Lights & Sirens when speeding?

[kermit315]

21055. The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle is exempt from Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 21350), Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 21650), Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 21800), Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 21950), Chapter 6 (commencing with 22100), Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 22348),

Yep, pretty sure I covered that already....exempt if either (a) or (b) is met. Note, I didnt say both, I said either. That is why you are wrong.

[Databyter]

Yep, pretty sure I covered that already....exempt if either (a) or (b) is met. Note, I didnt say both, I said either. That is why you are wrong.

Exemption of Authorized Emergency Vehicles

21055. The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle is exempt from Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 21350), Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 21650), Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 21800), Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 21950), Chapter 6 (commencing with 22100), Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 22348), Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 22450), Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500), and Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 22650) of this division, and Article 3 (commencing with Section 38305) and Article 4 (commencing with Section 38312) of Chapter 5 of Division 16.5, under all of the following conditions:

(a) If the vehicle is being driven in response to an emergency call or while engaged in rescue operations or is being used in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law or is responding to, but not returning from, a fire alarm, except that fire department vehicles are exempt whether directly responding to an emergency call or operated from one place to another as rendered desirable or necessary by reason of an emergency call and operated to the scene of the emergency or operated from one fire station to another or to some other location by reason of the emergency call.

(b) If the driver of the vehicle sounds a siren as may be reasonably necessary and the vehicle displays a lighted red lamp visible from the front as a warning to other drivers and pedestrians.

A siren shall not be sounded by an authorized emergency vehicle except when required under this section.

I did not change the text, just bolded, underlined, and grew in size, so you wouldn't miss it.

That is why YOU are wrong.

I don't want to fight you guys. Much respect.

But I am correct.

Apparently not being in law enforcement makes one study the text a bit more closely.

We know that unlike LE we WILL be prosecuted for being wrong.

Therefore, as I said before. The OP is quite correct in his assumption that under most circumstances lights must be displayed when exceeding the speed limit under the VC.

[kermit315]

Thanks, now try to follow along. According to that statute, if I am responding to an emergency call I am exempt. If I am in pursuit of a known or suspected violator, I am exempt. No mention of lights.

I am also exempt if I run the lights and siren.

This is what you dont get. You dont have to run the lights to get the exemptions, and the listed exemptions cover 99% of LE driving that is over the speed limit.

Which makes this statement by you wrong.

every speeding cop needs to use their emergency forward lights when speeding

[oldsmoboat]

Because of this statement by you. It directly contradicts what the CVC says.

Taken out of context.

The exceptions were pointed out by myself and others and have never been in question.

And those exceptions, like pacing and surveillance are not likely to be the cause of what the OP described.

Surveillance is not usually done from speeding marked police cars, and pacing requires another car to pace.

Just for clarification, here's what you initially said, emphasis mine:

I pass cops all the time under similar situation. Just making sure I'm legal.

Another thing I will do is follow a speeding cop on the freeway if he/she/it does not have their lights on. They are not allowed to speed either without emergency lights so I follow them with a WIDE buffer between us, even if I am going 80+ mph. Just don't pass them or gain ground in THAT situation or you will most likely have a problem.
Be polite with your car language (car version of body language).

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=7413127&postcount=64

[Databyter]

Thanks, now try to follow along. According to that statute, if I am responding to an emergency call I am exempt. If I am in pursuit of a known or suspected violator, I am exempt. No mention of lights.

I am also exempt if I run the lights and siren.

This is what you dont get. You dont have to run the lights to get the exemptions, and the listed exemptions cover 99% of LE driving that is over the speed limit.

Which makes this statement by you wrong.

You are just plain wrong about this.

The law is clear. It states the exemption and it states the requirements that must be followed under the terms of the exemption.
Ask one of the legal minds here or if in LE please ask your superior.

The legal language the code is written in can be confusing.

The code is in three parts.

Part 1: You got an exemption

Part 2: Here is al the code you are exempt from

Part 3: Here is the requirements to meet the exemption

If you look at it again all the "commencing with xxx" language is referring to the code sections you are exempt from (not all of them by the way).

Then it states that you must meet the requirements a and b to use the exemption.

Requirement a is basically the requirement that you be an emergency guy doing emergency stuff.

Requirement b is that you use your safety equipment i.e. lights.

[kermit315]

You are just plain wrong about this.
The law is clear.

It states the exemption and it states the requirements that must be followed under the terms of the exemption.

Ask one of the legal minds here or if in LE please as your superior.

I know the way the code is written can be confusing to some.

But if you look at it again all the "commencing with xxx" language is referring to the code sections you are exempt from (not all of them by the way).

Then it states that you must meet the requirements a and b to use the exemption.

No, you are plainly wrong. If both (a) and (b) had to be met to satisfy the code, there would be an 'and' between them.

If you dont want to accept reality, fine, dont. But your blanket statement is wrong as you have been told by numerous LE on here, and when confronted with the CVC you continue to ignore it.

Also, you posted that 22483 applies. I showed where it is clearly exempted. I dont understand how you fail to comprehend simple english.

[Databyter]

No, you are plainly wrong. If both (a) and (b) had to be met to satisfy the code, there would be an 'and' between them.

