I suspect this question has come from someone who has not been involved with the emergency services, but it still deserves a respectful answer. The question, from Queensland, is:
I’ve just been told AGAIN that misuse of the Emergency 000 number is a criminal offence. Because after half an hour of continual sirens here in Ipswich, I will call 000 and tell them that there is misuse of sirens going on here.
My question is: Is the misuse & overuse of sirens that occurs constantly here a criminal offence? There is no way that these Ambos & fire engines are all attending emergencies when they occur 24/7 at all hours (yes 2am or MN) and sometimes even play tunes on their sirens.
Vexatious calls to triple zero
The first question is, ‘is misuse of the Emergency 000 number a criminal offence?’ It is an offence for a person to ‘request that the [ambulance] service provide an ambulance service for a person (the “patient” ), unless the patient is sick or injured and requires an ambulance service’ (Ambulance Service Act 1991 (Qld) s 47). Equally it is an offence to make false calls for the fire and emergency service (Fire And Emergency Services Act 1990 (Qld) s 150B) but neither of those sections deal with the triple zero service. And anyone who rings triple zero to complain about the noise is not requesting an ambulance or fire and emergency service.
In any event the triple zero call service is not run by state governments, so it is not state legislation that is relevant. The Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth) deals with the ‘”emergency call service” that is (s 7):
… a service for:
(a) receiving and handling calls to an emergency service number; and
(b) transferring such calls to:
(i) a police force or service; or
(ii) a fire service; or
(iii) an ambulance service…
There is no offence, in that Act, of making a call to the triple zero service where an emergency service is not required and where the person is not actually requesting the emergency services to attend.
The Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) s 474.18 does provide for a relevant offence. It says:
(2) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person makes a call to an emergency service number; and
(b) the person makes the call otherwise than for the purpose of reporting an emergency; and
(c) the call is a vexatious one.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.
(3) In determining whether a call by a person to an emergency service number is a vexatious one, have regard to:
(a) the content of the call; and
(b) the number, frequency and content of previous calls the person has made to emergency service numbers otherwise than for the purpose of reporting emergencies; and
(c) any other relevant matter.
It follows that if a person makes repeated calls to triple zero to complain about the noise from the local ambulance and fire service, particularly where he or she has been warned that the calls are inappropriate may well be committing a criminal offence.
It should also be noted that ringing triple zero would be completely pointless. The emergency call service does not operate the ambulance service or the fire and emergency service. They answer calls to triple zero and pass the calls onto the relevant emergency service. Telling them there is a ‘misuse & overuse of sirens’ (whether that’s true or not) will achieve nothing. The person who takes that call cannot do anything about it. If my correspondent wants to raise the issue, he or she should contact Queensland Ambulance and/or Queensland Fire and Emergency Service. Harassing the triple zero call taker will just upset another person’s day for no purpose.
Is the misuse & overuse of sirens that occurs constantly here a criminal offence
Well it could be. There are provisions for breaching noise standards (Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) s 440Q) but there are no default standard for a siren (ss 440R-440ZA). Further, excluded from the prohibition are ‘noise from the ordinary use of a public road or State-controlled road’ (Schedule 1, cl 1(f)) and noise from ‘performing a function under the Disaster Management Act 2003’ (cl 2(c)).
In any event the question supposes that there is a ‘misuse & overuse of sirens’. My correspondent says ‘There is no way that these Ambos & fire engines are all attending emergencies when they occur 24/7 at all hours (yes 2am or MN)…’ On what basis they reach that conclusion is unknown. The emergency services operate a 24 hour a day, 7 day a week operation. Emergencies occur at 2am or I suppose MN means ‘midnight’. Of course many calls to the emergency services are not emergencies. A fire brigade may respond to a fire alarm that turns out to be a fault in an automatic alarm system and an ambulance service may respond to a call for urgent assistance that turns out to be a call to something trivial, but they don’t know that it’s a false alarm until they get there so it is an emergency response.
