Today’s question is about emergency driving with Ambulance Victoria (‘AV’). My correspondent says:
For years I’ve been under the impression that per our service’s (Ambulance Victoria) policy, if an ambulance is travelling lights and sirens to hospital with a patient and another paramedic is driving an AV vehicle behind them, they are not to be travelling lights and sirens as well given they are not conveying a patient.
Our service’s driving standards policy (last updated in December 2017, I believe) states the following:
4.1.9 It is unlawful to use warning devices while not conveying a patient but while following another ambulance to a hospital. This activity does not come within the requirements for and exemption under Road Safety Road Rules 2009.
However, upon reading the Road Safety Road Rules 2017, Section 306 states:
Exemption for drivers of emergency vehicles
A provision of these 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 provision 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.
I also went back and clarified, and the Road Safety Road Rules of 2009 also reports the same.
Is it therefore against legislation for us to travel in tandem when the vehicle we are following is conveying a critically ill patient in case of deterioration? Whilst there might be circumstances that all parties would travel in the one ambulance and leave the other vehicle parked (to be returned to later), I can think of instances in which a patient has deteriorated and we have then required the additional resources only for them to now be stuck in traffic. Similarly, if we have requested an intensive care unit or similar and are attempting to rendezvous with them whilst en route to hospital, it isn’t uncommon for them to almost “chase” us there, and if the patient deteriorates then we would pull over.
It’s true the legislation does not specifically say that such a practice is prohibited because of course the legislature does not want to get into that level of detail. A clause like r 306 is designed to give flexibility to everyone involved and what is or is not permitted depends on all the circumstances. To arrive at an answer then let us consider how this may arise and how it might be dealt with (and consider also the post Road traffic exemption – Who determines if it is reasonable that the provision should not apply? (May 22, 2016)).
The question of whether the driver of the second ambulance enjoys the exemption provided by r 306 will arise if an offence is detected by a camera – eg a red light or speed camera, or the driver is involved in a minor accident. If there is a significant accident where someone is killed or injured, then r 306 is going to be the least of anyone’s concerns as it does not provide an exemption from offences such as negligent driving causing death or serious injury. For the sake of keeping the argument simple let us assume that the driver of the second ambulance has been detected travelling through a red traffic light by a red light camera.
Rule 56(1) says:
A driver approaching or at traffic lights showing a red traffic light must stop … and must not proceed past the stop line, stop here on red signal sign or nearest or only traffic lights (as the case may be) until the traffic lights show a green or flashing yellow traffic light or no traffic light.
If the camera has detected them, then they have proceeded past the stop line regardless of whether they came to a stop first, or not. So the issue is whether that rule, r 56, should be applied to them or whether because of r 306 that rule does not apply to them.
I will assume that the driver of the ambulance thinks believed he or she was taking reasonable care (r 306(a)(i)) and that it in all the circumstances the decision to proceed past the stop line was reasonable (r 306(a)(ii)). But the driver is not to be ‘judge in his or her own cause’.
The first person to really have to turn them mind to the issue will the officer who reviews the photo to decide whether to issue an infringement notice, or not. Assume that this officer can see from the photo or photos that two ambulances proceeded past the stop line contrary to a red traffic light. They can also see that both ambulances had their warning beacons activated. In many cases the reviewing officer may think that’s all they need but in this case the officer wonders why there were two ambulances so refers the matter to AV for comment.
An officer in AV may look at the photos and their response is likely to be governed by the AV policy. Their response to police may well be ‘the second driver was not authorised to ‘to use warning devices while not conveying a patient but while following another ambulance to a hospital’. In that case the police would, I suggest, infer that it is not ‘reasonable’ for r 56 not to apply to the driver because AV has specifically said to its staff that this is not permitted. How can it be reasonable to do that which your employer has specifically directed you not to do?
In that case a traffic infringement notice is issued, and no doubt AV will pass that onto the driver with, hopefully, advice that their driving was not authorised and the traffic ticket is entirely their problem. The driver then has three options, 1) pay the fine; 2) write to police and ask them to waive it, perhaps substituting a warning or 3) ask the police to put the matter before a court for a Magistrate to determine.
If the driver takes option (1) that is the end of the matter. If they take option (2) the outcome may depend on other factors, such as the driver’s otherwise good driving record and the traffic conditions at the time. If the driver, in their letter, says ‘I had the benefit of r 306 so I’m not guilty’ the police are likely to simply put the matter before the court and let a magistrate decide. If they say words to the effect of ‘I am guilty because I thought I was allowed to do that but now that AV have drawn the policy to my attention and reinforced the training I understand that I was not allowed to drive as I did so I accept I am guilty of the offence but I have an otherwise unblemished driving record, it was safe in all the circumstances etc and I’ve learned my lesson’ then the police may be persuaded to take a lenient view.
If in submissions to police the driver argues that they are not guilty, or if they ask for the matter to be put before a court, then the police will issue the appropriate documents for the matter to be determined by a magistrate. A magistrate has to also consider whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances that r 56 is not applied to the driver of the second ambulance and again the Magistrate will have to consider that AV specifically says that such conduct is not reasonable. But the outcome will depend on the Magistrate, he or she may think the whole prosecution is ‘over the top’ and if the paramedics thought it was necessary who is he or she to argue and find that it was ‘reasonable’. Another magistrate may take a different view.
I think it is however worth considering what benefit the second ambulance provides. Axiomatically the driver of that ambulance is not contributing to patient care. If the two ambulances that responded were both double crewed, then there were four paramedics on scene. Now two are driving the ambulances and two are available to treat the patient; so what real value is having the driver of the second ambulance ‘responding’ with the first ambulance? If one ambulance was staffed by one officer, and the other with two, there are still two drivers and one paramedic to treat the patient. If both ambulances were staffed by single officers, and the two officers are now driving and no-one is treating the patient then it begs the question of whether the patient is actually so sick that their transfer to hospital needs to be expedited.
