Today I’m asked about the use of lights and sirens in training.  My correspondent says:

I work for the state based ambulance service in South Australia. For as long as I can remember, 20+ years, new paramedic interns employed by the service undertake a driver training program, which includes driving lights and sirens on open public roads, in city traffic etc, where they respond to real 000 emergency taskings.

When an emergency P1/2 response comes into dispatch and a Paramedic crew on duty are tasked, the driver training vehicles also attach themselves to the job, so they too can respond towards the scene lights and sirens, purely for driver training purposes.

Whilst the driver training ambulances are responding to a real emergency case, in real time, they rarely actually arrive to assist on scene, and in fact, the common practice is they will take themselves off the job as soon as they get closer, regardless of whether the actual tasked paramedic crew attending, has arrived or not (case depending, not for cardiac arrests etc). Also, when there is a crew already on scene, treating a patient etc, the training car, will continue to drive under emergency conditions towards the scene, but again, will most often never actually arrive to assist, and will discontinue the lights and sirens response one or two streets from the case address, looking for another case to attach themselves too for more practice.

My question is purely whether this practice is considered legal under the road traffic act (306) for emergency driving? Driving an ambulance under lights and sirens, but with no intention of actually getting to a scene to perform the duties of a Paramedic (emergency worker) and assist with the intended emergency?

Also, if there was a significant accident to occur, causing death or severe injury to either the Paramedics in training, or if it involved members of the public, due to a training vehicle responding lights and sirens, but no intention of getting to the case, would this have other implications?

My understanding is within our state, the SA Police practice their emergency response on closed roads, without risk to members of the public.

I have answered a similar question back in 2022 – see Road Rules exemptions and drivers in training (July 4, 2022).   In that post I conclude that:

Rule 306 cannot apply to NSW or other jurisdictions that define ‘emergency vehicle’ by reference to a response to an actual emergency.

In other jurisdictions one can argue that the rules do not apply to drivers in training. If they did, there would be nothing for r 305A of the Road Safety Road Rules 2017 (Vic) to do…

So we need to look at the road rules in South Australia that is the Australian Road Rules made under the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA).   Rule 306 is familiar and says:

A provision of the Australian Road Rules does not apply to the driver of an emergency vehicle if—

(a)         in the circumstances—

(i)         the driver is taking reasonable care; and

(ii)         it is reasonable that the rule should not apply; and

(b)         if the vehicle is a motor vehicle that is moving—the vehicle is displaying a blue or red flashing light or sounding an alarm.

An emergency vehicle is a vehicle driven by an emergency worker in the course of his or her duties as an emergency worker.  An emergency worker includes Road Traffic (Road Rules–Ancillary And Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2014 (SA) r 54(1)(c):

… persons engaged in the provision of emergency ambulance services under section 57(1) of the Health Care Act 2008 on behalf of—

(i) SA Ambulance Service Inc; or

(ii) St John Ambulance Australia South Australia Incorporated,

or any other persons engaged in the provision of emergency ambulance services under section 57(1) of that Act;

(d) persons engaged in the provision of emergency ambulance services under section 57(2)(a) of the Health Care Act 2008;

The Health Care Act 2008 (SA) distinguishes between emergency ambulance services (s 57) and non-emergency ambulance services (s 58). What makes an ambulance service an ‘emergency ambulance service’ is the section under which it’s licensed or regulated not whether there is or is not an emergency.

Unlike NSW, the definition of emergency worker in SA does not require the driver of an ambulance to be driving ‘in the course of providing transport in an emergency…’ (see Road Rules 2014 (NSW) Dictionary, definition of ‘emergency worker’). 

Rule 305A of the Road Safety Road Rules 2017 (Vic) and r 282A of the Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA) provide exemptions ‘for drivers of vehicles being used for police driver training’.  There is no exemption for ambulance officers in training and there is no equivalent of rr 305A (Vic) and 282A (WA) in South Australia.

