PDA

View Full Version : Woman in Labor Issued Traffic Ticket


rdowns
Dec 4, 2008, 07:51 PM
Link (http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/18205908/detail.html)

This cop ought to get an entry in Dickipedia (http://www.dickipedia.org/dick.php?title=Main_Page).


BOSTON -- A Dracut mother who was in labor drove to the hospital in the breakdown lane but while some state troopers waved the parents on to the hospital, one didn't agree.


"He asked if I needed an ambulance, I said 'No. If I keep moving," John Davis said.

Two weeks ago, Jennifer and John Davis headed to Cambridge from their home -- right into the rush hour slowdown.

They drove down the highway breakdown lane after two different state troopers said to proceed carefully. But a third trooper on Route 2 made them stop and wait while he wrote another motorist a ticket and promised a citation would come in the mail. It did -- for $100.

m3coolpix
Dec 4, 2008, 07:53 PM
All they need to do is get a local talk radio station involved. I'd bet it'd be dismissed.

EricNau
Dec 4, 2008, 07:54 PM
What a prick.

Big-TDI-Guy
Dec 4, 2008, 07:54 PM
That's Rt2 po-pos for ya. They are BRUTAL. (I grew up near this very stretch of road)

Funny story - same thing happened to my mom back in the day - heading to the ER - cop meets us in the ER to give her a ticket for speeding. :rolleyes:

Judge tossed it without blinking an eye.

That also was on Rt2 FTW!

iShater
Dec 4, 2008, 07:57 PM
No preferential treatment. :D

Schtumple
Dec 4, 2008, 08:05 PM
What a moron, so, if he gets shot in duty, and decides he cant wait for a ambulance, and has to drive in this very lane, does have to stop and give himself a ticket? Or would that be too much of a mindf**k for him and would his head asplode...

Vivid.Inferno
Dec 4, 2008, 08:15 PM
I watched a cop turn his lights on at a red so he could go through the light into a Tim Hortons (coffee/donut place in Canada)

Vulcan
Dec 4, 2008, 08:15 PM
Definitely deserves a page in Dickipedia.

Mr. lax
Dec 4, 2008, 08:28 PM
I watched a cop turn his lights on at a red so he could go through the light into a Tim Hortons (coffee/donut place in Canada)

That happens alot around where i live.

jaw04005
Dec 4, 2008, 08:54 PM
That happens alot around where i live.

Oddly enough that happens quite a bit here too. Hilariously, the last time I saw a police officer do that he pulled into a local doughnut shop.

iShater
Dec 4, 2008, 08:59 PM
Oddly enough that happens quite a bit here too. Hilariously, the last time I saw a police officer do that he pulled into a local doughnut shop.

Tim Horton's is no ordinary doughnut shop! :eek:

I think we can excuse them for that. :p

I did notice that the worse offenders around here are the Sherrif's deputies. They typically speed for no apparent reason, don't fully stop, etc.

heehee
Dec 4, 2008, 09:05 PM
Here is another version. If she was going to the nearest hospital, I would say the cop was a prick. But if you are going into labour, still going to a hospital 30 miles away and refuse to use an ambulance, I don't have any sympathy for her. You can't do whatever you want just because you are going into labour, get to the nearest hospital if it's an emergency. :rolleyes:

News link
(http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/12/04/in_rush_hour_labor_ticket_delivered/)
Though the Davises live about 30 miles away in Dracut, Jennifer Davis, 38, wanted to have her baby at Mount Auburn, where she had also given birth to her 7-year-old son, Brendan.

"For 10 months we had been saying, 'As long as I don't go into labor during rush hour' - which we did," said Davis, a social worker for a visiting nurse group affiliated with the hospital.

ZiggyPastorius
Dec 4, 2008, 09:33 PM
Oddly enough that happens quite a bit here too. Hilariously, the last time I saw a police officer do that he pulled into a local doughnut shop.

Next time, you should place him under citizen's arrest :p

GSMiller
Dec 5, 2008, 01:00 AM
Here is another version. If she was going to the nearest hospital, I would say the cop was a prick. But if you are going into labour, still going to a hospital 30 miles away and refuse to use an ambulance, I don't have any sympathy for her. You can't do whatever you want just because you are going into labour, get to the nearest hospital if it's an emergency. :rolleyes:

News link
(http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/12/04/in_rush_hour_labor_ticket_delivered/)

That reminds me of this incident a few months back at the clinic I used to work at. These people came in with a kid who had broken his arm in two, the bone sticking out and everything. First they drove the kid over 60 miles from their home to the clinic, which is located right next to a hospital with an emergency room. The nurses bandaged up the arm, but couldn't put it in a cast or anything so they had to take the kid to another facility. Instead of taking him to the hospital across the street, they drove him 65 miles back in the same direction from which they came to another hospital.

Ah, the freedom of choice in the American healthcare system.

ucfgrad93
Dec 5, 2008, 08:13 AM
Boy that trooper is a heartless s.o.b.

geekgirl
Dec 5, 2008, 09:08 AM
Here is another version. If she was going to the nearest hospital, I would say the cop was a prick. But if you are going into labour, still going to a hospital 30 miles away and refuse to use an ambulance, I don't have any sympathy for her. You can't do whatever you want just because you are going into labour, get to the nearest hospital if it's an emergency. :rolleyes:

News link
(http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/12/04/in_rush_hour_labor_ticket_delivered/)

Obviously, you've never been around a woman in labor. There is no convincing or explaining that will get her to agree to something she doesn't want to do.

Sauron's Master
Dec 5, 2008, 01:14 PM
Obviously, you've never been around a woman in labor. There is no convincing or explaining that will get her to agree to something she doesn't want to do.

That doesn't excuse their stupidity.

Mousse
Dec 9, 2008, 03:11 PM
He made them wait while he wrote someone else a ticket too?:confused: Must be trying to fill a quota.

Schtumple
Dec 9, 2008, 04:48 PM
That doesn't excuse their stupidity.

Say that to a woman in labour, you will be eaten alive...

Tilpots
Dec 9, 2008, 04:51 PM
That doesn't excuse their stupidity.

Sounds like your mom shoulda driven the extra couple of miles.:rolleyes:

iJohnHenry
Dec 9, 2008, 04:52 PM
Thank God he didn't hit her in the stomach with a baseball bat!!! :eek:

(Alex Baldwin, in The Cooler.)

dukebound85
Dec 9, 2008, 04:55 PM
Boy that trooper is a heartless s.o.b.

heartless? im all for the safety of other users of the road. only official emergency vehicles are exempt from laws in my book

skunk
Dec 9, 2008, 04:56 PM
heartless? im all for the safety of other users of the road. only official emergency vehicles are exempt from laws in my bookYou need a new book. Discretion is the better part of rigour.

Sun Baked
Dec 9, 2008, 04:59 PM
No reason to put other people's lives in danger by driving like an idiot, when a simple phone call brings medical aid to you.

Can't seem to see when it said the ticket was written and the woman finally gave birth.

The officer definitely isn't a dickhead if the woman was in labor at the hospital for an addition 5-12 hours, before final delivery of a screaming brat.

skunk
Dec 9, 2008, 05:00 PM
No reason to put other people's lives in danger by driving like an idiotWho said anyone was driving like an idiot?

Sun Baked
Dec 9, 2008, 05:02 PM
Who said anyone was driving like an idiot?

Usually people driving down the breakdown lane to get around slow traffic is a sign of major stupidity.

Generally a sign of aggressive driver in normal circumstances.

redwarrior
Dec 9, 2008, 05:04 PM
No reason to put other people's lives in danger by driving like an idiot, when a simple phone call brings medical aid to you.

Can't seem to see when it said the ticket was written and the woman finally gave birth.

The officer definitely isn't a dickhead if the woman was in labor at the hospital for an addition 5-12 hours, before final delivery of a screaming brat.

Usually people driving down the breakdown lane to get around slow traffic is a sign of major stupidity.

Generally a sign of aggressive driver in normal circumstances.
Have you even read the title of the thread? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.:rolleyes:

dukebound85
Dec 9, 2008, 05:05 PM
You need a new book. Discretion is the better part of rigour.

sorry there is no excuse to be speeding/running stop signs/etc ever in a civilian car

its not worth crashing and potentially killing a law abiding driver just because a woman is going into labor
thats why we have ambulances and other emergency vehicles:rolleyes:

sorry if im selfish, but i place my safety while driving, at a higher importance than a husband driving recklessly to a hospital since his wife is going into labor which in fact endangers everyone on the road

skunk
Dec 9, 2008, 05:06 PM
Usually people driving down the breakdown lane to get around slow traffic is a sign of major stupidity.

Generally a sign of aggressive driver in normal circumstances.They were proceeding with care, apparently, and the circumstances were not "normal".

sorry there is no excuse to be speeding/running stop signs/etc ever in a civilian carWas anyone doing any of these things?

Sun Baked
Dec 9, 2008, 05:10 PM
They were proceeding with care, apparently, and the circumstances were not "normal".

Absent the author of this story actually saying when she gave birth, it was most likely a non emergency.

Evidently the officer stopping them long enough to write a ticket didn't negatively impact the birth.

So they likely could have avoided everything and simply drove normally.

Edit: stopping to explain to 3 officers and getting a ticket likely added quite a few minutes to the drive.

dukebound85
Dec 9, 2008, 05:11 PM
Was anyone doing any of these things?


i was listing illegal road maneuvers and i didnt think i had to include every single one to get the point across since i put etc at the end of that little list

ok ill add "driving in breakdown lane" to make you happy lol. point is, its illegal and endangers others and thus inexcusable.

why do you feel laws are ok to break depending on the circumstances? sounds like a pretty subjective measure to me which defeats the purpose of the law in the first place now doesnt it

bobfitz14
Dec 9, 2008, 05:11 PM
i live in Massachusetts and this was alllll over the news when it happened. Mass statie's have no sense of judgment.

synth3tik
Dec 9, 2008, 05:12 PM
This just heightens my distaste for police. Some one mentioned seeing a cop turn on their lights to go through a red. Here that is common practice. It is also common for them to close convenience stores and then just hang out and drink free coffee.

