[gs1]

It's reported that Forth Estuary Transport Authority (Board representatives: City of Edinburgh Council, Fife Council, Perth & Kinross Council and West Lothian Council), whose powers were granted by the Scottish Executive, delayed a Scottish Ambulance Service vehicle from going about its business, due to a dispute about a £1 toll.

....staff on the Forth Road Bridge held an ambulance driver up for half an hour as they demanded a £1 toll.

The rapid response vehicle, a car with 'ambulance' written on the front, was on its way back from a 999 call.

Toll collectors argued it was not exempt under the rules.

Paramedic Mike Lumsden told collectors he only had 65p on him. ....Mr Lumsden had stressed he had never been charged before. ...

Talks are to be held between Feta, the Scottish Ambulance Service and the Scottish Executive.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4297928.stm
(Source: BBC News)

[badseed1]

Rules is rules

[120 Days]

Wouldn't it be a sweet irony if the paramedic had been attending the jobsworth's family. Humourless petty officials seem to be everywhere these days, who allow for no interpretation or flexibility.

[quatro]

A half hour delay isn't on for an ambulance - for any reason. They can dispute it later for godssake!

In the news here today was the tragic case of an ambulance arriving with 2 empty oxygen cylinders!! They had to call a second ambulance out. The young patient died.

If it was a relative of mine in an ambulance who was held up due to 'rules' I'd want heads to roll!

[badseed1]

The article says the ambulance was just a support vehicle which doesn't carry patients on it's way back from attending an emergency call, so no harm done.
If the driver had been onroute to a 999 call I don't think even these jobsworths would have stopped him, or that he would have stopped to argue.
I think this is just a tedious bureaucracy story and the service provided won't be affected.

[Flying Burrito]

Originally Posted by badseed1

The article says the ambulance was just a support vehicle which doesn't carry patients on it's way back from attending an emergency call, so no harm done.
If the driver had been onroute to a 999 call I don't think even these jobsworths would have stopped him, or that he would have stopped to argue.
I think this is just a tedious bureaucracy story and the service provided won't be affected.

That's how I read it too but let's not take anything away from the Daily Wail Readers on this. They need every opportunity to promote the downfall of middle England (or Scotland even)

[gs1]

Originally Posted by badseed1

The article says the ambulance was just a support vehicle which doesn't carry patients on it's way back from attending an emergency call, so no harm done. ...

Unless it was required to attend another emergency. Presumably, rapid response paramedics and vehicles are finite resources?

[badseed1]

It reminds me of the story of the ambulance driver who was prosecuted for speeding. What an outrage!
It turned out he was driving an unmarked estate car and wasn't on his way to an accident or delivering organs as was his usual responsibility, he just thought he was allowed to teararse down the A14 at 100mph!

[badseed1]

Originally Posted by gs1

Unless it was required to attend another emergency. Presumably, rapid response paramedics and vehicles are finite resources?

I'm guessing if another call came in someone would have found a pound coin pretty sharpish, or do you think the driver would have stood around with his thumb up his arse. I think he's just making a fuss because he doesn't think he should have to pay.

[gs1]

Originally Posted by Flying Burrito

That's how I read it too but let's not take anything away from the Daily Wail Readers on this. They need every opportunity to promote the downfall of middle England (or Scotland even)

What's it got to do with "Daily Wail Readers"?

It was originally reported by The Courier (Tayside and Fife) and subsequently reported by BBC.

[cruella de vile]

I seem to remember a similar story in Liverpool, the toll operators at one of the tunnels wouldn't let an ambulance through until they paid.

Seems fairly common.

[gs1]

Originally Posted by badseed1

I'm guessing if another call came in someone would have found a pound coin pretty sharpish, or do you think the driver would have stood around with his thumb up his arse. I think he's just making a fuss because he doesn't think he should have to pay.

I think it's not a question of what he alone thinks, as The Courier reports:

....area manager Dave McCartney, said he could not believe what had happened.

“The rapid-response unit has been on the road for three years and this is the first time we have had any bother with it,” he said.

“The matter has been reported to the police. I feel they were obstructing an emergency vehicle.

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2...y7592926t0.asp
(Source: The Courier)

[badseed1]

Sounds like they were well within their rights.

“This was not one of the ambulance service’s vehicles which was toll-exempt,” he said. “Exemption is actually determined by statute, through legislation enacted by the Scottish Executive.

“Ambulances don’t have to pay tolls on the bridge, but miscellaneous support vehicles do.

“This was a Ford Mondeo estate car, which could not be considered capable of carrying sick, injured, or disabled people, was not an ambulance, and as such was not exempt.

“FETA employees know which vehicles are exempt from paying tolls at the bridge.

[gs1]

Originally Posted by badseed1

Sounds like they were well within their rights. ...