Discussion

What follows is that an officer of an emergency ambulance service in SA is an emergency worker and therefore can enjoy the exemption under r 306 if an only if they are

  1. taking reasonable care;
  2. it is reasonable that the particular rule, whether relating to the speed limit, obeying traffic control devices, keeping left etc should not apply in the circumstances and
  3. if the vehicle is moving, it is displaying red/blue flashing lights and/or sounding a siren.

So is driving in the circumstances described ‘reasonable’ and does it demonstrate ‘reasonable care’? I don’t think anyone would think it was reasonable to just travel under emergency conditions just for training, hence the need for special provisions in Victoria and Western Australia.   As I said in my earlier post, if s 306 did apply in training there would be no work for the Victorian and West Australian sections to do. We can see the argument: emergency driving is inherently dangerous for both the driver and other road users, because of that training is required but even so putting other road users at risk for training purposes is problematic.  The only way to get a definitive answer however, is for someone to be prosecuted and a court to rule on the argument.  Police are probably not going to enquire why an ambulance is proceeding wth lights and sirens if nothing goes wrong. If a ticket is issued and challenged a magistrate might be sympathetic to the need for training, but less sympathetic to evidence that ambulances are dispatched with no intention of actually getting to the job to give the colour of an emergency response (court’s don’t like ‘shams’).

What I can say, and with a high degree of  confidence, is that ‘if there was a significant accident to occur, causing death or severe injury to either the Paramedics in training, or if it involved members of the public, due to a training vehicle responding lights and sirens, but no intention of getting to the case’ then this would have serious implications.  In R v Wells [2017] NSWCCA 242 (discussed in the post Court of Appeal dismisses appeal by RFS tanker driver involved in fatal collision (October 13, 2017)) the court was not at all sympathetic to the use of the siren in a non-emergency situation (noting that in NSW that meant the driver was not, at that time, an emergency worker) but even so conduct that would normally go unnoticed had severe consequences when it resulted in a fatal collision. If there is an accident involving death or injury the whole matter will be investigated with more rigour than when asking to be let off a red-light camera offence or a police officer is deciding to issue a speeding ticket.   If there is a serious crash it is much more likely that the matter will end up before a court and a court will then have to consider – granted with the benefit of hindsight – whether it was reasonable to expose a person to the risk of death or injury for training purposes.  In NSW the lack of emergency meant that there was no reason to rely on an exemption and that would be the argument in SA too. 

Further, if there is an accident it is almost axiomatic that the driver was not taking reasonable care. As I’ve said before, when driving under emergency lights and sirens you can basically do what you like provided you don’t crash; once you crash all bets are off.

Conclusion

The question was is ‘this practice is considered legal under the road traffic act (306) for emergency driving’?  The law is not self-executing which means the question of whether it is legal will not be answered unless and until someone challenges the matter in court. That would require police to make an allegation that a driver wanted to defend.  That is probably unlikely when no-one gets hurt. 

If ‘there was a significant accident to occur, causing death or severe injury’ then all bets would be off and police are likely to bring serious charges and the argument that it was not reasonable to enjoy an exemption for training purposes will then have to be considered. The risk to road users means emergency driving is dangerous and road users should not be exposed to that risk simply when it’s convenient rather than necessary (R v Wells).   Further if it was believed that r 306 could be reilied on in training, there would have been no need for Victoria and Western Australia to pass special road rules to allow for such an exemption.

On balance I don’t think ‘this practice [would be] considered legal under the road traffic act (306) for emergency driving’ but it will only be tested when someone is killed or injured.

This blog is made possible with generous financial support from (in alphabetical order) the Australasian College of Paramedicine, the Australian Paramedics Association (NSW), the Australian Paramedics Association (Qld), Natural Hazards Research Australia, NSW Rural Fire Service Association and the NSW SES Volunteers Association. I am responsible for the content in this post including any errors or omissions. Any opinions expressed are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or understanding of the donors.