Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in a case involving a yielding motorcyclist-rather than section 41-6a-904, which requires vehicles to yield to emergency vehicles and includes a subsection stating this does not eliminate the duty of emergency vehicle operators to others on the road-when considering an emergency vehicle operator's duty, further affirming this conclusion. Willden v. Duchesne Cnty., 2009 UT App 213, 193, 4, 6-15, 217 P.3d 1143. 16 . Urtag Cons § 41-6a-212(1)(b). 17 . See Richards, 2012 UT 14, ¶ 23, 274 P.3d 911. 18 . See, eg., Estate of Day v. Willis, 897 P.2d 78, 81 n. 7 (Alaska 1995) ("We do not interpret these sections as establishing a duty to protect fleeing offenders. Rather, these provisions focus on the safety of innocent third parties."); Bryant v. Beary, 766 So.2d 1157, 1160 (Fla.Ct.App.2000) ; City of Winder v. McDougald, 276 Ga. 866, 583
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that such a duty exists
B. holding that these statutes are not intended to create a duty where none exists but to preserve any that do exist
C. recognizing that whether a duty exists is a question of law for the courts
D. holding these two statutes are not criminal offenses and only affect sentencing
E. holding that claims under  1983 1985 and 1986 are barred for the further reason that these statutes create rights solely against persons and a state is not considered a person under these statutes
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.