can or he can't. Whether the fire is in the intersection or if its
> on the side street and in order to move traffic in another direction he has
> to stop traffic with a green light and move traffic with a red light because
> the fire truck is blocking the side road. Can he do it. I say yes, the
> code puts him charge of that traffic.
If its the mergecny area there are separate statutes
> > The other lane is blocked so
> >> it cant go anyway. Guess you don't go. The fireman is not traffic.
> >> And if he is not blocking your lane then I guess there is no
> >> conflict. So you could drive on.
> > "The fireman is always "directing traffic" you have to act in
> > accordance with the traffic.
> Lame way of avoiding having to admit you have to follow the FIREMANs
No you dont if it s outside the emergency area. outside the area the Polcie are
the only ones.
> >> This is all for me. I am killing this thread because the simple fact
> >> you have an unreal view of the law. At no time in law school or in
> >> the practice of law have I ever seen anyone, including a few on the
> >> edge jail house lawyers, come up with the unrealistic and insane
> >> attempts to twist the law, its purpose and meanings the way you have
> >> in this thread. Yes thats just my opinion, as this thread has been
> >> yours. I would argue that mine would (and do) hold water in court,
> >> and yours would not. Good night
> >> Steve
> > The laws give specific privileges to marked fire department vehicles
> > and give the authority to override traffic signals to police officers
> > The legal requirement that fire department vehicles only go through
> > red lights while showing lights and sirens is inconsistent with your
> > claim that fireman have the authority to order unmarked vehicles
> > through red lights without such lights and sirens, especially when
> > under the statute such authority is specifically limited to police
> > officers. I lecture regularly at the US Fire Academy in Emmitsburg
> > Maryland. This issue was the subject of a nationally published
> > Column in the journal "Fire Chief" earlier this year. Circulation
> > is 47,000. Not one letter or reply suggested that I was incorrect in
> > my analysis. I realize that Lawyers can disagree, But when I am
> > driving down the road and see a green light I do not expect to
> > encounter a unmarked civilian vehicle starting up through that light
> > because a fire truck I cannot see is coming up behind them.
> No body is ordering someone to run a red-light. The statute calls for you
> to clear the intersection.
you ar poropsoeing to enter, not clear the intersection.
> You are responsible to do so safely. And most
> intersections are such that you could see the fire truck and thus you have
> to yield to it on a green light which in turn allows the driver at the red
> light to safely move out of the way.
if ther eis a green light sure you move thorught he intersection but if its red
you sotp and stya were you are
> I read a lot of professional journals because in addition to my private
> practice, I teach at the local University, Army Base Police Academy, Police
> Department In-service training, work with the State CLE training group, and
> consult with the courts, local and Federal on issues of Criminal Insanity,
> and Indigent Right to Counsel. That by no stretch of the imagination makes
> me an expert in any of those fields.
> I routinely find articles I do not agree with and seldom write in. Me and
> the Judges do not always see eye to eye either, but your arguments would
> never fly in front of any jury I have ever dealt with or even simple
> watched, nor with the Judges. Around here we use common sense and give the
> law credit for meaning what it says. You twist it into some convoluted word
> game that not even the worst appeal court would do to try to justify same
> far out holding. Even the non-lawyers, non-law enforcement folks writing in
> this thread have pointed out you have lost sight the law in the real world.
feel free tor wopritnhe an aritlc ewiht yoour opinion
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of