This was a very long question regarding the new speed limit in Victoria and its application to St John Ambulance and Non-Emergency Patient Transport (NEPT) vehicles should they stop and provide assistance at an emergency. I have edited the original question but hopefully convey the meaning. My correspondent wrote to VicRoads asking them to list NEPT Vehicles and St John Ambulance vehicles as emergency vehicles. They say:
I received this response from Vicroads;
‘For the rule to apply, the vehicle must be classified as an emergency vehicle and displaying flashing lights. St John Ambulance Victoria vehicles are not currently emergency vehicles for the purposes of the Victorian road rules (e.g. they do not have carte blanche exemption to the road rules as other emergency vehicles do). The definition of an emergency vehicle can be found in the dictionary of the road rules.’
This means that technically the rule would not apply to St John Ambulance Victoria vehicles… Given the majority of drivers do the right thing by slowing down when passing any flashing lights by the roadside, it is very likely they will also slow down in the unlikely event drivers pass a stationary St John Ambulance Victoria vehicle with flashing red lights.
My correspondent goes on:
Which would correlate with a previous post from you, in that St John Ambulance doesn’t provide ambulance services. However, St John does have an obligation to stop and render assistance at Car accidents and other emergencies if flagged down, likewise NEPT providers hold the same obligations. St John also provides emergency assistance under the State Health Emergency Response Plan (SHERP) which is also documented in the Emergency Management Manual Victoria (EMMV).
By looking up the Victorian road rules legislation dictionary it can be seen that an emergency vehicle is defined as:
(a) a vehicle operated by or on behalf of and under the control of
(i) an ambulance service created under section 23 of the Ambulance Services Act 1986 or listed in Schedule 1 to that Act; or
(ii) an ambulance service created under a law in force in another State or in a Territory of the Commonwealth;
(b) a vehicle operated as an ambulance by the Australian Defence Force …
… St John other than by reference to being allowed to use the word ‘Ambulance’ is clearly not defined as an ambulance service. However in that Act I couldn’t find any reference to NEPT vehicles as they would be defined under the Non-Emergency Patient Transport Act 2003. Based on this information NEPT vehicles would also not be covered as an emergency vehicle. Which means that the new 40Km/h regulation wouldn’t apply to those vehicles either if they were using their warning devices while stopped at an accident or other incident on the roadside.
However under the road rules definitions there is also the definition of an emergency worker;
(a) the driver of, or passenger in, an emergency vehicle being operated or used in connection with the performance by that person of emergency services in the course of duty (paid or voluntary), whether in relation to a fire or a medical or other emergency; or
(b) a pedestrian performing emergency services in the course of duty (paid or voluntary), whether in relation to a fire or a medical or other emergency;
Looking at this information, could it be determined that a St John volunteer (or employee) or a NEPT employee that is stopped at the scene of an accident or other incident on the roadside and is providing assistance, is then considered an emergency worker as they are performing emergency services in the course of duty in relation to a medical or other emergency? Would this then mean in the references to emergency workers under rule 79A(2) & 79A(4) that even though the vehicle a St John Volunteer or NEPT employee is driving isn’t an emergency vehicle, the person is an emergency worker and the 40Km/h rule would apply in the vicinity of that worker so long as another service such as Vic Pol or other service arrives on scene?
If NEPT/St John staff are emergency workers under certain situations, could a NEPT or St John vehicle become an ambulance or other emergency vehicle if working under contract or under the direction of Ambulance Victoria or another emergency service such as Victoria Police, SES or Emergency Management Victoria?
Examples of instances where working under contract to another agency would come to effect would be on days of disaster such as the Thunderstorm Asthma event when NEPT services where responding to Code 1 calls, or if St John or NEPT stops at a car accident they are in effect rendering emergency ambulance assistance as per agreements with Ambulance Victoria and the Department of Health. Other instances where this would occur is during a SHERP activation where NEPT or St John could be sent to various emergencies.
Granted most members of the public wouldn’t differentiate between a NEPT/St John vehicle or an emergency ambulance, especially at a distance when driving along a road, so it would be more than expected that another motorist would slow down to 40Km/h regardless of the vehicle as it would be displaying red or blue flashing lights. However if the outcome of my previous question results in proving a vehicle isn’t able to receive temporary emergency vehicle status under another service, what would be the benefit to fitting red and/or blue lights with or without a siren to vehicles if they are not granted any exemptions or protections in Victoria?
