Postby akirk » Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:39 pm
It can be an instruction without clarity - and as we are debating nuances that becomes important.
What is the instruction?
- get out of my way, safely and legally
- get out of my way regardless of legality
for you to break the law the officer must specifically instruct you to do that - an instruction without clarity could easily not be a defence to breaking the law - you might be prepared to risk that, I wouldn't be...
it is also contrary to my understanding of how police drivers are trained, therefore I would base my assumptions on that and tend to not take that as instruction...
we do not live in a society thank goodness where we are expected to obey orders without thought - to me this is very simple, a police car from behind can not give clarity, therefore without clarity I will not break the law...
I think we also need to consider the wider setting - if a police car is sufficiently near to have heard it before I came to a stop at lights I would give space in my stopping, to avoid any issue... if it is not that close that I can hear it, then I would suspect that the lights would be about to change soon enough, so would wait...
if our society needs the level of finesse such that there is an immediate response to a police car approaching from behind in this scenario, then it is simple, install technology to change the lights to green on the car's approach - it is in place for buses where they have a priority lane, easy enough to implement - and if two police cars approach at 90deg, then you simply stay with the default instead of switching - very simple... it is not considered to be a big issue because the public are not expected to move through the red light...
Alasdair