Whatever the situation, if the ‘patient has deteriorated and we have then required the additional resources only for them to now be stuck in traffic’ the second officer could be contacted and then asked to ‘respond’. Presumably they are not far behind and at that point they are responding to a different situation, not merely following the first ambulance so no issue.
As for the scenario of ‘we have requested an intensive care unit or similar and are attempting to rendezvous with them whilst en route to hospital’ but rather than pull over you let them ‘…. “chase” us there, and if the patient deteriorates then we would pull over…’ then it begs the question of ‘were they really required?’ and further ‘how can having a ‘chase’ be taking ‘reasonable care’?’
Who does r 306 really protect?
Rule 306 really protects the police and the magistracy. I have heard it said (and hopefully no-one says it anymore) that ‘there is no exemption from the road rules, but police turn a blind eye because they know what we do is important’. That is not how the rule of law in a democracy is meant to work. Rule 56 refers to ‘A driver …’ – that is any driver. Imagine if a person followed an ambulance through a red light and was stopped by police. Without r 306 that driver would rightly say ‘if you’re going to book me, you’ve got to book them too’. With r 306 the police, their supervising sergeant and a magistrate can all say say, true to their oath, ‘that driver has an exemption, and you don’t’. But if they think the ambulance officer was driving dangerously or using the warning devices unnecessarily, they can book them too.
Conclusion
Rule 306 does not say ‘It is unlawful to use warning devices while not conveying a patient but while following another ambulance to a hospital’. The Road Rules do not get into that level of specifics leaving it to drivers, the police and the courts to apply the flexibility inherent in the rules.
The questions for r 306 are ‘is it reasonable that a rule in question (in my hypothetical, r 56) is not applied to the driver?’ and ‘was the driver taking reasonable care?’. If the answer to either question is ‘no’ then the driver does not get the benefit of r 306. The instruction by AV that the use of ‘warning devices while not conveying a patient but while following another ambulance to a hospital … does not come within the requirements for and exemption under Road Safety Road Rules 2009’ (or now the Road Safety Road Rules 2017 (Vic)) is a statement of their opinion that this practice is not reasonable and it is not reasonable that the other provisions of the road rules should not be applied to the driver of the second ambulance.. A police officer or a Magistrate would be expected to have regard to that policy document in deciding whether it is ‘reasonable that the provision should not apply’. It would be hard to argue that it is reasonable if AV has specifically said that it is not.
See also
- Dealing with traffic tickets and SA Ambulance Service policy (January 17, 2017);
- Driving, r 306 and previous posts – explained (January 24, 2017);
- Victoria Police and Ambulance Victoria MoU determines maximum speed for responding ambulance(July 4, 2019); and
- Response driving in Victoria – because it’s urgent or convenient? (March 17, 2021).
This blog is a general discussion of legal principles only. It is not legal advice. Do not rely on the information here to make decisions regarding your legal position or to make decisions that affect your legal rights or responsibilities. For advice on your particular circumstances always consult an admitted legal practitioner in your state or territory.
Australian Emergency Law 
Helll Michael
My comments on this based on my previous employment with AV as a Paramedic and time spent as a Driving Facilitator with AV
From the time I joined the service it was SOP that if you were required to follow an Ambulance driving Code 1 into hospital, you did not drive the following ambulance under emergency conditions. You drove under normal road conditions. Situations where this was most likely to happen was where you as the primary crew called in a MICA crew to take over pt care. When we had 2 crewed MICA ambulances, most of the time you transferred the pt to the MICA ambulance, cleared and off you went to another job. Occasionally both MICA were needed for pt care requiring one ALS officer to drive the MICA ambulance and the other to bring the ALS ambulance to the hospital to collect his partner It was understood the officer driving the following ambulance drove under normal road rules. As the pt was being cared for in the first ambulance, there was no reason for the following ambulance to drive under emergency conditions. With the advent of single officer MICA responders, this situation was occurring more and more as the MICA officer jumped into the initial ambulance with his gear to continue pt care, requiring his car to be bought to hospital by the other ALS officer. Somewhere along the way ( Im thinking due to the experience drain of seasoned Paramedics, it became common for the following Paramedic to also drove code 1
We were well aware of this at Driver Standards, and all new graduates and those undertaking Code One signs had it spelled out to them this was not to happen and they has no exemption under r306 to do so. Further it was against AV Policy as outlined in our driving standards. Although now retired, Im disappointed to hear this obviously still seems to be happening
I received this comment via direct message:
“As a driving standards facilitator having presented the low-risk driving course, I would like to add to your post from another point of view. I think the case of whether it is legal or not has been well presented in your discussion. The policy of the other ambulance not following lights and sirens has been brought in by many services.
The case of whether it is safe and reasonable to do so from a policy point of view is reliant on the ambulance service. What risk is the ambulance service deeming reasonable in the course of that person’s duties?
I agree; if the situation changes while the crew is en route to the hospital and they need the following ambulance to respond with lights and sirens, yes, the situation has changed, and they are responding to an increased need.
Where the other crew is following behind just in case there is deterioration and did not need to be there from the outset, there is more risk being taken by two ambulances going through traffic and intersections on lights and sirens. A lot of people are expecting one emergency vehicle when they hear sirens (if they are paying attention); they’re not necessarily looking for two vehicles, and this can create confusion. One of the things we try and do with the low-risk driver model is reduce confusion to other drivers, as they can act in unpredictable ways when surprised.
I think your explanation of the law is great. I also think that the ambulance services have their policies with the intention to keep people, their staff, and their patients safe and minimize taking unnecessary risks.”