The Transport Operations (Road Use Management–Road Rules) Regulation 2009 (QLd) require drivers to make way for emergency vehicles where the vehicle is (emphasis added) ‘displaying a flashing blue or red light … or sounding an alarm’ (rr 78 and 79). Further the driver of an emergency vehicle is exempt relevant road rules when, inter alia, he or she is ‘taking reasonable care’ and ‘the vehicle is displaying a blue or red flashing light or sounding an alarm.’ It follows that siren is not required in every case but the point of the siren is to warn other road users that the emergency vehicle requires clear passage and the driver may seek to drive in a way contrary to the road rules. Sounding the siren, as well as activating the beacons, is part of ‘taking reasonable care’. The reason that the emergency services use the lights and sirens is to reduce the risk of a road accident and injury to others to whom the owe an established duty of care. It is a reasonable, if not prescribed, response to the risk to other road users.
Conclusion
It follows that there are two possibilities.
- The emergency services in Ipswich are busy and are responding to emergency calls at all hours of night and day which is something that the emergency services are expected to do; or
- There is a conspiracy between two unrelated services, Queensland Ambulance Service and Queensland Fire and Emergency Services to drive around using their siren to annoy the neighbours and ‘sometimes even play tunes on their sirens’ (given that the sirens do not play tunes).
My correspondent says the better explanation is (2) rather than (1) above. I suspect most readers of this blog would accept that explanation (1) seems like the more reasonable explanation.
The reason for conclusion (2) is ‘There is no way that these Ambos & fire engines are all attending emergencies when they occur 24/7…’ Presumably the evidence for that, as is the case in so many FaceBook comments is ‘that explanation doesn’t fit my experience. It’s not my experience that there are emergencies every day at all hours of the day or night and my experience – my data point of one – must reflect the true world so if it’s not true in my experience it cannot be true in anyone elses’. Of course those in the emergency services would have a different experience and I’m sure would rather be in bed at 2am rather than driving around playing ‘tunes on their sirens’ to annoy local residents.
Misuse and overuse of sirens could be an offence under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) but it would require detailed knowledge of noise standards and those provisions (detailed knowledge that I don’t have) to determine if that is possible. But, of course, that implies there is ‘misuse and overuse’ of sirens. To prove that would require more than mere conjecture that ‘There is no way that these Ambos & fire engines are all attending emergencies when they occur 24/7 at all hours…’ A person would have to get details of each callout and show that the use of the siren was a deliberate misuse rather than a response to an emergency call. The fact that it may turn out that there was no emergency would be irrelevant if there was a response to an emergency call.
In the meantime calling ‘000 [to]… tell them that there is misuse of sirens going on here’ could be an offence under the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)..
Australian Emergency Law 
The correspondent might be glad they don’t live in urban Japan. I spent a week near the Kokubunji Fire Station where in the middle of the night the last fire engine in the procession instead of using its siren would make announcements (in Japanese) apologising for the noise but that it is necessary for getting to the fire, etc, please forgive the noise. Which is fine if you knew what they were saying…
One issue the blog post doesn’t cover is legislation against misuse of sirens and warning lights. Legislation prescribes that to be exempt from road rules you must use lights/sirens, but there is no legislation, only emergency service policy to stop you from using lights/sirens when not on an emergency. Which seems a bit odd, given in South Australian legislation, for an amber flashing light you are quite restricted in the circumstances in which you can fit it, use it, cannot go more than 25km/h etc, but red and blues seem to suffer no such restriction. Should there be legislation to allay the correspondents fears or to level the playing field between amber and red/blue?
I think there is a limit to how much legislation we need. Legislating when to use red/blues and/or sirens would be unnecessarily cumbersome and not something the legislature would want to do. What more could they say as ‘when reasonable’ or ‘when authorised by the emergency service’? Red/blues are less regulated than yellow because there are greater limits on who can install them and the government no doubt trusts the ambulance and fire services to keep their employees under control.
I have previously argued here that no-one should use red/blues unless seeking right of way (ss 78 and 79) or the exemption (s 306) (see https://emergencylaw.wordpress.com/2017/06/12/is-it-an-emergency-does-it-have-to-be-for-victorias-road-rules/) but I don’t think there should be legislation governing when the warning devices can be used by the emergency services.
Any such legislation would also remove “common sense” uses that might not be considered by the legislature.
I not infrequently, on a priority 2 or 3 call (so no lights and sirens to the scene), will put my beacons on when I’m on scene to make sure I’m highly visible and others slow down if the incident is on the side of the road. I’m technically not requesting right of way by doing this (I’m not even in the vehicle) but I’m using resources at my disposal to make things safe for everyone on scene.