Two days ago I had a little run in with a cop. I just left my house and noticed a couple of officers at a place down the street. I usually walk with my left hand in my coat pocket for whatever reason. Noticing the cops I took my hand out of my coat pocket, as I did not want trouble from them. I guess one of the noticed this and confronted me. "Where you coming from" he asked. Not at all unexpected. "606" I told him. So at this point he knew I was not coming out of the place they were called to. Also he saw me walking down the street toward the place they were at. I felt he should be happy with that answer. He looked around to check if I had a bag, which oddly enough I left the MBP at home. He then without saying anything started going through my pockets. So I was like "Hey, I know I have no choice in the matter, but you could at least ask, or warn me". Of course he did not like that and started threating me. "You want to go in? Even if you have nothing I will find something Mr. Smart ass". I was seriously thrown back by this. I am also very polite with these guys and never give them any reason to mess with me. So not wanting anymore confrontation I simply appologized and went on my way. As I was leaving the other cop chimed in. "We're watching you punk, don't ******* with us. We will take you down".

I seriously hate cops as a whole. There are some good ones, but the vast majority of them suck.

I should also add that my uncle who is a Lt. on the north side can commonly be found on the southside drinking coffee and BSing with the south side cops.

skunk
Dec 9, 2008, 05:12 PM
Absent the author of this story actually saying when she gave birth, it was most likely a non emergency.

Evidently the officer stopping them long enough to write a ticket didn't negatively impact the birth.

So they likely could have avoided everything and simply drove normally.You are making a lot of assumptions. At a wild guess I'd say you haven't been in this situation.

dukebound85
Dec 9, 2008, 05:15 PM
You are making a lot of assumptions. At a wild guess I'd say you haven't been in this situation.

thats irrelevant really

if you dont like the law, lobby to have the law changed to allow for those to break road laws if their wives are in labor lol

skunk
Dec 9, 2008, 05:17 PM
if you dont like the law, lobby to have the law changed to allow for those to break road laws if their wives are in labor lolI am not in the US, and that is not the point. Police are supposed to use their discretion. Two out of three did so intelligently.

Big-TDI-Guy
Dec 9, 2008, 05:17 PM
Driving in the breakdown lane of Rt 2 isn't exactly the brightest of decisions.

Anyone who actually knows this road, will know what I speak of. It's one of the first "highways" ever paved out here - and has been duct-taped to meet demand it was never intended to serve. Driving on the shoulder on this highway - (outside Cambridge) is not the brightest of ideas.

dukebound85
Dec 9, 2008, 05:18 PM
I am not in the US, and that is not the point. Police are supposed to use their discretion. Two out of three did so intelligently.
it is to the point. if you want the law to allow for exceptions, have it changed. until then follow it or suffer the consequences

police are to enforce the law. there is no discretion when someone is clearly breaking a law.

i say 1/3 made the right call and the other 2 should be reprimanded

Sun Baked
Dec 9, 2008, 05:20 PM
You are making a lot of assumptions. At a wild guess I'd say you haven't been in this situation.

I've watch lots and lots of people crash due to this type of stupid driving, usually sitting in a car close enough to have to remove car fluids and parts from my hood.

So generally I don't think highly of anyone putting a pregnant mother at greater risk of injury driving like an idiot, especially when they aren't thinking clearly.

skunk
Dec 9, 2008, 05:21 PM
police are to enforce the law. there is no discretion when someone is clearly breaking a law.I fear you are mistaken. Completely mistaken.

dukebound85
Dec 9, 2008, 05:22 PM
I fear you are mistaken. Completely mistaken.

good response

iJohnHenry
Dec 9, 2008, 05:22 PM
You are making a lot of assumptions. At a wild guess I'd say you haven't been in this situation.

After reading his posts here, and elsewhere, I believe he has not been in any situations at all.

I'm with Red on this joker.

skunk
Dec 9, 2008, 05:23 PM
I've watch lots and lots of people crash due to this type of stupid driving, usually sitting in a car close enough to have to remove car fluids and parts from my hood.

So generally I don't think highly of anyone putting a pregnant mother at greater risk of injury driving like an idiot, especially when they aren't thinking clearly.You are still making unwarranted assumptions about the driver. Ease up on the judgement a little.

redwarrior
Dec 9, 2008, 05:23 PM
Anyone who has actually had a baby, or is with someone who has, knows that sitting in traffic is not the best place to be, and that it could take hours or minutes for a baby to be born.

More than likely when she left home, she assumed she had plenty of time to get to the hospital and did not need the aid of an ambulance, and then she encountered the traffic.

Two out of three public safety officers agreed that she was fine following the course of action she had chosen. Also, anyone who has even been in traffic and/or used and "emergency lane" knows that that is exactly what they were created for, and that they are perfectly safe as long as you don't proceed too fast, and pay very close attention.

synth3tik
Dec 9, 2008, 05:25 PM
Driving on the shoulder on this highway - (outside Cambridge) is not the brightest of ideas.

Neither is driving on bridges in MN.

skunk
Dec 9, 2008, 05:25 PM
good responseOf course police have discretion, otherwise law enforcement would be impossible.

Sun Baked
Dec 9, 2008, 05:34 PM
You are still making unwarranted assumptions about the driver. Ease up on the judgement a little.

Just got rid of one of the bad luck vehicles that seemed to attract idiot drivers around it for 10 years.

Generally people getting impatient with traffic and pulling around me only to go bang.

So I'm sort of tired of watching people getting impatient with traffic and using the extra strips of blacktop as lanes.

dukebound85
Dec 9, 2008, 05:34 PM
the argument that "he hasnt been in this situation before" should not be used as justification for law breaking as its' totally irrelevant

any measure to ensure greater saftey of those on the road nees to be enforced period. what if this husband, in his rush, collided with a motorcycle and seriously injured him. if reckless behavior can be stopped, it should to keep the saftey of everyone else on the road

in summary,
the safety of others outweighs the needs of an individual and his wife

maybe my driving on a motorcycle has made me have the mindset that safety is of the utmost importance and every step needs to be taken to ensure this

skunk
Dec 9, 2008, 05:36 PM
the argument that "he hasnt been in this situation before" should not be used as justification for law breaking as its' totally irrelevantBeing in labour is a justification for a greater number of things , Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophies. Nobody wrote a rule-book.

dukebound85
Dec 9, 2008, 05:40 PM
Being in labour is a justification for a great number of things, Horatio. Nobody wrote a rule-book.

there is a rule book....


i will say if this bozo with his rush to get to the hospital ran into me on my bike, i would go after everything he had. no compassion as he had knowingly broken the law and therefore endangered me on my bike. no excuse

Sun Baked
Dec 9, 2008, 05:42 PM
Considering the mother and father decided to take a detour to drop a kid off at school and gave birth 5 hours after the traffic ticket, I don't really think they were in an emergency.

Heck if it was such an emergency, why take a detour to take a kid to school?

skunk
Dec 9, 2008, 05:43 PM
there is a rule book....Not for being in labour, there isn't. You will probably find this out in due course.

And people make discretionary judgements all the time. We are not robots.

dukebound85
Dec 9, 2008, 05:45 PM
Considering the mother and father decided to take a detour to drop a kid off at school and gave birth 5 hours after the traffic ticket, I don't really think they were in an emergency.

Heck if it was such an emergency, why take a detour to take a kid to school?

which really gives no excuse

Not for being in labour, there isn't. You will probably find this out in due course.

And people make discretionary judgements all the time. We are not robots.

im not talking about being in labor as thats not the law being broken

yea i make discretionary judgments but not those that endanger others on the road, hence why there are laws concerning driving in the first place

would it be permissible for a husband to speed through a school zone since his wife is going into labour? no. why? because it puts others in danger. same situation here except it puts other drivers in possible danger

Sun Baked
Dec 9, 2008, 05:54 PM
which really gives no excuse

Probably all the other hospitals they past in their 30 mile journey were out of network.

Edit: though driving like an idiot to another city/town and passing all the hospitals during your "emergency" just to make sure your kids are born in the same hospital could be the winning excuse.

Big-TDI-Guy
Dec 9, 2008, 06:48 PM
No bikes, scooters, pedestrians or horses allowed on rt2. There are signs for it. :)

Like I said, it's an old highway.

Tilpots
Dec 9, 2008, 07:06 PM
If my wife were pregnant (and she is) I'd drive on sidewalks, over pedestrians, thru bikers or anything else in my way to make sure my wife and child were safe. Screw the ticket, the cops, the lawyers, or the jail time if it that what it takes to keep my family safe. Some of you may not agree and that's fine, just take care not to get in my way.;)

redwarrior
Dec 9, 2008, 07:08 PM
If my wife were pregnant (and she is) I'd drive on sidewalks, over pedestrians, thru bikers or anything else in my way to make sure my wife and child were safe. Screw the ticket, the cops, the lawyers, or the jail time if it that what it takes to keep my family safe. Some of you may not agree and that's fine, just take care not to get in my way.;)
Your wife is fortunate to have you! Most definitely very fortunate!:)

Tilpots
Dec 9, 2008, 07:12 PM
Your wife is fortunate to have you! Most definitely very fortunate!:)

Please tell her that!:D

EricNau
Dec 9, 2008, 07:13 PM
maybe my driving on a motorcycle has made me have the mindset that safety is of the utmost importance and every step needs to be taken to ensure this
If you viewed safety as the utmost importance, you wouldn't be driving a motorcycle.

