They were, they’re no longer in government. Now the individuals involved are being held accountable. This inquiry is going to torpedo some careers, apparently deservedly.

This is essentially the core role for Patriot in this conflict, it's a pretty good anti-ballistic missile system. It is limited, though, by quite short range against ballistic missile threats because of their speed and trajectory. Just speculating, but this specific type of threat (and endogenous Russian ballistic missiles) is probably the intended target for Patriot.

What do you mean by “lifestyle” drugs, friend? We’re talking about Roche and Novartis. If look at their registered drugs, most of them are immune modulators, chemotherapeutics or other agents with no non-therapeutic indication.

Steam Link and the Controller predate that decision by years (2015 vs 2018), and were sold in Australia only very late. Your explanation might be right today, but doesn't explain their past behaviour.

You can choose not to advance into an intersection if it’s unsafe for you to do so, or to give way. That doesn’t necessarily mean the emergency vehicle has right of way.

Imagine a situation in which a driver was unaware of the presence of the emergency vehicle and advanced normally into an intersection, then was struck and injured by an ambulance driving under urgent duty driving conditions. If the ambulance had right of way, that injured driver would be held liable. That’s definitely not the case where I work.

Beacons ask other drivers to give up their own right of way. It doesn’t steal it from them.

Edit: I had a squizz at your Highway Code. It specifically does not say that the ambulance takes right of way:

>Rule 219

>Emergency and Incident Support vehicles. You should look and listen for ambulances, fire engines, police, doctors or other emergency vehicles using flashing blue, red or green lights and sirens or flashing headlights, or traffic officer and incident support vehicles using flashing amber lights. When one approaches do not panic. Consider the route of such a vehicle and take appropriate action to let it pass, while complying with all traffic signs. If necessary, pull to the side of the road and stop, but try to avoid stopping before the brow of a hill, a bend or narrow section of road. Do not endanger yourself, other road users or pedestrians and avoid mounting the kerb. Do not brake harshly on approach to a junction or roundabout, as a following vehicle may not have the same view as you.

No, it absolutely doesn’t change my right of way. I’m at fault automatically for any accident that occurs. It is purely a safety signal that I’m driving differently.

Don’t try to redditsplain to me the legal framework I work in, thanks.

Well I mean, I can’t speak for other jurisdictions. However, beacons here are a signal to other drivers that you’re behaving in a manner that would otherwise be unlawful. It’s intended as a safety device. It doesn’t change right of way or any other road rule, it just tells you I’m driving differently.

For instance, I still come to either a complete stop or a slow roll before entering intersections on a red light, and so on.

Again, that’s better served by other means. Cardiac arrest survivors typically have already been shocked before ambulance arrival. Even the best ambulance response times in the world are typically well outside the acceptable time range.

You chose a good example though. There is no more time critical situation, and it’s also a great example of why this isn’t really a good use of money.

Edit: to expand upon this, prehospital research is unbelievably difficult to do and typically gives unpredictable results, but it's very clear that the factors that allow people to survive cardiac arrest specifically are recognition, CPR, and pre-ambulance defibrillation. Ambulance-specific interventions are only weakly supported. Trials vary, but it's usually pretty uncommon for ambulances to arrive within an acceptable time range from the moment of collapse - bearing in mind that the patient doesn't get shocked until the ambulance has arrived, the crew has grabbed their kits from the vehicle, walked to the patient, identified the arrest, attached their monitoring, *then* hit the shock button. Ambulance arrival at five minutes means, at best, a shock at maybe seven.

If you're going to spend millions to reduce the time delay to arrival, your money is probably better spent providing really high quality community CPR education, public access defibrillators, and staffing more ambulance crews. You need to accept that most of this will never be used, but it's available for when it's needed.

That's normal. Hi, I'm a paramedic.

95% of cases or more just don't require time-critical transport. Those can be safely done at normal road speed. Some ambulance systems will still transport these under urgent conditions, but it's unnecessary.

The remaining few generally benefit from time-critical transport only by a very small amount, and other factors like communication and planning have a greater effect on delay reduction. Studies on things like door-to-needle time in stroke have shown that having a system in place for specific time-critical emergencies is more important than how fast you drive.

And finally, driving under lights and sirens is usually all that's required. We don't have any special traffic infrastructure for emergency services here, we just flick the beacons on and filter through traffic. It works fine. The exception would be in very densely packed urban environments like, say, central New York - but I don't think that's what's being described in the article.