Guy Chapman thinks (along with others here, no doubt) that drivers who
make way for emergency vehicles by carefully going through red lights
should be prosecuted and convicted. This shows that not only is he
anti-motorist, but he is prepared for innocent people to die just so
that motorists can be persecuted. In this case, the innocent people
are those who the emergency services can't get to or take to hospital
because drivers won't go through red lights for fear of prosecution.

Don't believe me? Ask Chapman yourself. You won't get much out of
him: this is one of those subjects that he refuses to talk about,
because he doesn't want to admit the truth, nor does he want to lie
(in other words it's another Lhuh Gnii-type thing).

Do you think drivers who make way for emergency vehicles should be
prosecuted *and* not have any legal defence available to them in
court? If so, it would seem (unless you can show otherwise) that you
are also an anti-motorist monster with blood on your hands. What is
the point of prosecuting such drivers, and why would you want them to
be prosecuted, unless you were anti-motorist to such an extent that
you were prepared for people to die just so that motorists could be
given a hard time? What other possible reason would one have for
advocating such prosecutions? I bet you can't come up with anything.

Anyone who is remotely reasonable, and who doesn't consider
persecuting motorists to be more important than saving innocent
people's lives, must surely be of the opinion that we should not be
prosecuting motorists who carefully make way for emergency vehicles at
red lights. Unless anyone has any remotely good arguments to the
contrary?