Woman in Labor Issued Traffic Ticket

[dukebound85]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

^ 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.

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?

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]

^ 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.



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]

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]

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)

 

[Counterfit]

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]

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]

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]

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

so life is precious, but only the ones you know eh? screw everyone else's life right 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]

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

so life is precious, but only the ones you know eh? screw everyone else's life right 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.

 

[heehee]

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

 

[dukebound85]

I rest my case.

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