Big-TDI-Guy
Dec 9, 2008, 07:21 PM
If my wife were pregnant (and she is) I'd drive on sidewalks, over pedestrians, thru bikers or anything else in my way to make sure my wife and child were safe. Screw the ticket, the cops, the lawyers, or the jail time if it that what it takes to keep my family safe. Some of you may not agree and that's fine, just take care not to get in my way.;)

What about someone else' pregnant wife? Kill them too? :rolleyes:

Tilpots
Dec 9, 2008, 07:28 PM
What about someone else' pregnant wife? Kill them too? :rolleyes:

I dunno. Seems like we'd both be headed in the same direction? ;)

Point is, people are going to do whatever it takes to protect the ones they love. We can all second guess their decisions, but if this lady felt the need to break some laws to ensure the safety of her child, I'm sure she'd do it all over again.

dukebound85
Dec 9, 2008, 10:02 PM
If my wife were pregnant (and she is) I'd drive on sidewalks, over pedestrians, thru bikers or anything else in my way to make sure my wife and child were safe. Screw the ticket, the cops, the lawyers, or the jail time if it that what it takes to keep my family safe. Some of you may not agree and that's fine, just take care not to get in my way.;)

at the expense of my safety? no thanks. if you did run over me, id take you for everything you had no joke....if i happened to live due to your selfish actions

your wife's need for a hospital does not superseed my need to have my life not endangered by driving maniacs breaking traffic laws like yourself. sorry

just take care not to get in my way
excuse me? you are the one saying youd run over people and drive on designated sidewalks

Your wife is fortunate to have you! Most definitely very fortunate!:)

how can you encourage someone who says they would have no issue breaking traffic laws and running over others to make sure his wife gets to a hospital

If you viewed safety as the utmost importance, you wouldn't be driving a motorcycle.

i dont think its a coincidence that motorcyclists are overall the most attentive/careful drivers out there...

Tilpots
Dec 10, 2008, 08:03 AM
at the expense of my safety? no thanks. if you did run over me, id take you for everything you had no joke....if i happened to live due to your selfish actions

That's right, if you happened to live. And as I said before, nothing would stop me from doing everything possible to protect my family. If you had a family, you'd realize this is a no-brainer.

your wife's need for a hospital does not superseed my need to have my life not endangered by driving maniacs breaking traffic laws like yourself. sorry

Yes, it does. If only becasue I'm behind the wheel. My choices, you're consequnces. That's simply an everyday fact of life.

excuse me? you are the one saying youd run over people and drive on designated sidewalks

lol. Reminded me of this (http://65.186.65.233/sounds/movies/waynes/get_by.mp3)

i dont think its a coincidence that motorcyclists are overall the most attentive/careful drivers out there...


"The most careful/attentive drivers out there" you say?

In 1997, more than 2,100 motorcyclists were killed, and another 54,000 were injured in traffic crashes in the United States. More than 7,000 of those injured were riders between ages 15 and 20, and 36 percent of those who died were between ages 16 and 29. Ninety percent of the people who died were male; nearly all of them were operating the bike. Among females who died, 72 percent were passengers.

Per mile driven, motorcyclists are about 14 times more likely than persons in a car to die in a motor vehicle crash, and they're about 3 times more likely to be injured. While motorcycles make up less than 2 percent of all registered vehicles in the U.S., motorcyclists account for 6 percent of total traffic deaths. Source (http://www.safeusa.org/move/motorcyc.htm)

Motorcycle safety rule #1:

Don't ride a motorcycle if you want to stay safe.

redwarrior
Dec 10, 2008, 08:09 AM
your wife's need for a hospital does not superseed my need to have my life not endangered by driving maniacs breaking traffic laws like yourself. sorry

how can you encourage someone who says they would have no issue breaking traffic laws and running over others to make sure his wife gets to a hospital

I have been pregnant, in labor, in a car, doing 110 mph.:rolleyes:

However, in this case, they were not driving unsafely. They were not running over people. Two public safety officers had already told them to proceed with caution. There is no evidence showing that they were doing anything other than using the emergency lane for the purpose of which it was intended.

dukebound85
Dec 10, 2008, 08:33 AM
That's right, if you happened to live. And as I said before, nothing would stop me from doing everything possible to protect my family. If you had a family, you'd realize this is a no-brainer.


and nothing would stop me from protecting my life. laws are there to protect the community as a whole, and not meant to be broken to cater to your "needs"

Yes, it does. If only becasue I'm behind the wheel. My choices, you're consequnces. That's simply an everyday fact of life.


if you hit me, youd be feeling the consequences for the rest of your life at least financially


I have been pregnant, in labor, in a car, doing 110 mph.:rolleyes:

so? doesnt mean youre right as its illegal to be going that fast PERIOD. as such, prepare to suffer the consequences of the law if you get pulled over and not rely on some story to sway the cop:rolleyes:

dont like the law, get it changed. simple as that. and right now, there isnt any exception to break traffic laws as far as i know:cool:

However, in this case, they were not driving unsafely. They were not running over people. Two public safety officers had already told them to proceed with caution. There is no evidence showing that they were doing anything other than using the emergency lane for the purpose of which it was intended.

tillpots said he would have no issue running over people on sidewalks. thats what im refeering to, that idiotic mindset

by the way, it was a breakdown lane. meaning a lane where cars pull over if they are experienceing trouble. not a lane to drive in:rolleyes:

redwarrior
Dec 10, 2008, 08:47 AM
so? doesnt mean youre right as its illegal to be going that fast PERIOD. as such, prepare to suffer the consequences of the law if you get pulled over and not rely on some story to sway the cop:rolleyes:

dont like the law, get it changed. simple as that. and right now, there isnt any exception to break traffic laws as far as i know:cool:

by the way, it was a breakdown lane. meaning a lane where cars pull over if they are experienceing trouble. not a lane to drive in:rolleyes:
Who cares what the law is when lives are at stake? I don't. Laws are to protect people and cannot always be followed. I would much rather have gotten a ticket than to go through the trama of not getting to the hospital in time. That is a no-brainer.

Apparently two public safety officers approved of the way that the "breakdown lane" was being used.

Abstract
Dec 10, 2008, 08:56 AM
I don't get it. Does that mean she was stopped a total of 3 times? Why didn't an officer just help her out by taking her to the hospital?

dukebound85
Dec 10, 2008, 09:44 AM
Who cares what the law is when lives are at stake? I don't. Laws are to protect people and cannot always be followed. I would much rather have gotten a ticket than to go through the trama of not getting to the hospital in time. That is a no-brainer.

Apparently two public safety officers approved of the way that the "breakdown lane" was being used.

thats right, laws are meant to protect people. the safety of everyone else on the road needs to be protected over an individual needs when its that individual who is endangering everyone else

if lives were really at stake, then why did they not go to the nearest hospital again?

I don't get it. Does that mean she was stopped a total of 3 times? Why didn't an officer just help her out by taking her to the hospital?

exactly. if it was that big of a rush, have the cop rush you there. beauty about cop cars is that people look out for them with their sirens and lights. same with ambulances..

i dont expect other civilian cars to be driving recklessly on the roads and if they do, they need to be cited. you cant argue otherwise

redwarrior
Dec 10, 2008, 09:45 AM
thats right, laws are meant to protect people. the safety of everyone else on the road needs to be protected over an individual safety when its that individual who is endangering everyone else
And in this case, no one's safety was endangered.

dukebound85
Dec 10, 2008, 09:51 AM
And in this case, no one's safety was endangered.

of course it was. using the breakdown lane as a driving lane endangers others that may have to use it

a breakdown lane is not a lane to be driving in

atszyman
Dec 10, 2008, 10:13 AM
of course it was. using the breakdown lane as a driving lane endangers others that may have to use it

a breakdown lane is not a lane to be driving in

I don't understand why either of the first officers didn't offer a ride/escort, or at least radio ahead. You'd think the first officer would have flagged the car as someone in labor so that they could avoid any delays from future stops.

Driving in the breakdown lane, provided you're not zipping along at 50 MPH or more is probably not a massive danger to others as long as you're not going too fast to stop for a car that might happen to be in the breakdown lane.

I'm split on this, I have about 20 different routes I can take to the hospital where my wife's OB works, if I hit traffic on the highway I'm more likely to try one of those routes and deal with traffic lights than I am to drive on the shoulder. Why were the insistent on using the highway, why not an alternate route?

Of course the third officer may have just been thinking, "If Sarah Palin can fly 14 hours back to Alaska with at least one airport layover after her water broke, why can't these people deal with sitting in rush hour for a few hours."

Tilpots
Dec 10, 2008, 11:43 AM
Dukebound,

Hypothetical situation for you... You're at a stop light on a barren stretch of road, the light is red, not another car around for miles. A large, evil man with a knife approaches your motorcycle and tells you to give him the bike. Do you floor it and save your life, or do you let the man stab you becasue you're a law abiding citizen and you don't want to run a red light?

OutThere
Dec 10, 2008, 11:43 AM
If my wife were pregnant (and she is) I'd drive on sidewalks, over pedestrians, thru bikers or anything else in my way to make sure my wife and child were safe. Screw the ticket, the cops, the lawyers, or the jail time if it that what it takes to keep my family safe. Some of you may not agree and that's fine, just take care not to get in my way.;)

Well that's not disgustingly self serving.

Tilpots
Dec 10, 2008, 11:49 AM
Well that's not disgustingly self serving.

I was being a bit over the top, but the point is that I will keep my family safe at all costs. Wouldn't you? :confused:

EricNau
Dec 10, 2008, 02:02 PM
i dont expect other civilian cars to be driving recklessly on the roads and if they do, they need to be cited. you cant argue otherwise
That's very careless on your part. In my area, I'm aware of unmarked, official vehicles that need to circumvent traffic to report to accident scenes. No lights, no siren, no markings; just a plain white van weaving in and out of traffic, driving in emergency lanes, and along the side of the road in the dirt... legally.

But again, there's no reason to believe this car was driving recklessly or putting other's safety at risk. Until you can prove it, your argument isn't valid.

There are always going to be exceptions to the law, that's why we have judges.

dukebound85
Dec 10, 2008, 02:10 PM
That's very careless on your part. In my area, I'm aware of unmarked, official vehicles that need to circumvent traffic to report to accident scenes.



There are always going to be exceptions to the law, that's why we have judges.

those unmarked official cars have police lights mounted still in the dash:cool: if they need to speed through traffic, they will use those lights and sirens

and youre right, we have judges to interpret the law....it is not the police's job. their job is to enforce it and if im not mistaken, the police acted like judges in this case and that's simply not their place or role


But again, there's no reason to believe this car was driving recklessly or putting other's safety at risk. Until you can prove it, your argument isn't valid.

driving in a breakdown lane is reckless and putting others lives at risk if they need to use that lane

i dont have to prove it as its common sense.

do i need to prove that speeding is reckless? no. do i need to prove that running red lights is reckless? no. do i need to prove that tailgating is reckless? no. so why should i have to prove that using a breakdown lane illegally is reckless. the law is there for a reason

edit: i see you added this tidbit after i posted lol
In my area, I'm aware of unmarked, official vehicles that need to circumvent traffic to report to accident scenes. No lights, no siren, no markings; just a plain white van weaving in and out of traffic, driving in emergency lanes, and along the side of the road in the dirt... legally.

thats simply not true. if it is, provide a link lol.