If you dont want to accept reality, fine, dont. But your blanket statement is wrong as you have been told by numerous LE on here, and when confronted with the CVC you continue to ignore it.

Also, you posted that 22483 applies. I showed where it is clearly exempted. I dont understand how you fail to comprehend simple english.

There is no "and" in the code.

It says you must meet all the following and gives a list.

It's not simple english. It is legal code.

There's more than one way to skin a cat. The use of "and" is not required in this case.

I see how you could misinterpret it and am not faulting you.

Just be glad you found out here and know it now.

[kermit315]

The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle is exempt under all of the following conditions:

Follow this: that sentence means that everything that follows it is an exemption. It does not say that all items that follow it have to be met for the exemption to be valid.

And, you finally got one right: there is no 'and'.

ETA: also notice that it doesnt say "if all the following conditions are met".

[BigDogatPlay]

You are reading into "under all of the following conditions" what is not present in that statement. The code is expressly calling out those conditions, but it is not limiting to them. The word "only" in that would be required to make it be what you think it is.

Yes, it's the law, and in the law words mean things. A lack of certain words also means things. While I don't begrudge your opinion by your own words it is not based in training or work as a LEO. Not trying to be mean but this is one of those kinds of things that if you haven't been on the inside, you really aren't in a position to form a truly considered opinion on it.

As I posted above, there is also agency policy to be considered and some agencies have code 3 policies that are a small book in and of themselves. In the final analysis of VC21055 and VC21056, those sections are the guideposts. They are not the absolute you continue to argue them to be.

[Databyter]

Follow this: that sentence means that everything that follows it is an exemption. It does not say that all items that follow it have to be met for the exemption to be valid.

And, you finally got one right: there is no 'and'.

ETA: also notice that it doesnt say "if all the following conditions are met".

No, when it says "exemption" it means "exemption", and when it says "condition" it means "condition"

In this case it says "condition"

You're thinking too hard. It says what it is and you don't need to "interpret" any thing else into it.

And once again the word "IF" is not necesary here. You guys must be pulling my chain and drinking shots

[Databyter]

You are reading into "under all of the following conditions" what is not present in that statement. The code is expressly calling out those conditions, but it is not limiting to them. The word "only" in that would be required to make it be what you think it is.

Yes, it's the law, and in the law words mean things. A lack of certain words also means things. While I don't begrudge your opinion by your own words it is not based in training or work as a LEO. Not trying to be mean but this is one of those kinds of things that if you haven't been on the inside, you really aren't in a position to form a truly considered opinion on it.

As I posted above, there is also agency policy to be considered and some agencies have code 3 policies that are a small book in and of themselves. In the final analysis of VC21055 and VC21056, those sections are the guideposts. They are not the absolute you continue to argue them to be.

I hear you and I think you hit the nail on the head.

Except where you failed to understand that a condition is a condition. There is no squirreling away from it in legal code.

But you made another good point that I agree with.

There is a difference in what is accepted under law and what the law actually says. And cops are trained in how to respond and what they can do, not always what the law says.

Police often show this bais in regards to gun laws, and are often shown to be wrong in a court of law, even though their training, background, and experiences all indicated to them that they were 100% correct.

And again to those that do not know me I am pro LE so don't get the wrong idea.

Much respect and appreciation for what LE does and the quality of people that it produces.

When the only people that will cite you are your brethren in LE Grey areas develop that become accepted and then become dogma. But they are not supported legally, just in reality.

If cops start to abuse the grey areas they get burned by what the law actually says. And usually feel indignant about it which I can empathize with.

[kermit315]

No, when it says "exemption" it means "exemption", and when it says "condition" it means "condition"

In this case it says "condition"

You're thinking too hard. It says what it is and you don't need to "interpret" any thing else into it.

And once again the word "IF" is not necesary here. You guys must be pulling my chain and drinking shots

Whatever you have to tell yourself man. Its pretty plainly put, and you cant really warp it to mean what you want it to.

Sorry, but thats reality.

[Databyter]

Whatever you have to tell yourself man. Its pretty plainly put, and you cant really warp it to mean what you want it to.

Sorry, but thats reality.

I'd bet real money on who was right. But who would hold the cash, and who would we agree on to be the judge?

Would you accept an attorney in the San Diego DA's office?

[kermit315]

I'd bet real money on who was right. But who would hold the cash, and who would we agree on to be the judge?

You might want to reread some of the opinions of the LEO's on this thread before you go putting money up.

Ask around, then come back and see if you still think thats such a good idea.

[Databyter]

You might want to reread some of the opinions of the LEO's on this thread before you go putting money up.

Ask around, then come back and see if you still think thats such a good idea.

There are LE on this and other threads that have said the same as I am saying.

And the real deciding factor in a bet over law would not be what some cops on a forum think about a law. We would need a lawyer.

Of course I know what it means without one, but I have spent a lot of time in law libraries and have won several court cases pro per that were not run of the mill slam dunks.

My dad also went to Western State for his Law Degree and I grew up listening to legal arguments and study groups.

What we need is someone with the clout to convince YOU.