Could it be argued that the definition of an emergency vehicle in Victoria needs to change in order to provide exemptions/protections to such services if they are being granted permissions to have red/blue beacons fitted with or without sirens?
That’s all a bit complex so I’ll work through it step by step. First there is the new rule – see New speed limit when passing emergency vehicles in Victoria (June 20, 2017). The rule applies to a driver approaching a stationary or slow moving ‘emergency vehicle’ that is displaying a flashing red, blue or magenta light or sounding an ‘alarm’ (Road Safety Road Rules 2017 (Vic) r 79A). My correspondent has given the relevant definition of an ‘emergency vehicle’ and it does not include a vehicle operated by St John Ambulance Australia (Victoria) nor a vehicle operated by an NEPT operator licenced under the Non-Emergency Patient Transport Act 2003 (Vic). So my correspondent is correct, the rules that relate to a new speed limit when approaching an emergency vehicle do not apply where the vehicle is operated by St John Ambulance Australia (Victoria) or a licensed NEPT provider.
There is also an obligation to give way to emergency workers on foot. Rule 79A(2) says:
A driver approaching a stationary or slow-moving police vehicle, emergency vehicle, enforcement vehicle or escort vehicle that is displaying a flashing blue, red or magenta light (whether or not it is also displaying other lights) or sounding an alarm must give way to any police officer, emergency worker, enforcement vehicle worker or escort vehicle worker on foot in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle.
As my correspondent has noted, an emergency worker is
(a) the driver of, or passenger in, an emergency vehicle being operated or used in connection with the performance by that person of emergency services in the course of duty (paid or voluntary), whether in relation to a fire or a medical or other emergency; or
(b) a pedestrian performing emergency services in the course of duty (paid or voluntary), whether in relation to a fire or a medical or other emergency;
To the extent that the St John member or NEPT provider is in a vehicle operated by their service, they are not ‘the driver of, or passenger in, an emergency vehicle’ (emphasis added) so paragraph (a) doesn’t apply to them.
To the extent that they are out of their vehicle and providing assistance then paragraph (b) may apply. The question might be whether they are acting ‘in the course of duty’ but let us assume for the sake of the argument that they are. If that is the case then rule 79A(2) would require other drivers to give way to the St John member/NEPT employee at the scene of the accident and in the vicinity of an emergency or police vehicle with its lights activated. In short, if there’s an accident and ambulance, police, fire or other emergency service are in attendance with their red/blue lights on, a driver has to slow down and give way to, ie not run over, those helping at the accident even if those people are not members of the fire, ambulance, police or emergency services. Nothing surprising there.
My correspondent put it this way:
Would this then mean in the references to emergency workers under rule 79A(2) & 79A(4) that even though the vehicle a St John Volunteer or NEPT employee is driving isn’t an emergency vehicle, the person is an emergency worker and the 40Km/h rule would apply in the vicinity of that worker so long as another service such as Vic Pol or other service arrives on scene?
I think that’s right. The 40km/h rule applies when the police, Victoria Ambulance, Fire or SES have their warning lights activated. Rules 79A(2) and 79A(4) don’t refer to the 40km/h rule but say that the driver must give way to those working at the accident and must not speed up unless it is safe to do so.
My correspondent then asks:
If NEPT/St John staff are emergency workers under certain situations, could a NEPT or St John vehicle become an ambulance or other emergency vehicle if working under contract or under the direction of Ambulance Victoria or another emergency service such as Victoria Police, SES or Emergency Management Victoria?
I do not think the use of the words ‘a vehicle operated by or on behalf of and under the control of’ the various services in the Victorian road rules does not require that the vehicle is ‘owned’ by the service, eg the CFA or SES may want to charter a bus as part of their emergency response. That bus may be operated ‘on behalf of and under the control of’ that service. It’s arguable that could apply in the right circumstances. To the extent that St John or an NEPT provider have an agreement to provide supplementary services to the state health department or ambulance service, then to the extent that they are fulfilling that agreement the vehicle is still being operated by St John or the NEPT provider and is under their control. If however the providers simply delivered their vehicles to Ambulance Victoria and allowed them to use them to supplement the fleet, whether that included retaining St John or NEPT members as part of their crew, then the vehicle may then be operated ‘by or on behalf of and under the control of’ Ambulance Victoria. It really would depend on the particular circumstances.