EricNau
Dec 10, 2008, 02:29 PM
driving in a breakdown lane is reckless and putting others lives at risk if they need to use that lane

i dont have to prove it as its common sense.

do i need to prove that speeding is reckless? no. do i need to prove that running red lights is reckless? no. do i need to prove that tailgating is reckless? no. so why should i have to prove that using a breakdown lane illegally is reckless. the law is there for a reason
That's simply not true. If they were traveling at a reasonable speed, there's no reason why their actions would be deemed reckless or dangerous.

In the event you were asked, you could prove why speeding is dangerous, or running red lights is dangerous. Once again, assuming the driver was driving with caution, how would he be putting other's safety at risk?

You're right, that law is there for a reason: to ensure that lane is clear for use in emergencies.

thats simply not true. if it is, provide a link lol.
I never said it was a police car - it's the coroner's van. There's not a single marking on that vehicle.

dukebound85
Dec 10, 2008, 02:30 PM
I never said it was a police car - it's the coroner's van. There's not a single marking on that vehicle.

and tell me what allows for a coroners car to break traffic laws legally again?

Sun Baked
Dec 10, 2008, 02:34 PM
I'm split on this, I have about 20 different routes I can take to the hospital where my wife's OB works, if I hit traffic on the highway I'm more likely to try one of those routes and deal with traffic lights than I am to drive on the shoulder. Why were the insistent on using the highway, why not an alternate route?

Well if you were driving to Austin, you'd get the idea that the number of Alternate routes is a bit more limited.

The last officer called their bluff, likely asking where they were coming from or looked at their address and found their story about being in a hurry to get to a hospital crazy when they had past several of them.

About as bad as the people who say they are in a hurry to get to a bathroom, by racing through the middle of a bunch of businesses and restaurants.

atszyman
Dec 10, 2008, 04:48 PM
Well if you were driving to Austin, you'd get the idea that the number of Alternate routes is a bit more limited.


They weren't making a long road trip, 30 miles isn't exactly a 4 hour drive.

Our hospital of choice is 20 miles from our house, and I have many non-highway routes available and would sooner use those than tempt rush hour traffic if I were in a hurry.

Driving in the breakdown lane does not have to be a dangerous endeavor and given the uncertainties with labor and birthing I would probably do the same, if no other route was available, although I might have asked the first officer to escort us to the hospital since our second child was born about 4 hours after water breaking, and once we have someone set up to watch our kids and can leave, we may be cutting it closer than we'd like, of course if it were that bad, I'd re-route to a closer hospital as well.

Of course if an article came out that said they were cruising along at 50 mph or more, I could see the case fore recklessness, but if the highway was a parking lot and they were proceeding slowly just to keep making progress and make it to the hospital as quickly and safely as they could.

This might illustrate a place where a law could be improved. If there were some method to give a provisional citation, that would require you showing up and presenting some sort of doctor's note to prove that you did indeed go to the hospital, the first officer could have issued that, and radioed ahead. Make the fine go up with every cop that sees them pass if they don't manage to show proof of the emergency. You'd only incur the pulled over delay once and it would offer a deterrent for abuse, since even if you fake it and go to the emergency room to get your "proof" you'd save no time since ER waits are usually longer than traffic delays.

EricNau
Dec 10, 2008, 05:22 PM
and tell me what allows for a coroners car to break traffic laws legally again?
I realize you're just trying to contradict my earlier statement, but honestly, what does it matter? Whether or not the issue is specially addressed by law (and it may be) is irrelevant when it's obviously the only option for the coroner, and is condoned by the police department.

If it is illegal, and is nonetheless conducted and permitted, doesn't it just further weaken your case?

dukebound85
Dec 10, 2008, 05:50 PM
I realize you're just trying to contradict my earlier statement, but honestly, what does it matter? Whether or not the issue is specially addressed by law (and it may be) is irrelevant when it's obviously the only option for the coroner, and is condoned by the police department.

If it is illegal, and is nonetheless conducted and permitted, doesn't it just further weaken your case?

if its illegal, it cant be permitted. if its legal, then the cars should be required to have the necessary ligts and sirens for safety concerns. but i dont believe its legal in the first place to be honest

but back on topic

my case as you say has more to due with the cops performing a role that is reserved for judges

if people want exception from the law under certain circumstances, then lobby to have those changes made into law. until then, be prepared to be cited. the cops didnt do their job imo.

it really as simple as that


the fact they didnt go to the nearest hospital also suggests to me that they didnt have to break any laws to begin with as it apparently wasnt that urgent
after the first stop, the cop should have escorted the couple to the hospital

EricNau
Dec 10, 2008, 06:46 PM
if its illegal, it cant be permitted.
Then what do you propose? Seems to me they have absolutely no other choice.

if its legal, then the cars should be required to have the necessary ligts and sirens for safety concerns. but i dont believe its legal in the first place to be honest
Why? These vehicles aren't driving at high speeds, nor do they require other vehicles to yield. Using lights and sirens in situations when they are not warranted is a far greater safety risk than driving slowly, along the side of the road, without them.

P-Worm
Dec 10, 2008, 06:51 PM
To those that are siding against the pregnant woman, let me ask this; "If you were on your way to the hospital and unexpectedly got stuck in traffic would you just sit there and have your baby in the car?" It's very possible that the traffic was unexpected which makes the argument against it being an emergency being unfounded. If she got stuck there, it becomes an emergency very quickly.

I personally think cops have every right to make judgements for minor violations as they deem necessary. To not believe so would turn every cop into a heartless bastard - willing to ticket a homeless person trying to survive the night for loitering (or other such nonsense).

Obviously the third cop didn't think her using the emergency lane wasn't founded. Was he wrong to do so? No, it was his decision to make. But it does make me sad that he would be so uptight about the law (especially making her wait to get her ticket) without helping someone that was in need. :(

P-Worm

dukebound85
Dec 10, 2008, 06:58 PM
To those that are siding against the pregnant woman, let me ask this; "If you were on your way to the hospital and unexpectedly got stuck in traffic would you just sit there and have your baby in the car?" It's very possible that the traffic was unexpected which makes the argument against it being an emergency being unfounded. If she got stuck there, it becomes an emergency very quickly.

I personally think cops have every right to make judgements for minor violations as they deem necessary. To not believe so would turn every cop into a heartless bastard - willing to ticket a homeless person trying to survive the night for loitering (or other such nonsense).

Obviously the third cop didn't think her using the emergency lane wasn't founded. Was he wrong to do so? No, it was his decision to make. But it does make me sad that he would be so uptight about the law (especially making her wait to get her ticket) without helping someone that was in need. :(

P-Worm

if its that urgent, go to the nearest hospital

if they have time to go to the hospital of their choosing, they have time to follow traffic laws:cool:

after the first stop, the cop should have escorted them and not allow them to go to a hospital of their choosing.

so it was apparently urgent enough to break traffic laws but not that urgent that they had to go to the nearest hospital. do you not see the irony?

P-Worm
Dec 10, 2008, 07:14 PM
if its that urgent, go to the nearest hospital

if they have time to go to the hospital of their choosing, they have time to follow traffic laws:cool:

after the first stop, the cop should have escorted them and not allow them to go to a hospital of their choosing.

so it was apparently urgent enough to break traffic laws but not that urgent that they had to go to the nearest hospital. do you not see the irony?

I don't think you got my point. When you get stuck in traffic your choices become limited. It's entirely possible that if she had known there was traffic she would have gone to the closer hospital.

But please, answer my question. Would you have had the baby in the car if your original plans got thwarted by unforeseen traffic and you only had the choice between giving birth in the car or breaking the law?

P-Worm

dukebound85
Dec 10, 2008, 07:24 PM
I don't think you got my point. When you get stuck in traffic your choices become limited. It's entirely possible that if she had known there was traffic she would have gone to the closer hospital.

But please, answer my question. Would you have had the baby in the car if your original plans got thwarted by unforeseen traffic and you only had the choice between giving birth in the car or breaking the law?

P-Worm

huh? they continued to break the law after each stop. they intentionally went out of their way to go to a hospital of their choice instead of the nearest one

if i were a judge, i would not dismiss any charges filed as they broke the law not to get to nearest hospital but to get to one thats further away because they liked it better. that to me says it wasnt urgent enough and thus no reason to continually break traffic laws

as far as your question, i would have went to the nearest hospital. i would not however, as tillpots suggested, run over individuals on a sidewalk to do so. i would have not went to the hospital of my choosing if it was that urgent

i would have told the cops where i would be and to issue me a ticket and let the judge decide.

my issue once again, is with the cops taking on the role of being a judge. that is not thier function

P-Worm
Dec 10, 2008, 07:36 PM
huh? they continued to break the law after each stop. they intentionally went out of their way to go to a hospital of their choice instead of the nearest one

I might be mistaken, but I assume that once you are on the road you are stuck on it until the next exit. That makes continuing on the road necessary.

as far as your question, i would have went to the nearest hospital. i would not however, as tillpots suggested, run over individuals on a sidewalk to do so. i would have not went to the hospital of my choosing if it was that urgent

That wasn't an option. The situation is you are stuck, it's either break the law or give birth in the car.

i would have told the cops where i would be and to issue me a ticket and let the judge decide.

Fair enough.

my issue once again, is with the cops taking on the role of being a judge. that is not thier function

I still think that cops have every right to make that decision. The cop could have at least issued a warning.

P-Worm

ingenious
Dec 10, 2008, 08:37 PM
That doesn't excuse their stupidity.

stupidity? maybe she felt comfortable with that particular hospital/doctor. a baby is not something you can be careless with.

Counterfit
Dec 10, 2008, 11:59 PM
^ Neither is a 3000 pound machine.

Usually people driving down the breakdown lane to get around slow traffic is a sign of major stupidity.