“When reasonable” seems like a good solution.
Hello MIchael. Long time reader- first time poster.
Another clue may be in the last sentence, “…and sometimes even play tunes on their sirens” which emergency services don’t have.
I propose a third possibility that what the author is hearing is hoon operated muti-tune electronic horn and/or (fourth possibility) an exhaust whistle tip.
Could also be playing music using the PA system built into most siren units in QLD. Our RFS appliance has PA functionality. It’s supposed to be used to address a casualty or crew in critical incidents, but there’s nothing stopping someone from holding their phone’s speaker to the mic of the PA.
Bummer, I was hoping there was a “Play Tune” switch that I just hadn’t managed to find.
Context…
Queensland Ambulance Service indeed runs 24/7. Triple Zero calls are coded (I will explain this further) in relation to the severity of the call. These codes are Code 1, Code 2 etc. A code 1 response is the most acute response requiring lights and sirens. A code 2 response and anything less than code 2 is still immediate but the response will be under road speed and common road rules apply. The codes are then divided into further letters a, b and c. So an unconscious, not breathing patient will receive a code 1A response. This is the most acute rating. A person with difficulty in breathing is commonly given a a 1B, a person with chest pain is commonly given a 1C. All these are lights and siren responses. A person with abdominal pain will commonly be given a code 2A response and depending on severity, the codes change.. Other factors can change these response ratings so this is generalised. These codes exist so if an ambulance crew responding to a 2A job is near a new triple 000 call for an unconscious person which will be given a 1A, naturally the crew will be diverted to the 1A job. A recent directive from the a Brisbane LASN (Local Ambulance Service Network) gave instruction to use sirens all the time when the lights are being used, as sometimes crews use lights only in quieter parts of the road. Believe me, in the middle of the night on a quiet road, with no other cars, the siren does not seem warranted, however, accidents can happen and people can still be using roads (lets not forget pedestrians etc). When approaching an intersection and there is a parent with a baby in a pram, attempts are made to turn off for the short period as they are loud but this is not a guarantee. Why the directive was given has not been made clear but one could guess that it was based on an issue arising from not using the sirens all the time.
Crews respond to these code 1 jobs as directed. Commonly assess/stabilise/treat the patient and then travel road speeds to a hospital. In some cases, where the patient continues to be critical or time sensitive factors apply. The crew will travel code 1 to a hospital.
So for the citizens querying the use of lights and sirens . Crews are only given a snapshot of information so it makes sense to travel as coded by the Triple Zero call taking process and the use of lights and sirens is deemed as the way to get there in the safest / fastest way. Then a provisional diagnosis can be determines for its severity.
But it’s fair to say the lights and sirens are on,y used when required. Best to hear the sirens go past then to be… well you get the idea.
When I was a volunteer in the CFA back in 2001, I was asked why ambulances run with lights and no sirens to jobs (known then as a “Code 2”) best I could find out then was that code 2 tasks were urgent but not life threatening.
I look at it this way, if an emergency vehicle is operating in an emergency capacity while responding to an emergency, then it is exempt from the road rules, but the driver must drive with due care and caution. So, regardless of the time, if the emergency vehicle operator proceeds through a red light (as permitted to do so with the exemption at that point in time), using lights displayed and no sirens sounding, and another vehicle enters the intersection from the direction showing green, as they would be lawfully entitled to do so, and collides with the emergency vehicle, it can be reasonable in the circumstances the operator of the emergency vehicle did not drive with due care in that the operator failed to signal their intention to proceed into the intersection safely, as the driver of the other vehicle may have reasonably presumed that they were able to maintain their right of way.
The use of lights and sirens is to warn other road users of an emergency vehicle approaching to enable the driver to move safely out of the way, and that is WELL established.
I do like the comment about playing music to annoy people. I personally think that driving down the road, playing Wagner’s “Ride of the Valkuries” would be an awesome thing to do, but certainly would not be appropriate. I would suggest that the author of the original question may be confused between an emergency vehicle and the ice cream delivery van.
One approach I have at work, especially with abusive drivers and other people who feel “inconvenienced” by emergency vehicles operating, what would they expect if their own mother or loved ones were the person at immediate harm, requiring an urgent response. The answer quite often is surprisingly, they would want the emergency services to proceed without delay, using their lights and sirens.