I would add that I can’t see that where a ‘St John or NEPT stops at a car accident they are in effect rendering emergency ambulance assistance as per agreements with Ambulance Victoria and the Department of Health.’ I would want to see what sort of agreement says that will happen and that they are not stopping just because it’s the right thing to do. As for ‘the Thunderstorm Asthma event when NEPT services where responding to Code 1 calls’ even then the vehicle is still being operated by the NEPT provider and is under their control, even if they are responding to tasks allocated to them by Ambulance Victoria.
As for the benefit of fitting red/blue lights and/or siren but given no exemption under the road rules (eg r 306) that’s a good question and one I don’t have an answer to.
Could it be argued that the definition of an emergency vehicle in Victoria needs to change in order to provide exemptions/protections to such services if they are being granted permissions to have red/blue beacons fitted with or without sirens?
It not only ‘could be argued’ but it is clearly true. If St John Ambulance or NEPT providers are to gain an exemption under r 306 or to be included in rule 79A then yes the definition of ‘emergency vehicle’ would need to be changed. Whether it should be changed is quite another question.
Conclusion
My correspondent moved from the new speed limit rule to the question of exemptions. What I would conclude from the long question and answer is:
- St John Ambulance and NEPT providers in Victoria do not operate an ‘emergency vehicle’ and so the 40km/h rule does not apply to vehicles passing them. I would add that I think that is probably irrelevant. Assuming they do have red or red/blue warning lights (an issue I haven’t addressed here) no other driver is going to know whether or not a St John Ambulance or NEPT vehicle is or is not an emergency vehicle so it won’t make any difference to their behaviour. They’ll either slow down or they want.
- If there is an emergency vehicle also on site, then drivers are required to slow down and give way to emergency workers on foot and that could include St John and NEPT providers. Equally it’s probably irrelevant. Most drivers are going to give way and if they’re not it’s not going to be because of some finer point on whether or not the people are emergency workers.
- Providing an emergency medical service in cooperation with or even at the request of ambulance Victoria would not mean a St John or NEPT vehicle was being operated ‘operated by or on behalf of and under the control of’ Ambulance Victoria (or the other emergency services). More would be required.
- I don’t know what the value of fitting red/blue warning lights and/or sirens to vehicles that are not emergency vehicles for the purposes of the road rules is.
- To include St John or NEPT vehicles in the definition of an ‘emergency vehicle’ would require an amendment to the regulations. Whether that amendment should be made is a question I make no comment on.
Australian Emergency Law 
My understanding of “on behalf of” includes a vehicle contracted to AV.
I was OH&S Coordinator for the ambulance union (AEA-V) during the Kennett years, and we were resisting the move to privatise the non-emergency aspect of the Ambulance Service.
I ran the argument with VicRoads under the Road Traffic Act 1985, that (at the time), NEPT providers were not driving vehicles “owned & operated by an ambulance service”, and as such couldn’t be classed as emergency vehicles. After much correspondence, VicRoads sent me a letter saying that the rules had been changed to allow NEPT providers to be classed as emergency vehicles when operating on behalf of MAS (forerunner to AV).
The intent of the letter was to clarify that NEPT vehicles contracted to AV were considered as emergency vehicles.
St. John operate as NEPT providers to AV.
They may do so, but that doesn’t address any of the issues and is not sufficient to authorise the use of flashing warning lights.
I don’t see that NEPT providers are ‘contractors’ to Ambulance Victoria. Non-emergency patient transport in Victoria is governed by the Non-Emergency Patient Transport Act 2003 (Vic). That Act provides for people to set up non-emergency patient transport services. There is no reference to Ambulance Victoria (AV). The NEPT provider is not required to receive tasks from AV and does not operate on behalf of AV. St John provide an NEPT service as a licensed provider, not as a contractor to or as agent for AV (see https://www.stjohnvic.com.au/ambulance-patient-transport.asp).
There may have been attempts to resist the privatising of the NEPT sector in the 1980s but clearly that argument has been lost. Any reference to how NEPT vehicles were governed then, are irrelevant now.
Ok. I was just trying to give some background to the evolution of NEPT in Victoria. Providers are licensed under the NEPT legislation, which, as you say is independent of other laws.
Some providers contract out part of their business to perform non-emergency transport work under contract to AV. I think there are st least three major providers; National Patient transport, Royal Flying Doctor Service, & St. John.
They have radios & data terminals in their vehicles specifically for receiving cases, and communicating with AV. They are controlled through the AV network, and are directed by AV Clinician, and Managers. They are audited by AV.
Their staff are members of the AEA-V, and this union negotiates on their behalf with their employers, and where appropriate, AV.