Generally a sign of aggressive driver in normal circumstances.
Which, I guess, it explains why it's actually legal to do it during rush hour on the Southeast Expressway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_93#Massachusetts).
Driving in the breakdown lane of Rt 2 isn't exactly the brightest of decisions.

Anyone who actually knows this road, will know what I speak of. It's one of the first "highways" ever paved out here - and has been duct-taped to meet demand it was never intended to serve. Driving on the shoulder on this highway - (outside Cambridge) is not the brightest of ideas.
So does that mean the surface is worse than 495 prior to the recent repaving? :eek:
If my wife were pregnant (and she is) I'd drive on sidewalks, over pedestrians, thru bikers or anything else in my way to make sure my wife and child were safe. Screw the ticket, the cops, the lawyers, or the jail time if it that what it takes to keep my family safe. Some of you may not agree and that's fine, just take care not to get in my way.;)
That sounds an awful lot like the justification given by many who bought their 2+ ton SUVs. "It's safer in a crash*"
*Provided: it doesn't roll over, and the other vehicle is a sedan. Screw the people in the sensible car![/QUOTE]

ingenious
Dec 11, 2008, 12:03 AM
^ Neither is a 3000 pound machine.


Which, I guess, it explains why it's actually legal to do it during rush hour on the Southeast Expressway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_93#Massachusetts).



That sounds an awful lot like the justification given by many who bought their 2+ ton SUVs. "It's safer in a crash*"
*Provided: it doesn't roll over, and the other vehicle is a sedan. Screw the people in the sensible car!

so now they're eco-terrorists? that's ridiculous. it's a child. no one is going to purposely hurt someone, but concessions must be made by those surrounding someone who's in an emergency. it's why we all (those of us in the US) pull over for emergency vehicles. IMO, the first State Trooper should have escorted the couple to the emergency room, anyway.

atszyman
Dec 11, 2008, 12:38 AM
OK it was not the nearest hospital, but after 9 months of going in every few weeks to the same doctor to get checked out, why would you want to go to a completely unknown doctor to deliver your baby, when you're very confident that you can make it to the doctor you have a history with in plenty of time? On the way you run into unexpected traffic.

Usually when labor starts to set in you have time to get to the hospital of your choosing, provided it's within reasonable driving distance (less than an hour), or your last name is Palin. However when unexpected delays occur, you're options for progress may be limited. Sure you may easily have an hour to get to the hospital, maybe even two, but depending on the backup and highway, you can eat that up in a hurry going nowhere. Was the situation an emergency? No. Was it urgent? Yes.

I'd probably do the same thing, use the shoulder or other available paths at a reasonable rate of speed. Of course after reading this story, I'd probably ask the first officer for an escort or to at least radio ahead to other officers to avoid the unnecessary delay caused by multiple stops to explain the situation.

Big-TDI-Guy
Dec 11, 2008, 02:04 AM
The surface of the breakdown lane on 495 (prior to repaving) is better than the surface of the primary lanes on rt 2 (at their best) :eek: ;)

Counterfit
Dec 11, 2008, 02:27 AM
Wow, I'd rather drive on gravel!
so now they're eco-terrorists? that's ridiculous. it's a child.
*woosh* swingandamiss! Putting other people at increased risk for their own (selfish) benefit, real or perceived.
no one is going to purposely hurt someone, but concessions must be made by those surrounding someone who's in an emergency. it's why we all (those of us in the US) pull over for emergency vehicles. IMO, the first State Trooper should have escorted the couple to the emergency room, anyway.

If it's a real emergency, then a real emergency vehicle is just three numbers away.

Tilpots
Dec 11, 2008, 07:52 AM
I'm truly saddened to see so many folks here say that they would choose to do the legal thing over the right thing. I'm not sure whether you're just attempting to show a righteous observance of the law, or if actually when push came to shove, you'd sit back and do nothing when a human life is on the line. Life is precious, even more so when it's a life you created. To call these parents shelfish and criticize them for trying to protect their unborn child truly shows a lack of empathy and understanding of the human condition. Laws are guidelines, not gospel. They are meant to serve, not harm. For those of us here that are Americans, most of our great leaders were lawbreakers; George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, just to name a few... They chose to do the right thing over the legal thing to protect their families, their country and their people. These parents merely disobeyed a traffic law to protect the most important thing in their lives. Traffic ticket or not, what they did was right.

redwarrior
Dec 11, 2008, 08:09 AM
I'm truly saddened to see so many folks here say that they would choose to do the legal thing over the right thing.
I gave up arguing that point. I think the issue is the age of many of the posters here. Single men who have no children simply are not capable of seeing the situation in the proper light.

dukebound85
Dec 11, 2008, 08:38 AM
If my wife were pregnant (and she is) I'd drive on sidewalks, over pedestrians, thru bikers or anything else in my way to make sure my wife and child were safe. Screw the ticket, the cops, the lawyers, or the jail time if it that what it takes to keep my family safe. Some of you may not agree and that's fine, just take care not to get in my way.;)

I'm truly saddened to see so many folks here say that they would choose to do the legal thing over the right thing. I'm not sure whether you're just attempting to show a righteous observance of the law, or if actually when push came to shove, you'd sit back and do nothing when a human life is on the line. Life is precious, even more so when it's a life you created. To call these parents shelfish and criticize them for trying to protect their unborn child truly shows a lack of empathy and understanding of the human condition. Laws are guidelines, not gospel. They are meant to serve, not harm. For those of us here that are Americans, most of our great leaders were lawbreakers; George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, just to name a few... They chose to do the right thing over the legal thing to protect their families, their country and their people. These parents merely disobeyed a traffic law to protect the most important thing in their lives. Traffic ticket or not, what they did was right.

from the same person who says they would have no issue running over pedestrians on sidewalks, bikers, whaterver as long as his needs are sataified:rolleyes:

so life is precious, but only the ones you know eh? screw everyone else's life right:cool: im sure thats what all our great leaders thought as well huh?

the right thing? its right to kill others to get to a hospital? i mean that's exactly what you said youd be willing to do. so no its not the right thing, it is disgustingly selfish

I gave up arguing that point. I think the issue is the age of many of the posters here. Single men who have no children simply are not capable of seeing the situation in the proper light.

right, the proper light...

sorry if i believe in following laws and not potentially kill others is right. sorry if i feel that the couple breaking the law and not going to the nearest hospital is wrong. sorry if i feel any husband is not in a rational mind while driving his wife to a hospital is indeed taking risks that could potentially kill others. sorry if i feel the first cop should have escorted the couple to the hospital. sorry if i feel that cops should not take on the role of judges and interpret the law. sorry that i dont feel any sympathy for a couple who breaks the law in the sense of urgency but still has the time to go to the hospital of their choosing

if you dont like the law, lobby to get it changed. until then the cops need to enforce it and cite those that break it. with that said, i applaud the 3rd cop to finally see past the idociy of the couple. its one thing to rush to the nearest hospital, quite another thing to break laws so you can get to the hospital you want

redwarrior
Dec 11, 2008, 08:42 AM
from the same person who says they would have no issue running over pedestrians on sidewalks, bikers, whaterver as long as his needs are sataified:rolleyes:

so life is precious, but only the ones you know eh? screw everyone else's life right:cool: im sure thats what all our great leaders thought as well huh?

the right thing? its right to kill others to get to a hospital? i mean that's exactly what you said youd be willing to do. so no its not the right thing, it is disgustingly selfish
I rest my case.:rolleyes:

heehee
Dec 11, 2008, 08:45 AM
I'm not sure whether you're just attempting to show a righteous observance of the law, or if actually when push came to shove, you'd sit back and do nothing when a human life is on the line.

Sigh... If you actually read the articles, the baby's life was not "on the line".

Why would she go to a hospital 30 miles away and why would she drop her other son off to school first before going to a hospital if her baby's life was "on the line"?

They knew it was rush hour and they had been saying that for 10 months "As long as I don't go into labor during rush hour."

Though the Davises live about 30 miles away in Dracut, Jennifer Davis, 38, wanted to have her baby at Mount Auburn, where she had also given birth to her 7-year-old son, Brendan.

"For 10 months we had been saying, 'As long as I don't go into labor during rush hour' - which we did," said Davis, a social worker for a visiting nurse group affiliated with the hospital.

They left for Cambridge after dropping Brendan off at school. Her contractions were about 5 minutes apart.

ARTICLE (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/12/04/in_rush_hour_labor_ticket_delivered/)

dukebound85
Dec 11, 2008, 08:49 AM
I rest my case.:rolleyes:

all i did was quote what he said. nothing more, nothing less

i guess only some people's lives matter. how sad

Sigh... If you actually read the articles, the baby's life was not "on the line".

Why would she go to a hospital 30 miles away and why would she drop her other son off to school first before going to a hospital if her baby's life was "on the line"?

They knew it was rush hour and they had been saying that for 10 months "As long as I don't go into labor during rush hour."

exactly. i love how some forget the details

yoppie
Dec 11, 2008, 09:01 AM
I don't have an issue with the cop ticketing the pregnant couple. They could have taken the ambulance if they truly wanted to get to the hospital faster. However, I do take issue with the cop forcing the woman to show her stomach to prove she was pregnant. If they had something to hide, I don't think they would have pulled over to ask him if they could continue in the emergency lane.

He should have wrote the ticket and kept it moving. The other stuff was extra and him being an ass.

atszyman
Dec 11, 2008, 09:13 AM
Sigh... If you actually read the articles, the baby's life was not "on the line".

Why would she go to a hospital 30 miles away and why would she drop her other son off to school first before going to a hospital if her baby's life was "on the line"?

They knew it was rush hour and they had been saying that for 10 months "As long as I don't go into labor during rush hour."



ARTICLE (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/12/04/in_rush_hour_labor_ticket_delivered/)

You have to do something with your existing children, you can't just have kids running all over the delivery room, and hospitals don't usually have supervised child care areas on-site. If it was time for them to get dropped off at school, why not use that? It would probably take just as long, if not longer, to arrange other care than just dropping them off at school.

