The whole concept of assisting someone in an emergency primarily follows one simple rule. You should not put yourself or others at risk. Clearly the appliance driver here did not follow that rule.

Mainly my sister, I am indifferent to the man, tbh. And again, would you like being told that for want of a few thousand pounds of beef, you other half burnt to death at the wheel of her car?



This is true, however, that's also why the services use big loud sirens and flashing lights so that you're given fair warning to get the [LIFTED] out of their way.

I don't think it is fair to put someone else's life at risk for the possibility of saving another's.

Fair enough, but that's what we ask from a lot of the emergency services everyday.
The people in the lifeboat that take you off your sinking yacht because you're hit by a storm and you have a fuel leak.
The policeman who has to deal with a drunken lout.
The nurse who has an aggressive, bleeding patient.

This fireman made a mistake, yes.
Could the farmer have attempted to move the cattle into a field temporarily to allow them past? I don't know.

I have to be honest, I don't expect the fireman knew what the consequences would be, otherwise he wouldn't gave done it. There's more townies than country folk these days, even in the country.

We don't have enough details to judge this specific incident. Here are two extreme scenarios:

1. The driver can see the cows from a mile away, but decides the best approach is to drive at them full-pelt with the sirens on hoping they'll shift before he gets there - much as they do with birds or people. This might be considered rather reckless.

2. He's driving along a country road with sirens and lights on to warn any approaching traffic which may be unable to see him. He rounds a blind corner and is confronted with a load of cows blocking the way. He stops, turns off the siren and politely asks them to move - but it's too late, they're already running scared and trampling the farmer.

The only solution I can see to preventing a re-occurrence is to employ the same approach used with other abnormal loads on the road. By law, you need to inform the local authorities in advance of the exact route and time you'll be causing the disruption. That way the emergency services are pre-warned to avoid the route, and the load possibly gets a police escort to warn other road users.

Electricians, miners and many others are far more likely to die on the job than the front line services you mention.

This is true, but we rarely expect those professions to respond with the sort of speed and alacrity you'd associate with the emergency services. I'm not suggesting they deserve a carte blanche to respond recklessly, just that it should be born in mind that they get a shift on when someone else's life is at stake. Which is what you'd expect, frankly.

Not so.

I was responding to the idea that cattle can somehow be commanded out of the way or respond appropriately to a siren. Animals simply don't work like that - especially herd animals like cows, sheep or goats.


Indeed - but I don't think that was the driver's intention.

I personally think he got frustrated and, in a moment of stupidity, turned on his "blues 'n' twos" in order to get the cows out of his way.


Maybe he could have - that would certainly have been my first idea if I were moving them. However, looking at the satellite images of whereabouts it happened, he could have easily been a few minutes from even a field gate. He probably would have needed the fireman to disembark and help him turn the cattle, hold them still whilst someone opened a gate and then move them into the field. This could easily take 15 minutes. And that's if the field belonged to the farmer and was safe to put cows in.


The problem with this is that, for the farmer, it isn't an abnormal load - it's routine to have to walk cattle along a road. Even if you only had to do it once a week, each farmer would have to call the authorities 50 times per year. Now assume you have multiple dairy herds moving three times per day and you'd have to ring the council thousands of times a year.

It comes down to the basic assumptions each driver makes about the road he is driving on. If I'm driving in a city centre I assume that I will meet pillock drivers and kamikaze pedestrians and so I adjust my driving style accordingly. If I'm in the suburbs, I assume I'll have to dodge sui-cyclists and football-chasing children and adjust my driving accordingly. If I'm in the countryside, I assume I'll come across herds of beast or carcasses in the road and adjust my driving accordingly.


Indeed.

Which is why I think the driver should be punished not for the death but for his stupidity and carelessness. Perhaps a charge of causing death by careless driving, a couple of months' suspension and sitting the test again would be the fairest outcome? But don't sack him because he was stupid - imagine if everyone got sacked every time they were stupid. Just give him a right royal b*ll*cking and keep him in the service because he'll never do that again nor let anyone around him try it either.