Today’s question is about:
… the definition of a fire brigade vehicle as an emergency vehicle in the Road Traffic Code 2000 (Western Australia). The use of the word “or” confuses me. How is it meant to be interpreted?
“Of a fire brigade on official duty in consequence of a fire or an alarm of fire or of an emergency or rescue operation where human life is reasonably considered to be in danger;”
Or where the last portion “where human life is reasonably considered to be in danger” refers also to the first part. The reading of the definition strikes me as… vague? Looking as a layman only of course.
And also, we are led to believe the exemptions in the Code do not apply where road works are present or on private property (where I would think none of the Code is relevant?). Re: road works it is arguable of course that it is appropriate to use exemptions under 281(1)(a)(ii) but it is not unusual to be waved through onto a closed section of the road by roadworkers or the roads are not being worked on at the time (late night/morning/weekends for example). Is it referred to (and technically not exempt) elsewhere?
Definition of emergency vehicle
The Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA) r 3 says:
emergency vehicle means a vehicle — …
(b) of a fire brigade on official duty in consequence of a fire or an alarm of fire or of an emergency or rescue operation where human life is reasonably considered to be in danger;
The question is, is the definition to be read as:
Interpretation A
a vehicle — …
(b) of a fire brigade on official duty in consequence of
(i) a fire; or
(ii) an alarm of fire; or
(iii) of an emergency; or
(iv) rescue operation where human life is reasonably considered to be in danger;
or as
Interpretation B
a vehicle — …
(b) of a fire brigade on official duty in consequence of
(i) a fire; or
(ii) an alarm of fire; or
(iii) of an emergency; or
(iv) rescue operation
where human life is reasonably considered to be in danger
In other words does the requirement ‘where human life is reasonably considered to be in danger’ apply to all the matters listed in (i) to (iv) above, or only to a ‘rescue operation’.
Deciding what interpretation applies would be a matter for a court should the issue arise. Imagine a situation where a fire brigade has been called, during winter, to a fire in a garbage bin in a roadside rest area. The brigade has to do a u-turn to pull up at the fire. Rather than stop and give way to oncoming traffic the driver activates the warning beacons and siren and does a u-turn giving the oncoming driver of a police car to have to take evasive action to avoid a collision. The police officer issues an infringement notice for failing to make a u-turn with safety contrary the Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA) r 32.
If I was the lawyer for the driver, I would argue that the exemption for emergency vehicles (r 281) applies because the driver was responding to a ‘fire’ and therefore this was an emergency vehicle (relying on the interpretation at ‘A’, above). If I was the lawyer for the prosecution, I would argue that the vehicle was not, at that time, an emergency vehicle as the driver was not responding to a fire where human life is reasonably considered to be in danger (relying on the interpretation given at ‘B’ above).
Driving under emergency response conditions (lights and sirens and asking other road users to give way and make way for emergency vehicles) imposes risk to the emergency vehicle driver and other road users. That can be justified where ‘human life is reasonably considered to be in danger’. If however the interpretation in ‘B’, above, is correct, that is however a significant limitation where the emergency is posing a risk to property only for example a call is to a fire in an unoccupied but important heritage building.
The issue may however never arise. In the fire-in-the-bin scenario described above, a judge may accept that the driver of the fire appliance is driving an emergency vehicle but given he or she was responding to a bin fire, in winter, where there is no risk to human live then it is not ‘reasonable that the provision [r 32] should not apply’ and/or given the oncoming driver had to take evasive action the fire appliance driver was not taking reasonable care and so the exemption in r 281 does not apply.
Ultimately in the absence of a reported decision by a court, the interpretation to be applied is open to argument.
Exemption for emergency vehicles at road works
I have no idea why my correspondent is ‘led to believe the exemptions in the Code do not apply where road works are present …’ There is nothing in the Road Traffic Code to say that. It may be a direction from the fire service that in the view of the service it is not reasonable to rely on the exemption in 281 in those circumstances. Remember however that the exemption in r 281 only refers to other rules in the Road Traffic Code. If entering a closed road or doing other things in road work areas is an offence under other legislation, then the r 281 exemption won’t apply.
Private Property
As for private property, the Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA) only applies on a road (r 4). A road is ‘any highway, road or street open to, or used by, the public and includes every carriageway, footway, reservation, median strip and traffic island on it’ (Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 (WA) s 4). The critical issue is whether the road is ‘open to, or used by, the public’ not who owns it, so a private road is still a road; but driving on say farmland behind a closed gate is not a road and the Code does not apply.
Conclusion
How the definition of emergency vehicle as it applies to a fire brigade appliance is not clear. One can imagine scenarios where interpretation A or B, above makes sense. It would, ultimately be a matter for the court of appeal to decide but it unlikely to ever get before the court, but it might – see for example, Court of Appeal dismisses appeal by RFS tanker driver involved in fatal collision (October 13, 2017).
There is nothing in the Road Traffic Code to say the exemption in r 281 does not apply where road works are present.
The Road Traffic Code only applies on a road. A road may be on private property but in the way most people think about private property (eg on a farm paddock) then it’s true that the Code does not apply.
Australian Emergency Law 
As someone who uses this legislation, to answer your question regarding the u-turn scenario, a vehicle identified as an emergency vehicle as per the definition; must display beacons and or sirens whilst operating on official duty.
It must be emphasised that this section of the legislation does not supersede section 60 (reckless driving), which means that all efforts must be made to maintain the safety of all road users, failure to do so holds the driver of the emergency vehicle liable.
To add comment on the first portion of your question, the use of ‘or’ is used to assist in the determination of the definition of an emergency vehicle on “official duty”.
This is the major difference to say police, where a police vehicle is always defined on being on “official duty”.
George, thanks for that. I know that r 281 requires an emergency vehicle to be displaying red/blue lights or sounding a siren. It is also know that r 281 only gives an exemption from the rules in the Road Traffic Code. It does not give an exemption to offences under other provisions such as the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) s 60. All of that is given, but it still doesn’t answer the question asked.
The use of the word ‘or’ is not used to assist in deciding when a vehicle is on official duty. It has to be ‘on official duty’ in consequence of one of the items listed. The question was whether the requirement that ‘human life is reasonably considered to be in danger’ is applicable to ‘rescue’ or all of the matters listed in the section.
A vehicle is also an emergency vehicle ‘when conveying a police officer on official duty or when that vehicle is stationary at any place connected with the official duty’. For both a fire appliance and a car with a police officer they have to be on ‘official duty’ but there are specific types of duties for fire fighters but that does not help explain how the phrase ‘where human life is reasonably considered to be in danger’ is to be applied.