30 miles is not an exorbitant distance to go to the hospital where your doctor who has been doing checkups every few weeks for the last nine months and knows everything about your pregnancy and possible/probable complications. Rush hours can vary greatly in their speed and traffic, the article does not say if it was just a normal rush hour, but how do you know that this rush hour wasn't hindered by an accident that might have delayed them for an hour or more? Would it really have been that much safer to call an ambulance, abandon their car in the breakdown lane (thus providing an obstruction if another emergency vehicle needed to get through) and how much time would it have saved to get the ambulance there and to the hospital?

I don't necessarily have an issue with the officer issuing a ticket, but would rather have had him escort/follow them to the hospital and issue it there rather than delay them further, let them appeal to the court if they feel that the ticket was unjust. Of course the first officer should have escorted them or radioed ahead to avoid any further delays due to other cops. At that point they already had the license plate and probably driver's information. They could always have mailed the ticket later if they really thought that they were just scamming the system.

dukebound85
Dec 11, 2008, 09:17 AM
You have to do something with your existing children, you can't just have kids running all over the delivery room, and hospitals don't usually have supervised child care areas on-site. If it was time for them to get dropped off at school, why not use that? It would probably take just as long, if not longer, to arrange other care than just dropping them off at school.

yet when i was 10 and brothers were 8 and 5, we were all there when my youngest brother was born

i agree, they should have been escorted

geekgirl
Dec 11, 2008, 09:19 AM
Okay, for those folks who maybe don't know how the whole birthing process goes:

1. Prenatal visits with doctor. Months and months of these, plus visits with other docs who might be on call when you go into labor. These doctors are familiar with the case, and specific needs of the mother, plus any complications that may be involved.

2. Woman finally goes into labor, the doctor is called when the contractions are 5 minutes apart. That is when you are supposed to head to the hospital, depending on how far away it is. Some doctors have different stipulations as to how far apart the contractions should be, depending on the mother's situation.

3. I can very well see dropping the son off at school before heading to the hospital. They probably thought they had plenty of time, and maybe the school was on the way. Much better for the older child to be at school. Plus, even if he hadn't had school, they either would have had to drop him off somewhere, or wait for a baby sitter or relative to arrive.

4. Here's the tricky part of having a baby: it's not a strictly scheduled process. Just because the contractions may be 7 minutes apart for an hour doesn't mean they are going to consistently get closer together. You can go from 7 minutes to 2 minutes very quickly, and no two births are alike. My sister went from being dilated to 5 to 10 in about 20 minutes, after taking a couple of hours to get to 5. You never know how long it's going to take. You can guess, but it's best to err on the side of caution.

5. Not all hospitals are alike. Some are better equipped for birthing than others. Some have better doctors, more experience in handling problems, etc. You do what you can to give your children and the mom the best possible chance.

With labor, you never know what is going to happen, and the difference between a healthy birth for both mother and child or having something go terribly wrong is slim. Cautiously driving the breakdown lane at a steady pace is infinitely safer than being stuck in traffic for both child and mom. Plus, how many officers do you know who really WANT to deliver a baby on the side of a road? I'll bet you'd have a hard time finding one who really wants that to happen.

P.S. For all of you harping on strict adherence to the law, do you drive exactly, or under, the speed limit at all times? After all, speeding contributes to accidents...

dukebound85
Dec 11, 2008, 09:27 AM
my issue is let me repeat, having the cops perform the role as judges and not issuing tickets when they were breaking the law

thankfully the third cop came to his senses

rdowns
Dec 11, 2008, 09:29 AM
The kid in question will be starting school before this thread ends. :rolleyes:

calculus
Dec 11, 2008, 09:32 AM
The kid in question will be starting school before this thread ends. :rolleyes:

I just hope they get driven there on a proper route...

atszyman
Dec 11, 2008, 09:37 AM
yet when i was 10 and brothers were 8 and 5, we were all there when my youngest brother was born

i agree, they should have been escorted

You were in the delivery room? Impressive, I wasn't aware that they allowed kids in there due to sanitary/infection risks. I have a 4 year old and a 19 month old right now and one due at the end of Feb. We're definitely going to take the time to find someone to watch them since I doubt we'd have much control over them in all of the activity, especially the 19 month old, she's a bit of a handful when it comes to places she might like to "explore."

I still would like to know why it is that driving at a reasonable rate in the breakdown lane is so dangerous. Sure it's meant for stopped vehicles and emergency vehicles but so are the other traffic lanes. There could be a stopped car in any lane on any highway and emergency vehicles can be using any open lane. Driving at a reasonable speed in the breakdown lane in an urgent situation, like being in labor, is not any more dangerous than driving in any other lane.

The article is a bit vague as well, how far had they driven on the highway covering the 3 officers? where was the nearest exit from the first officer stop? How close were they to the destination hospital at the final stop?

For all we know it could have been a stretch where exits were few and far between, and the officers happened to be tightly clustered, they might have been trying to exit to use side roads and avoid the congestion, or the final officer may have stopped them at a point where the nearest hospital was their destination. If the officer didn't ask, how did he know they weren't going to the nearest hospital from their starting point? Not everyone starts going into labor at their house.

There are a lot of unanswered questions here, I'm not even sure I believe that all three cops were state troopers. I'd be more inclined to believe that the first two might have been city or county cops, and thus a little more lenient and it might explain why the trooper did not know about them, or maybe he did and decided that they've been in the breakdown lane too long without trying to get off the highway to find an alternate route, maybe they were speeding in the breakdown lane in which case they should have gotten the ticket.

A lot of questions that could really shed light on this seem to be missing, but that seems to be the norm for media these days, omit any details that might make the story less shocking.

my issue is let me repeat, having the cops perform the role as judges and not issuing tickets when they were breaking the law

thankfully the third cop came to his senses

Cops do this all the time in deciding whether or not to issue a warning or a ticket, or whether or not to pull over someone going 5 mph over the speed limit or not, why should this situation warrant any more scrutiny than those?

dukebound85
Dec 11, 2008, 09:40 AM
You were in the delivery room? Impressive, I wasn't aware that they allowed kids in there due to sanitary/infection risks.

no i was in the waiting room. why would you think this case would be any different?

did you really assume these kids would be in the delivery room and not the waiting room?

Cops do this all the time in deciding whether or not to issue a warning or a ticket, or whether or not to pull over someone going 5 mph over the speed limit or not, why should this situation warrant any more scrutiny than those?

if it makes you feel better, i dont support that either

redwarrior
Dec 11, 2008, 09:43 AM
no i was in the waiting room. why would you think this case would be any different?

did you really assume these kids would be in the delivery room and not the waiting room?
Yes, in some situations. My daughter was with me the whole time; she was 10. But, we had a private room; another reason to drive longer to the hospital of choice, where all the paperwork has already been filed and the doctors and nurses know you.

atszyman
Dec 11, 2008, 09:43 AM
no i was in the waiting room. why would you think this case would be any different?

did you really assume these kids would be in the delivery room and not the waiting room?

How old was the kid, who was going to be watching him in the waiting room? Not everyone has kids who are old enough to wait by themselves, or close friends relatives who can get to the waiting room to watch the kids. School may have been their best option at that point.

dukebound85
Dec 11, 2008, 09:44 AM
How old was the kid, who was going to be watching him in the waiting room? Not everyone has kids who are old enough to wait by themselves, or close friends relatives who can get to the waiting room to watch the kids. School may have been their best option at that point.

artical said 7

atszyman
Dec 11, 2008, 09:49 AM
artical said 7

Yeah, I just saw that reading the second article, which also said they asked to use the lane just to get to the next exit which seems reasonable to me that they might have been seeking alternate routes. Seven isn't what I would consider old enough to supervise themselves in a hospital waiting room, and in the absence of friends/family who are available to meet you at the hospital, other arrangements need to be made, if school was open at that point, why not get the kid to school? Other arrangements (other than someone meeting you at the hospital) would take just as long.

He was also stopping to ask the trooper whether it was OK to do this rather than waiting to be pulled over, it does not sound like they were being reckless, just trying to get to the hospital as quickly and safely as possible.

P-Worm
Dec 11, 2008, 09:51 AM
Yeah, I just saw that reading the second article, which also said they asked to use the lane just to get to the next exit which seems reasonable to me that they might have been seeking alternate routes.

He was also stopping to ask the trooper whether it was OK to do this rather than waiting to be pulled over, it does not sound like they were being reckless, just trying to get to the hospital as quickly and safely as possible.

That seals it for me. The cop gets P-Worm's Dick Seal of Approvalę.

P-Worm

dukebound85
Dec 11, 2008, 09:52 AM
Yeah, I just saw that reading the second article, which also said they asked to use the lane just to get to the next exit which seems reasonable to me that they might have been seeking alternate routes. Seven isn't what I would consider old enough to supervise themselves in a hospital waiting room, and in the absence of friends/family who are available to meet you at the hospital, other arrangements need to be made, if school was open at that point, why not get the kid to school? Other arrangements (other than someone meeting you at the hospital) would take just as long.

He was also stopping to ask the trooper whether it was OK to do this rather than waiting to be pulled over, it does not sound like they were being reckless, just trying to get to the hospital as quickly and safely as possible.

assuming that the 7 year old was already dropped off, i think the officer should have escorted them to the hospital rather than have them coninue to drive in the lane where they got pulled over 2 additional times

atszyman
Dec 11, 2008, 09:57 AM
assuming that the 7 year old was already dropped off, i think the officer should have escorted them to the hospital rather than have them coninue to drive in the lane where they got pulled over 2 additional times

I agree, but the second article doesn't say they were pulled over, it says that they stopped when they encountered law enforcement to ask if it was OK to use the lane to reach the next exit. There's a big difference between that and getting pulled over. The first two cops should have offered escort, the third was being more than a bit of a prick.

All he could have done was say, "I'm sorry, that's not OK, would you like me to arrange other authorized emergency transportation, or escort?"

Instead he made her prove she was pregnant and then made them wait to write the ticket, that was not cool.

dukebound85
Dec 11, 2008, 09:59 AM
I agree, but the second article doesn't say they were pulled over, it says that they stopped when they encountered law enforcement to ask if it was OK to use the lane to reach the next exit. There's a big difference between that and getting pulled over. The first two cops should have offered escort, the third was being more than a bit of a prick.