All licensed NEPT’s are fitted out the same or similar life saving equipment and Staff have the same qualifications and (sometimes better)training.
Wouldn’t it be easier to remove the red and blue beacons from non emergency vehicles instead?
Steve,
It may be easier to do that but aren’t we all part of the same team.
Displan (code Orange) whatever the flavour requires the fitment of at least Red beacons and siren for that use alone.
No one service is different to another when it comes to NEPT and that includes AV.
What do you mean by ‘Displan (code Orange)’? I can’t see that either the State Health Emergency Response Plan (3rd ed) or the EMMV Part 3 – State Emergency Response Plan say anything about fitting red beacons and siren to St John or NEPT vehicles.
And AV is not the same as other NEPT providers as AV do not need to be licensed under the NEPT Act (see s 5).
AV must adhere to the NEPT regulations the same as other providers, regardless.
Is that correct? The regulations refer to ‘providers’. Provider “means a person who operates a non-emergency patient transport service
and— (a) holds a non-emergency patient transport service licence; or (b) is, or belongs to a class of person, referred to in a declaration made under section 5(2) of the Act’. AV does not need to hold ‘a non-emergency patient transport service licence’ nor is AV exempt by virtue of a declaration under s 52(c) so I’m not at all sure that AV has to adhere to the NEPT regulations.
NEPT vehicles as contractors to Ambulance Victoria inder their response arrangements are equipped with both red and blue flashing light and a siren.
During this role some of these vehicles are required to respond lights and sirens to assist emergency paramedics. This also applies during emergency surge and disaster arrangements.
St John provides both volunteer and seperate to this paid NEPT ssrvices, also equipped with red and blue lights and siren.
Any NEPT vehicle may park to facilitate care and transfer to Ambulance Victoria emergency staff.
Volunteer vehicles only have red lights.
I think the Vicroads correspondent is somewhat confused.
NEPT providers are not contractors to Ambulance Victoria that is to say they do not operate because of some contract with AV. They may contract with AV in that AV may outsoursce patient transport services by engaging the services of licensed NEPT providers but that is the same way that they may outsource the maintenance of their ambulances. The contract with AV to the extent there is one, is a business opportunity for the NEPT providers not the source of their authority to operate.
If AV is a customer of an NEPT provider it does not mean that their vehicle is being operated ‘by or on behalf of and under the control of’ AV. If I hire a taxi the driver takes me where I want to go but he or she is operating the vehicle and it’s under their control. If a person contacts AV for non-emergency patient transport and they contract with a private NEPT provider to provide that service, then AV and the patient are the NEPT provider’s customers but the vehicle is being operated by and on behalf of the NEPT provider who is operating its business.
Note that in the Non-Emergency Patient Transport Regulations 2016: Regulatory Impact Statement (https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/about/publications/policiesandguidelines/NEPT-RIS-regulations-combined ) the Department of Health & Human Services said (at p. 6):
So 6/20 NEPT providers act ‘under contract’ to AV. Further ‘The Minister of Health has also stated publically that NEPT transports currently undertaken by AV are to be transferred to the NEPT sector.’
The vehicle standards applicable in Victoria are set out in Schedule 2 of the Road Safety (Vehicles) Regulations 2009 (Vic). They say, at cl 118(4) ‘A vehicle, other than an exempt vehicle or a special use vehicle, must not be fitted with a light that flashes without the written approval of the Corporation.’ An exempt vehicle includes an ‘emergency vehicle’. The Regulations use the same definition as that found in the Road Safety Road Rules 2017 (Vic) so neither a St John vehicle nor an NEPT vehicle is an ‘exempt’ vehicle.
It follows that they can only have flashing lights (of whatever colour) to the extent that the Corporation, ie the Roads Corporation or VicRoads established by the Transport Integration Act 2010 (Vic) s 80, says they can. That is a much more logical analysis than trying to assume fictional relationships between AV, St John Ambulance Australia (Victoria) and NEPT providers.
Granting approval to fit flashing lights, whether red or blue or magenta, does not however make the vehicle an emergency vehicle for the purposes of the Road Safety Road Rules 2017 (Vic) which goes back to the question of what is the point of allowing them to have those warning devices if they don’t also get the exemptions provided for in r 306 of the Road Safety Road Rules 2017 (Vic) or the benefit of s 79A. I have no answer to that question.
Michael
Have a look at page 32 paragraph 5 and 6 of said NEPT regulations.
