In your state, 21056 basically takes away all of the protections, when you read it as such. "You may operate a vehicle outside of normal traffic law"... "not r

In your state, 21056 basically takes away all of the protections, when you read it as such. "You may operate a vehicle outside of normal traffic law"... "not relieved from a duty to drive with due regard for the safety", means that if a court rules that your driving didn't meet "due regard" standards, well, now you are "not protected from the consequences". While I am not an expert personally, in Washington, all EVIP courses must be approved and accredited by the Washington State Patrol. RCW 46.61.035 states much similar: > (4) The foregoing provisions shall not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons, nor shall such provisions protect the driver from the consequences of his or her reckless disregard for the safety of others. There is also no specification in the RCW regarding "no liability". You might think 'reckless' is a good escape clause. "Just don't drive recklessly". Problem is even if you slow from 60mph to 20mph (school zone speed) to go through a red light... going through a red light at 20mph would generally be considered a reckless act. (Most departments will typically expect that you come to a complete stop until you are able to "clear" the intersection visually.)