All he could have done was say, "I'm sorry, that's not OK, would you like me to arrange other authorized emergency transportation, or escort?"

Instead he made her prove she was pregnant and then made them wait to write the ticket, that was not cool.

one of the cops did ask that and the couple refused to have that arrangement. the cop should have arranged for it/escorted them regardless


"He asked if I needed an ambulance, I said 'No. If I keep moving," John Davis said

atszyman
Dec 11, 2008, 10:05 AM
one of the cops did ask that and the couple refused to have that arrangement

He offered an ambulance, not an escort, I doubt they would have turned down an escort, is it possible they didn't want to just abandon their car in the breakdown lane? or wait for an ambulance to find it's way through rush hour traffic? or maybe they didn't want to tie up an ambulance that could be needed for more life threatening situations, when their current course, as long as it was permitted (which that officer also did), would accomplish.

From what I've seen, a stopped car in the breakdown lane can cause more issues from rubberneckers in rush hour than what making sure they could proceed safely would have been.

dukebound85
Dec 11, 2008, 10:08 AM
He offered an ambulance, not an escort, I doubt they would have turned down an escort, is it possible they didn't want to just abandon their car in the breakdown lane? or wait for an ambulance to find it's way through rush hour traffic? or maybe they didn't want to tie up an ambulance that could be needed for more life threatening situations, when their current course, as long as it was permitted (which that officer also did), would accomplish.

according to some, this is a life threatening situation. so much that others in this thread would have no issue running over pedestrians on sidewalks or bicyclists

the cop made a mistake of not offereing an escort. remember my issue is with the cops behavior afterall


From what I've seen, a stopped car in the breakdown lane can cause more issues from rubberneckers in rush hour than what making sure they could proceed safely would have been.

oh come on, there are abandoned cars all the time on the interstate. the only situation which causes rubbernecking is when you have a crash

P-Worm
Dec 11, 2008, 10:09 AM
The response "I don't need an ambulance if I keep moving" sounds very reasonable to me. Why tie up an ambulance when you don't have to? Just so a minor traffic violation can be avoided. I hope someone didn't truly need that ambulance while we were obeying the law to the T.

P-Worm

P-Worm
Dec 11, 2008, 10:10 AM
the cop made a mistake of not offereing an escort. remember my issue is with the cops behavior afterall

Your issue is with cops giving mercy.

P-Worm

iBlue
Dec 11, 2008, 10:14 AM
That cop is a twunt.

calculus
Dec 11, 2008, 10:16 AM
That cop is a twunt.

A splendid summary! :D

dukebound85
Dec 11, 2008, 10:18 AM
Your issue is with cops giving mercy.

P-Worm

no my issue is with cops not offering an escort, not citing them for breaking the law. their job is to not interpret the law but to enforce it

does not mean the cop has to not help out. however, one cant expect to break the law and just not get cited


this would have been the ideal situation in my mind

after the first pull over, the cop escorts them to the hospital to avoid future stoppages and then issues them a citation afterwards

atszyman
Dec 11, 2008, 10:23 AM
oh come on, there are abandoned cars all the time on the interstate. the only situation which causes rubbernecking is when you have a crash

I drive on the highway all the time, people always slow down for every abandoned car, they may not do it as much when there's not an accident or flashing lights but I rarely see someone's brake lights stay off when passing by a car on the shoulder. During slow moving rush hour traffic it's just one more distraction for people to look at.

If the breakdown lane is permitted for people who have to limp off the highway with a low speed spare, or in order to reach the next exit because they're almost out of gas, or their car is sputtering and ready to become a roadblock, why not allow for getting to the next exit when there is some medical urgency to do so? And why make them wait for a ticket when they came to ask you if it was OK. It would be like me giving my daughter a time out when she asks to have a cookie as if she had already just taken it, even worse if she had my wife's permission to have the cookie.

Bringing in the Ambulance would definitely increase the rubbernecking as would a trooper trying to give birth on the side of the road. I don't think their course of action was inherently dangerous or reckless.

The cops made mistakes on all fronts. I think the first two officers made mistakes by not offering escort, but the third made a more grievous mistake by not only refusing escort but by issuing a ticket and needing proof of pregnancy. They are "state" troopers after all, unless they were going to an out of state hospital, escorting them to the hospital 30 miles away would have still left them in their jurisdiction.

dukebound85
Dec 11, 2008, 10:28 AM
I drive on the highway all the time, people always slow down for every abandoned car, they may not do it as much when there's not an accident or flashing lights but I rarely see someone's brake lights stay off when passing by a car on the shoulder. During slow moving rush hour traffic it's just one more distraction for people to look at.


must be different down there as the interstates up here dont slow a second for an abandoned car. i mean its really obvious to recognize an abandoned car as there are quite a bit of them

nobody every brakes so they can look at an abandoned car up here at least and thats my experience of having to commute to denver often


Bringing in the Ambulance would definitely increase the rubbernecking as would a trooper trying to give birth on the side of the road. I don't think their course of action was inherently dangerous or reckless.


i remember on a packed interstate (wasn't moving at all) that an ambulance had to get through and all the cars made room for it quite easily.

but i agree that the cops made the mistake of not proving an escort obviously

atszyman
Dec 11, 2008, 10:40 AM
no my issue is with cops not offering an escort, not citing them for breaking the law. their job is to not interpret the law but to enforce it

does not mean the cop has to not help out. however, one cant expect to break the law and just not get cited


this would have been the ideal situation in my mind

after the first pull over, the cop escorts them to the hospital to avoid future stoppages and then issues them a citation afterwards

So you don't think officers should have the discretion to issue warnings instead of citations then? Every time someone is pulled over a ticket must be issued regardless of the circumstances?

According to the second article (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/12/04/in_rush_hour_labor_ticket_delivered/) they stopped to ask for permission they did not get pulled over.

They pulled up behind a state trooper to ask whether they could continue using the lane to reach the next exit, near Alewife Station.

...

The Davises say the contretemps occurred after two other troopers they encountered had waved them along in the highway breakdown lane, allowing them to evade gridlock while advising them to be cautious and keep their hazard lights on.

i remember on a packed interstate (wasn't moving at all) that an ambulance had to get through and all the cars made room for it quite easily.

but i agree that the cops made the mistake of not proving an escort obviously

That's one piece of information that's really missing in my mind. How far were they from the hospital at that point? Could they have gotten there faster via their method at that moment than a round trip for the ambulance? If I'm 5 minutes from a hospital in rush hour traffic by using the shoulder of the road and a medical emergency strikes one of my passengers, do I have to wait through an entire 911 call process and round trip ambulance run, even if I can get to the hospital just as fast, if not faster, or can make forward progress easing the Ambulance path and decreasing the time to the hospital?

Labor can quickly become an Ambulance worthy emergency and with all of the uncertainty around it, isn't progressing towards the hospital getting you closer to the Ambulance should it be needed worthy of cautious use of the breakdown lane?

dukebound85
Dec 11, 2008, 10:46 AM
So you don't think officers should have the discretion to issue warnings instead of citations then? Every time someone is pulled over a ticket must be issued regardless of the circumstances?

According to the second article (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/12/04/in_rush_hour_labor_ticket_delivered/) they stopped to ask for permission they did not get pulled over.

do you not feel that they should not be cited upon after the safe arrival to the hospital?

the fact is they were breaking traffic laws. how is my "ideal" situation not reasonable for you? remeber it was to have the police escort them and then issue them a citation

as ive said, if you dont like the law, lobby for a change. until then be prepared to pay the price for breaking it

atszyman
Dec 11, 2008, 10:59 AM
do you not feel that they should not be cited upon after the safe arrival to the hospital?

the fact is they were breaking traffic laws. how is my "ideal" situation not reasonable for you? remeber it was to have the police escort them and then issue them a citation

as ive said, if you dont like the law, lobby for a change. until then be prepared to pay the price for breaking it

I never said it was unreasonable, but you didn't answer my question.

If cops are not supposed to do any interpretation of the law, should they be required to pull over everyone who goes even 1 mph over the speed limit? Should they never issue warnings and always issue a citation?

I probably would not have had an issue with the citation being offered at the Hospital, but the third cop made them wait there to get it, after they stopped to ask him if they could do what two previous cops had given the OK.

Who gets to decide what situations the breakdown lane is designated for? Is everyone going to get cited and then have to go to court to determine if their use was permissible?

dukebound85
Dec 11, 2008, 11:08 AM
depends if the law was being broken intentionally or not

if blatant speeding, no chance for a warning. if blatant illegal use of a breakdown lane, no chance for warning

if speeding by 1mph due to any number of factors such as tires being out of synch with speddomenter or whatnot? id have no real problem with a warning but would not be against a ticket either and then debate it in court

with that said very few if any cops will pull over someone for going one over as its not worth their time so anyone they do pull over for speeding (that the cop made the decison to pull over) should expect a ticket and its the cops duty to give a ticket


to me a breakdown lane is used by cars that are having engine touble, flats, what not. its not a lane to be driving in and thats why they got pulled over to begin with as its against the purpose of the breakdown lane. as such, a citation should be expected as it was blatent disregard for the law

atszyman
Dec 11, 2008, 11:18 AM
to me a breakdown lane is used by cars that are having engine touble, flats, what not. its not a lane to be driving in and thats why they got pulled over to begin with as its against the purpose of the breakdown lane. as such, a citation should be expected as it was blatent disregard for the law


So if I pull over into the breakdown lane to render aid in an accident where there might be injuries, I'm breaking the law and should be issued a citation? My car is not broken, thus should not be there?

Should emergency vehicles be allowed to drive in it? for what types of emergencies?