If you mean the Non-Emergency Patient Transport Regulations 2016: Regulatory Impact Statement (https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/about/publications/policiesandguidelines/NEPT-RIS-regulations-combined ) unfortunately it doesn’t have page numbers. If I rely on the page count on Word and get to p 32 paragraphs 5 and 6 I don’t see anything relevant. Perhaps you can quote the text you are referring to and what you think its relevance is?
All Licensed NEPT providers should have the full monty regardless because they will be needed for Occupational Healthy & Safety as is the case with my company when flagged down to assist others in need. Life is more important than Unjust laws.
Which unjust laws are we talking about? Presumably NEPT providers do have warning lights fitted because VicRoads have given permission. So I’m not sure what the point here is.
Unfortunately Michael NEPT providers and Event 1st Aiders in Victoria are not allowed to have flashing lights on their vehicles as informed by Vic Roads one week ago. And that includes AV contractors.
I have the letter (all caused by a vindictive employee at Vic Roads upon registration of a NEPT vehicle.
Check page 32 para 5 & 6 in NEPT regs for more info contrary to what Vic Roads claim.
After 21 years they want me to remove my lights.
That’s correct. The Road Safety (Vehicles) Regulations 2009 (Vic) Schedule 2, cl 118(4) says: ‘A vehicle, other than an exempt vehicle or a special use vehicle, must not be fitted with a light that flashes without the written approval of the Corporation.’ It is entirely up to VicRoads to say what you can and can’t have. I have assumed, in this discussion, that if St John and NEPT providers have flashing warning lights fitted, then VicRoads have given the relevant permission. If VicRoads have not given, or have withdrawn that permission, then you can’t have flashing warning lights.
I’m still not sure what you are referring to when you say ‘page 32 para 5 & 6 in NEPT regs’. The NEPT regs are the NON-EMERGENCY PATIENT TRANSPORT REGULATIONS 2016 (Vic) and I can’t see anything relevant in those.
Found it! The Non-Emergency Patient Transport Regulations 2016 (Vic) r 47(5) says ‘A provider must ensure that all vehicles used for the transport of patients on a public road by the non-emergency patient transport service are equipped with warning lights that can be activated when at any incident attended by the vehicle.’ Note that the regulation uses the word ‘equipped’, not ‘fitted’. It also doesn’t say what colour light is required. The Regulatory Impact Statement says ‘The Regulation will not specify the type of warning light that must be carried. A portable amber light would suffice.’ It remains the case that the vehicle can only be fitted with lights and in particular red/blue lights if VicRoads gives the relevant permission.
Michael, see below;
STATUTORY RULES 2016
S.R. No 28/2016
Non-Emergency Patient Transport Act 2003
Non-Emergency Patient Transport Regulation 2016
Page 32
paragraphs
(5) A provider must ensure that all vehicles used for the transport of patients on a public road by the non-emergency patient service are equipped with warning lights that can be activated when at any incident attended by the vehicle.
Penalty: 20 penalty units.
(6) In this regulation-
vehicle category code has the same meaning as it has in the relevant design rules within the meaning of the Road Safety (Vehicles) Regulations 2009.
Regards
N
Yes I had found that. You normally cite a regulation by it’s number (in this case r 47) rather than page number as that can vary depending on where one is sourcing the regulation. See my most recent comment where I address r 47(5).
Further;
I do not believe it is in the best interests of NEPT staff to be clambering about ambulances to attach a warning light.
Occupational Health & Safety Regulations would prohibit this.
We could have Paramedics/Attendants/Nurses and PTO’s on duty board the ambulances with very sick patients so who is going to risk their life outside clambering around an ambulance. I think not…
And what is good for the goose is surely good for the gander as they say.
Unjust laws….
Fair comment. Though I suppose you can stick a magnetic based orange flashing light on the roof without getting out of the ambulance but fair point and thank you for bringing regulation 47(5) to my attention.
Michael,
NEPT providers and their vehicles are roadside breakdown truck or services.
Just about any car, van, truck, bus has yellow (amber) flashing light fitted somewhere so do you not think it important enough for NEPT vehicles that carry sick patients to have red or red and blue lights for overall safety to all on board and around the vehicle.
We carry tools for sure, but they are life saving tools only, not toys.
Regards
Nigel
What I think is irrelevant. The conclusions I’ve reached here aren’t based on what I think the law should be but what I understand the law is.
The question that started all this was about r 79A. 79A refers to an ’emergency vehicle’. An NEPT vehicle or a St John vehicle is not an emergency vehicle as defined in the relevant regulations. I don’t reach that conclusion because I think that they should not be an emergency vehicle but because that is what the definition of ’emergency vehicle’ says.
