Taxi hit and run by firetruck...

[starbutt]

I think you need to read the post of Razaec racing again, he actually says they are liable for the damage caused.

As someone here has already posted just because you have the sirens blaring does not mean you can just run over other cars. If driving an emergency vehicle and you come to an intersection you are supposed to slow down and still make sure that it's clear to cross. If you observe police chases here in the US you can see that police cars slow down on intersections and do not assume that it's clear before proceeding with the chase. Rushing to an emergency to save lives and taking a life on the way there by hitting other motorist negates the process.

yes, i read and re-read his post. he says the driver of the emergency car is "liable". i say "not liable". that is the difference.

maybe you need to read both our posts.

i did not say that the driver of an emergency vehicle need not slow down to ensure that he does not "run over" anyone or any vehicle. neither does he have the right to be reckless. i quoted the law, and the law does not say that the driver of an emergency vehicle has the right to run over anyone. he only has the right of way.

as a consequnce of that right of way, the driver (or the emergency vehicle itself) owns the road, and all other drivers must yield to that right by getting close to the left side of the road and clearing intersections. if the other drivers fail or refuse to yield to that right of way, they cannot claim for indemnity if damaged by the emergency vehicle. this is because the other drivers are performing an "unlawful act" of not yielding to the right of way.

i am asking him of his (legal) basis for holding the driver of the emergency vehicle (as well as its owner) liable to indemnify the drivers or owners of the other vehicles damaged when such emergency vehicle is operated on official business with audible signal. as far as i am concerned, i already quoted the pertinent law, as my basis to my "opinion". he has not yet.

if the emergency vehicle rams a vehicle already positioned on the left most part of the road (and has stopped to give way to the emergency vehicle), that is a different story. or if the emergency vehicle is not operated on official business or even operated on an emergency activity but fails to give an audible signal, that is also a different story. emergency vehicles, specifically the police cars, fire trucks and ambulances, only have the right of way when (a) on official business and (b) the driver thereof sounds an audible signal of his approach.

that right of way does not include the right to be reckless, the right not to drive defensively and the right not to observe other applicable traffic laws. the operative word is "applicable" because under Section 35(c) of the Land Transportation Code, as amended, the maximum speed limits do not apply to drivers of emergency vehicles.

[NazQ]

malas ng taxi..

*starbutt: I think naguluhan lang si redorange sa first line ng post mo na directed to razaec racing:

no offense meant, but only for purposes of discussion: i need to know your basis in saying that an emergency vehicle has no liability when it hits another vehicle.

when razaec is saying that:

imo, any emergency vehicle does not free them from any liability when they hit another vehicle.

[OTEP]

What if the taxi was already stopped and has done it's best (despite our narrow roads) to yield to the firetruck and yet the firetruck still clipped it? Kamot ulo na lang firetruck driver? For all intents and purposes, even in an emergency, our roads will not magically turn into 4 lane highways. That's where the operator's skill comes into play.

And even though the laws of speed limits do not apply to emergency vehicles, the laws of physics still do.

In the case of U.S. police vehicles, operating procedures vary per department. Even pursuit protocols are under scrutiny owing to deaths caused by unecessary pursuits.

[dopamine101]

Mali ng fire fighter nung nasa firetruck hindi siya nag iwan ng object(axe,chief hat,etc.) sa nabanga niya.

Most of the time may hinahagis na gamit sila. Pero kahit wala man, sundan mo man sila wala kang habol kung minor damage lang. Except kung may injured involving the firetruck. Driver ang sasagot hindi yung fire dept.

LESSON: tumabi ka na pag nadinig mo ang sirena ng firetruck.

[CaMoTe!!!]

kasuhan mo na lang kung nabangga ka... although doubtful kung mananalo ka, at least, masesettle talaga by the courts kung liable ba o hindi yung emergency vehicle and its driver sa damages...

madami na nagtangka, at madami na naghabol, pero usually, sa police pa lang or at the most, sa fiscal, di na nagpoprosper yung case against emergency vehicles...

meron lang isang instance na alam ko na nag issue ng warrant of arrest against a driver of a fire truck... pero technical lang ang basis, di kasi umattend sa mga hearing... pero on all other cases, abswelto yung driver ng fire truck...

[OTEP]

Yup. Kaya malakas loob ng mga firetruck driver dahil malabo sila matalo.

Nagkaron kami ng patient na bata dati. Volunteer firefighter ang nagdala (I'm assuming tatay niya yun). Dumating din ang mga ibang ka-tropang bombero (or at least yun ang pakilala nila sa security guard kaya sila pinapasok ng ER kahit off limits). Naka-wang wang pa mga sasakyan eh matagal nang nasa ER ang pasyente and wala naman silang gagawin dun. Dalaw lang sila.

All the while puro pagyayabang kung pano nila ginagamit pagkabumbero nila para makalusot sa traffic, etc. Akala ko may tornado sa loob ng ER sa lakas ng hangin. hehehe.

[redorange]

In the case of U.S. police vehicles, operating procedures vary per department. Even pursuit protocols are under scrutiny owing to deaths caused by unecessary pursuits.

* OTEP: I completely agree my point was that emergency vehicles regardless of if it's an ambulance, firetruck, police still slow down at intersections to make sure it is clear before proceeding.


*starbutt: As NazQ has already said your post was contradictory to what razaec racing posted see your post below. But on the next paragraph you say they own the road so they are not liable.

"no offense meant, but only for purposes of discussion: i need to know your basis in saying that an emergency vehicle has no liability when it hits another vehicle. i am saying this is the context where such vehicle is being used in an official business with audible signal being made. i could be wrong, and you could be right, but there must be some basis as to your proposition. the point is: if we cannot clear this matter, some of those reading this thread may think that it is perfectly alright not to respect the right of way of an emergency vehicle because at the end of the day, any damage caused by its driver on other vehicles, which driver failed and/or refused to obey the law, will just be settled."

Anyways it's a discussion only so peace dude.

[OTEP]

* OTEP: I completely agree my point was that emergency vehicles regardless of if it's an ambulance, firetruck, police still slow down at intersections to make sure it is clear before proceeding.

Because they are trained to do so. The younger brother of my friend drove ambulances for American Response (tama ba?) and they are not trained to be 'kings of the road' or anything similar.

I'm not sure if the job was that great. He gave it up to study nursing fulltime.

[redorange]

Because they are trained to do so. The younger brother of my friend drove ambulances for American Response (tama ba?) and they are not trained to be 'kings of the road' or anything similar.

I'm not sure if the job was that great. He gave it up to study nursing fulltime.

True they are trained to do so and the other motivating factor is they will lose in a law suit if they hit anyone since they are not above the law.

[cuecraftsman]

makabili na nga ng "wang-wang" sa banawe para makaabuso sa kalsada gaya ng politico/magnanakaw sa gobyerno...