Section 1, Terminology addition

Is this a new law or a change to a current law: New Definition.

What law do you wish to change/add: Emergency Vehicles

Why should this change/addition be made: There is no specific definition or law that actually defines what an Emergency vehicle is.

Spoiler: Emergency Vehicles

An emergency vehicle shall be defined as an vehicle that is designated to respond to any emergency, and is actively being operated by members of the Paralake Police Department, Fire Department or Emergency Medical Services. Furthermore, the vehicle must have functioning emergency signals for them to be accounted for in this law.

What is the aim of this change/addition: Define Emergency Vehicles.

Additional Information:

@KeiwaM

I would remove the life threatening situation part.

If there was a carjack going on I still respond Code 3 but no one's life is really at risk, just any emergency is fine.

Crimson Nugget said:

I would remove the life threatening situation part.

Click to expand...

Fielding said:

designated to respond to any emergency in a life threatening situation

Click to expand...

This law does not specifically means it must be a emergency. The law defines what an emergency vehicle is.

Fielding said:

it doesn't mean it has to be an emergency. It just means it is a vehicle designated for such purpose.

Click to expand...

I don't understand. You're either saying that if I'm not responding to a life-threatening emergency I'm stripped of Emergency Vehicle definition (A) or that I'm in a vehicle that is designed to respond to life-threatening emergencies (B).

A: Bad
B: The life-threatening part is still unnecessary which was my first comment (emergency vehicles are designated for all emergencies, not life-threatening specifically, that's why I'm saying this part is unnecessary to the definition)

I REPEAT, all I'm saying is that a part of the definition is unnecessary.

Emergency Vehicles are designated for emergencies. That's it. You can say Emergency vehicles are designated for life-threatening emergencies, or designated for pursuits of stolen vehicles, and both statements would still be correct and don't have overlapping meaning.

I don't get why it's so hard to understand that it's preferable to stop at the blanket term of emergencies.

Crimson Nugget said:

I don't understand. You're either saying that if I'm not responding to a life-threatening emergency I'm stripped of Emergency Vehicle definition (A) or that I'm in a vehicle that is designed to respond to life-threatening emergencies (B).

A: Bad
B: The life-threatening part is still unnecessary which was my main comment

Click to expand...

i'm simply defining what an emergency vehicle is. this is similar to real life definitions.

Its a vehicle do it. It does not say that ''when, and if this vehicle isn't responding to an emergency, the vehicle is not an emergency vehicle.'' does it????

but i see your confusion, so i will remove the life threatening situation part.