The relevant regulations also say that any vehicle, other than exempt or special use vehicle, must not be fitted with flashing lights except with the permission of VicRoads. I do not reach that conclusion because I think they should not be allowed to have those lights, but because that is what the regulations say. Regulation 47(5) of the NEPT regulations doesn’t change or alter that position.
Even if I thought NEPT vehicles should have red/blue lights (something I make no comment on) that wouldn’t and couldn’t change my interpretation of what the regulations say. What they say is they can only have those lights ‘fitted’ if VicRoads say they can and even if they are fitted, they are not an ’emergency vehicle’ for the purposes of the Victorian Road Rules.
I can only agree with Shane on the ‘Cowboyism’ in some circles did occur but as the NEPT industry grew up so did the crews.
No matter the critism NEPT vehicles carry incapacated patients (low, medium, high) and crewsvshould have the safety facilities afforded them and the appropiate roof lights (prefferably Red) should be the standard.
A coroner is not going to be to happy an ambulance (thats what NEPT vehicles are) is pretending to be a breakdown truck.
it’s going to be a pretty unique set of circumstances where there is a death and the suggestion is that the death would be avoided if the lights were red rather than yellow.
Why is it I cannot fathom this answer?
The lights on the roof of an ambulance provide definite idenity to Emergency Services.
Put it in an easy description the lights cannot stop a death actually occurring but can IDENTIFY the vehicle that has is attending to a patient and or has requested Emergency 000 help.
Think a sea of YELLOW flashing lights and the put a red flashing light amongst them and you may get the picture.
As I once displayed to DHS and NEPT representatives with 2 sheets of A4 paper
one with all Yellow round stickers and another the same only adding a Red flag dot.
Try it and get the picture.
Whilst Michael has outlined the legal position, I would suggest that amber (where approved) is a very appropriate colour for majority of NEPT providers, possibly except where they have a specific arrangement with their jurisdictional statutory ambulance service to provide an emergency response capability in times of surge etc AND have demonstrated an appropriate driver awareness training/education program that supports ‘driving under emergency conditions’.
Too many people/organizations getting caught up in needing red / blues for ‘patient or staff safety’ whereas I would assert that its more often for self / ego.
As an example, in my jurisdiction, I am aware of a provider cite WHS reasons for red/blue and even green beacons on their vehicle despite having been instructed to remove and fit/display amber only. To me it demonstrates ignorance and ‘cowboyism’ (yes, I made that word up – but you get the gist) – vehicle placement at static incident scenes is far more beneficial than simply pulling up and displaying red or red/blues.
Cheers
Shane
Hi Mr Eburn,
Just a bit confused, and wanted to clarify revolving around the operated on behalf on an Ambulance Service.
I know you said that NEPT cars contracted to do AV work are not emergency vehicles but granted they maintain AV issued radios and MDTs as well as being Dispatched to emergency (code 2 and 3 via Triple Zero) and non-emergency cases (code 4) both via ESTA and basically directed and controlled by the AV DM and clinician, can that not be argued that they are being contracted to and operated on behalf of Ambulance Victoria.
I mean essentially, the contract is the NEPT company provides the vehicle and the staff, and AV has full control over it with out the NEPT company’s interferance and it is treated as an AV resource.
Like in the taxi scenario, if13 Cabs is providing the driver and the taxi but if it is taking jobs from Silver Top Cabs due to a contract, is the 13 Cabs operating on behalf of Silver Top Cabs despite it being a 13 Cabs car?
Also, In some rural areas, the CPAV is contracted out to NEPT companies to respond to Emergency calls at the request of AV paramedics and sometimes these are requested code 1. Would these then be considered as emergency vehicles operated on behalf of Ambulance Victoria?
Sorry to annoy you, just want to make sure I understand right.
Thanks in advance for your clarification
Jazz
I’ve answered this question as a seperate post – see https://emergencylaw.wordpress.com/2017/07/21/what-is-a-vehicle-that-is-operated-by-or-on-behalf-of-and-under-the-control-of-ambulance-victoria/
Thank you Mr Eburn.
I look forward to reading the post 🙂
Presumably a vehicle that is not designated as an ’emergency vehicle’ cannot be authorised to undertake ’emergency driving’ as per r 306, other than when instructed by a police officer?
The concept of an AV duty manager or clinician authorising NEPT to travel code 1 would seem illegal?
And a police officer has no particular authority to do so either.