In which case, the logic is that if the vehicle is responding to a 999 call, the paramedic must stop to pay the toll on his/her way, as there's no distinction between whether he/she is on blue lights at the time or otherwise.

I don't think it's acceptable to be delaying or charging an emergency response vehicle in any circumstances, be it a traditional ambulance, a car, motorcycle or pedal cycle- all of which are used in different parts of the UK to get highly-trained personnel to the scene in the shortest possible time.

Rules can be put down by the various public bodies, but public servants also need to be encouraged to use common sense in my opinion.

Public bodies/servants should be setting the example, that we respect and do not inhibit- infact positively assist- emergency services in doing their work, like ordinary road-users try to do on the roads on a daily basis.

[chrisgough]

Originally Posted by badseed1

It reminds me of the story of the ambulance driver who was prosecuted for speeding. What an outrage!
It turned out he was driving an unmarked estate car and wasn't on his way to an accident or delivering organs as was his usual responsibility, he just thought he was allowed to teararse down the A14 at 100mph!

that just takes the piss. He should be locked up

[Isis Black]

Originally Posted by badseed1

Sounds like they were well within their rights.

“This was not one of the ambulance service’s vehicles which was toll-exempt,” he said. “Exemption is actually determined by statute, through legislation enacted by the Scottish Executive.

“Ambulances don’t have to pay tolls on the bridge, but miscellaneous support vehicles do.

“This was a Ford Mondeo estate car, which could not be considered capable of carrying sick, injured, or disabled people, was not an ambulance, and as such was not exempt.

“FETA employees know which vehicles are exempt from paying tolls at the bridge.

but these are very important vhicles!! ok so they dont carry passengers but they do hold all the midical stuff required by a paramedic and usually get there before anambulance and are a very important part of hte service!! i should know i needed an ambulance earlier in the year for my 4 year old who could breath!! and one of these rapid response cars came first with the ambulnace getting there about 5 mins later!! but withg him getting there first releived my stress so much and was ableot get started on my daughter well before the ambulance so whoopie they dont carry passengers no but they are still as much of an ambulance still!! and still very much as important!

[badseed1]

The Scottish Ambulance Service negotiated the terms with the Transport Authority, they didn't seem to think all their vehicles needed exemption from paying the toll so they are responsible if the ambulance is held up.

[gs1]

Originally Posted by badseed1

The Scottish Ambulance Service negotiated the terms with the Transport Authority, they didn't seem to think all their vehicles needed exemption from paying the toll so they are responsible if the ambulance is held up.

Doesn't this conflict with the quote you used in post #13 (?), which said:

“Exemption is actually determined by statute, through legislation enacted by the Scottish Executive."

Please explain.

[badseed1]

Sorry, you're right The Ambulance Service are just beginning talks with the Scottish Executive.
It's still not down to the Transport Authority though, they're still just trying to make a living. The Scottish Executive would be held accountable.You'd have thought they'd have agreed the terms of their legislation with the Ambulance Service beforehand, or at the very least informed them which vehicles were exempt. Ignorance is no defence.

[gs1]

Originally Posted by badseed1

....It's still not down to the Transport Authority though, they're still just trying to make a living.

Trying to "make a living"?

As I touched on earlier, Forth Estuary Transport Authority is a public body, run by City of Edinburgh Council, Fife Council, Perth & Kinross Council and West Lothian Council.

[badseed1]

Bridges don't build themselves.
The toll booth staff have to be paid.

[gs1]

The General manager of the Forth Estuary Transport Authority said in a press release yesterday:

As the legislation stands, our hands are tied. The legislation enacted by the Scottish Executive in setting up FETA in 2002 says we must charge for ambulance service support vehicles, such as the Ford Mondeo that crossed the bridge yesterday.

He adds:

“It’s worth pointing out that all emergency vehicles with flashing blue lights always cross without stopping...

http://www.feta.gov.uk/webpages/pressinfo.php

The vehicle was pictured in The Courier and has blue lights on the top.

So what are they saying? Our hands are tied, but if it flashes its blue lights, then they're not?

The Ambulance Service area manager indicated that they had been crossing the bridge without payment for 3 years. How come (?)- I thought the Transport Authority's hands were tied!

Let's hope common sense prevails. These are all public services involved, but how does it serve the public to inhibit emergency services from doing their job?

[badseed1]

Yeah you're right of course, I was just messing with ya.
Still why didn't the driver have an ashtray full of change like every other bugger?

[chrisgough]

Originally Posted by badseed1

Yeah you're right of course, I was just messing with ya.
Still why didn't the driver have an ashtray full of change like every other bugger?

Probably full of cigarette butts knowing Scottish ambulance drivers!

Who goes around with only 65p on them Haven't done that since I was a student