Wouldn't a perfectly functional abandoned vehicle be an obstruction for any emergency vehicle that might need passage in the near future? by taking the Ambulance offered by the first cop their car would have now been in the way if another emergency had occurred and required assistance.

dukebound85
Dec 11, 2008, 11:24 AM
So if I pull over into the breakdown lane to render aid in an accident where there might be injuries, I'm breaking the law and should be issued a citation? My car is not broken, thus should not be there?


there are things as good samaritan laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law)


Should emergency vehicles be allowed to drive in it? for what types of emergencies?

bad example. emergency vehicles are official. why do you think they can speed and drive though red lights? they arent breaking laws:rolleyes: in fact the law allows for them to bypass those laws if on an emergency. the same isnt true for you and me

Wouldn't a perfectly functional abandoned vehicle be an obstruction for any emergency vehicle that might need passage in the near future? by taking the Ambulance offered by the first cop their car would have now been in the way if another emergency had occurred and required assistance.

if the authorities called an ambulance of course its official at that point

you seem to forget that authorities can bypass traffic laws if there is an emergency. those laws however are not there to be bypassed by civilians

xUKHCx
Dec 11, 2008, 11:31 AM
maybe my driving on a motorcycle has made me have the mindset that safety is of the utmost importance and every step needs to be taken to ensure this


i dont think its a coincidence that motorcyclists are overall the most attentive/careful drivers out there...

Pretty weird safety mindset

i dont expect other civilian cars to be driving recklessly on the roads and if they do, they need to be cited. you cant argue otherwise



all i did was quote what he said. nothing more, nothing less

i guess only some people's lives matter. how sad


All you did was take some said in jest and drag it up from the depths of the thread to try and make a point that you have made quite a few times.

you seem to forget that authorities can bypass traffic laws if there is an emergency. those laws however are not there to be bypassed by civilians


Life is grey and not the black and white letters of the law.

dukebound85
Dec 11, 2008, 11:34 AM
Pretty weird safety mindset
Life is grey and not the black and white letters of the law.

because you have a higher risk on injury on a bike doesnt not mean they are not more safety minded

you have to anticipate cars every move as their mistake will injure you. how many car drivers talk on the cell phone while driving? loads and that means they arent paying attention. same cant be said for bikes as they cant use them in the first place.

a minor car crash will most often result in very little if any injuries. the same cant be said for an individual on a bike

obviously you dont ride a bike


All you did was take some said in jest and drag it up from the depths of the thread to try and make a point that you have made quite a few times.
im not the one who made such a selfish comment now did i? in jest? sure sounded serious to me

atszyman
Dec 11, 2008, 11:40 AM
there are things as good samaritan laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law)

But who gets to decide if I was being a good samaritan or just pulling over for a smoke break. You seem to take issue with the cops using compassion and discretion in this instance. Would it have been OK had their gas guage been on Empty and they were trying to get to the next exit to fill-up?

bad example. emergency vehicles are official. why do you think they can speed and drive though red lights? they arent breaking laws:rolleyes: in fact the law allows for them to bypass those laws if on an emergency. the same isnt true for you and me.

if the authorities called an ambulance of course its official at that point

you seem to forget that authorities can bypass traffic laws if there is an emergency. those laws however are not there to be bypassed by civilians

They asked two prior cops for permission to do what they were doing and got the OK from them, they even asked the third who instead of saying "I'm sorry you can't do that" decided to issue them a citation based on what the other two cops said was OK. Cops get to use their discretion all the time to decide whether or not something is a violation or not. The first two decided that it was a valid use, the third was a prick forcing them to prove pregnancy and wait while a citation was issued.

I would have no issues if he had followed them to the Hospital, or if he had told them he would mail the citation, but they only wanted to get to the next exit in a situation that can easily turn into an ambulance worthy emergency, and having them off the highway would be safer for everyone should it have become ambulance worthy.

Big-TDI-Guy
Dec 11, 2008, 11:42 AM
I will side with duke on the motorcycle bit. I don't know a single rider who isn't ultra attentive when not in a cage. I know many people who don't engage in risk-taking behavior, but STILL ride motorcycles. I don't mean to derail this thread any further - but I disagree on pointing the finger of risk at people who aren't in cages, just because, they aren't in cages.

dukebound85
Dec 11, 2008, 11:43 AM
But who gets to decide if I was being a good samaritan or just pulling over for a smoke break. You seem to take issue with the cops using compassion and discretion in this instance. Would it have been OK had their gas guage been on Empty and they were trying to get to the next exit to fill-up?



the cops will be able to tell if you were breaking the law or not


They asked two prior cops for permission to do what they were doing and got the OK from them, they even asked the third who instead of saying "I'm sorry you can't do that" decided to issue them a citation based on what the other two cops said was OK. Cops get to use their discretion all the time to decide whether or not something is a violation or not. The first two decided that it was a valid use, the third was a prick forcing them to prove pregnancy and wait while a citation was issued.

I would have no issues if he had followed them to the Hospital, or if he had told them he would mail the citation, but they only wanted to get to the next exit in a situation that can easily turn into an ambulance worthy emergency, and having them off the highway would be safer for everyone should it have become ambulance worthy.

then the cop should have followed them if they didnt want further stoppage. you cant blame a cop who didnt know about the permission when hes doing his job

atszyman
Dec 11, 2008, 11:47 AM
the cops will be able to tell if you were breaking the law or not

But wouldn't that require them to interpret the law rather than just enforce?

then the cop should have followed them if they didnt want further stoppage. you cant blame a cop who didnt know about the permission when hes doing his job

They stopped to ask him, he didn't pull them over, they did everything they could to make sure that they weren't in violation of the law and he was out of line demanding proof of pregnancy and then making them wait there for the citation.

I'm fine with the citation (mostly) but his other actions were way out of line for someone in an urgent, beyond normal need, situation.

xUKHCx
Dec 11, 2008, 11:48 AM
because you have a higher risk on injury on a bike doesnt not mean they are not more safety minded

you have to anticipate cars every move as their mistake will injure you. how many car drivers talk on the cell phone while driving? loads and that means they arent paying attention. same cant be said for bikes as they cant use them in the first place.

a minor car crash will most often result in very little if any injuries. the same cant be said for an individual on a bike

obviously you dont ride a bike




I don't see how this is a response to what I wrote. You clearly said you don't expect people to driving recklessly. And this is a safe way to drive how?

Actually I do ride but I use my legs for propulsion rather than an engine. I even walk places and cross roads. All the while I expect drivers, pedestrians, animals to move recklessly.


in jest? sure sounded serious to me

Well it does sound serious if you take the letter of what was written which is what the theme of this thread is.


As I said life is grey. Do you treat people you deal with exactly the same or do you look at extra factors? If everyone took the letter of the law the world would be in a much worse state. I would rather live in a place where the cops are compassionate human beings and not drones, sometimes we all need a blonde hammer tosser (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=R706isyDrqI).

then the cop should have followed them if they didnt want further stoppage. you cant blame a cop who didnt know about the permission when hes doing his job

Yes but you can blame him for being a jobsworth.

dukebound85
Dec 11, 2008, 11:50 AM
But wouldn't that require them to interpret the law rather than just enforce?



no, it would be enforcing the law. if they see you using the lane in an illegal manner they will cite you. if they see you using it in a leagl manner, they wont.

thats not the same as seeing an individual break the law and letting it slide...


They stopped to ask him, he didn't pull them over, they did everything they could to make sure that they weren't in violation of the law and he was out of line demanding proof of pregnancy and then making them wait there for the citation.

I'm fine with the citation (mostly) but his other actions were way out of line for someone in an urgent, beyond normal need, situation.

obviously they were violating the law as they ran into 3 cops along the way concerning it.

its teh cops mistake for not escorting them to avoid those other 2 stoppages

Tilpots
Dec 11, 2008, 11:52 AM
im not the one who made such a selfish comment now did i? in jest? sure sounded serious to me

For the record, I was being facetious (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=facetious) in that particular post. I have never run over a pedistrian, bicyclist, motorcyclist or any other person for that matter and I will make every attempt to keep this fact true. I did run over a squirrel once, but it ran out in front of me and I had no choice.:)

My wife is pregnant and due Jan 1. I will get her to the hospital as quickly and safely as possible. I hope I will not need to break any city, county, state or federal laws to accomplish this, but I reserve my God given right to use my best judgement if neccesity arises, just as this couple did.

sangosimo
Dec 11, 2008, 11:54 AM
she is exempt from all rules because she is shooting a creature out of her vagina.

atszyman
Dec 11, 2008, 11:56 AM
no, it would be enforcing the law. if they see you using the lane in an illegal manner they will cite you. if they see you using it in a leagl manner, they wont.

thats not the same as seeing an individual break the law and letting it slide...


So if the law doesn't explicitly spell out flat tires as a valid use for the breakdown lane, it doesn't require some interpretation to come to the conclusion that a fully functional car with one flat tire that could limp to an exit 400 feet away is in legal use of the breakdown lane? If they are to go by the letter of the law any use that is not explicitly spelled out is illegal use. Anything else would be interpretation beyond the letter of the law, which by your logic should not be allowed.


obviously they were violating the law as they ran into 3 cops along the way concerning it.

its teh cops mistake for not escorting them to avoid those other 2 stoppages

They stopped to ask the cops if it was OK, they didn't get pulled over for it. Two of the cops said it was a valid use of the lane and let them go, the third, maybe rightly so, decided it was invalid but then proved to be an a$$hat demanding proof of pregnancy and forcing them to wait for the ticket.

dukebound85
Dec 11, 2008, 11:57 AM
I don't see how this is a response to what I wrote. You clearly said you don't expect people to driving recklessly. And this is a safe way to drive how?

it is a response to what you wrote. you claimed that my safety midset is flawed by me riding a bike but wanting any steps to crack down on illegal driving enforced


Actually I do ride but I use my legs for propulsion rather than an engine. I even walk places and cross roads. All the while I expect drivers, pedestrians, animals to move recklessly.

hence why i said those on motorcycles have a higher saftey mindset. this does not mean steps should not be taken to allow for illgeal driving:rolleyes:
[/quote]


As I said life is grey. Do you treat people you deal with exactly the same or do you look at extra factors? If everyone took the letter of the law the world would be in a much worse state. I would rather live in a place where the cops are compassionate human beings and not drones, sometimes we all need a blonde hammer tosser (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=R706isyDrqI).


allowing people to break traffic laws and endangering others is a tad different dont you think. i suppose i want the cops to do their jobs and make the roads safer tahn allow for people to break road laws and endanger others

xUKHCx
Dec 11, 2008, 12:04 PM
I am closing this thread. It has served its purpose.