Red light camera at FL hospital ticketing those seeking emergency help

 
--
If you don't know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else. - Yogi Berra
Page 1>>

So lets see. Feeling chest

So lets see.

Feeling chest pains he decided to drive himself to the hospital. Good thing he did not have a heart attack and lose control of the car and injure someone.

Then he decided it was "safe" to go thru the red light. Again because he was worried about having chest pains.

Are we now supposed to feel sorry for this guy?

Oh well, traffic laws are only meant to be obeyed if you don't have anything better to do.

Personally, I think the judge made a good call. BUT I got to wonder about the reason they installed the cameras there in the first place.

--
I never get lost, but I do explore new territory every now and then.

Yup

Yup, the local jurisdiction didn't care whether they collected the money from the person driving or "the estate."

Fred

...

He'd have just called 911.

--
Michael (Nuvi 2639LMT)

the money

argument is so weak. Drive in a city with a population of 5 mil. or more, and there are plenty of people looking to break laws.

Ahhh... Nevermind...!!

KenSny wrote:

So lets see.

Feeling chest pains he decided to drive himself to the hospital. Good thing he did not have a heart attack and lose control of the car and injure someone.

Then he decided it was "safe" to go thru the red light. Again because he was worried about having chest pains.

Are we now supposed to feel sorry for this guy?

Oh well, traffic laws are only meant to be obeyed if you don't have anything better to do.

Personally, I think the judge made a good call. BUT I got to wonder about the reason they installed the cameras there in the first place.

You really don't want to know what I think rolleyes about your above post.

Sometimes there ARE times when breaking the law may save you injury or death... but I guess (reading your above post), that you wouldn't ever consider such a thing.

Nuvi1300WTGPS

--
I'm not really lost.... just temporarily misplaced!

No Excuse

Don't know what I would have done, but running a red light is unlawful. The judge could have been a bit more sympathetic.

Maybe he would have needed to wait another 30 seconds for the light to change. If one believes that are having a heart attack, or are seriously endured, it's best to call an ambulance to get professional care as quickly as possible.

--
Tuckahoe Mike - Nuvi 3490LMT, Nuvi 260W, iPhone X, Mazda MX-5 Nav

i agree

Nuvi1300WTGPS wrote:
KenSny wrote:

So lets see.

Feeling chest pains he decided to drive himself to the hospital. Good thing he did not have a heart attack and lose control of the car and injure someone.

Then he decided it was "safe" to go thru the red light. Again because he was worried about having chest pains.

Are we now supposed to feel sorry for this guy?

Oh well, traffic laws are only meant to be obeyed if you don't have anything better to do.

Personally, I think the judge made a good call. BUT I got to wonder about the reason they installed the cameras there in the first place.

You really don't want to know what I think rolleyes about your above post.

Sometimes there ARE times when breaking the law may save you injury or death... but I guess (reading your above post), that you wouldn't ever consider such a thing.

Nuvi1300WTGPS

Yes, there are times when a strict adherence to the law may not be the best choice BUT the example YOU chose shows an over abundance of stupidity on the part of the driver.

Calling 9-1-1 isn't something to be ashamed of, but being involved in an accident or causing one because you were too macho to think shows gross stupidity.

--
Illiterate? Write for free help.

Self preservation

Goes a long way toward skewing rational thought. Some people take it all too far.

--
Striving to make the NYC Metro area project the best.

This is really going too

This is really going too far. There should be a petition to have this one removed. Of all places to have the camera. This one is purely inappropriate.

Agree completely

KenSny wrote:

So lets see.

Feeling chest pains he decided to drive himself to the hospital. Good thing he did not have a heart attack and lose control of the car and injure someone.

Then he decided it was "safe" to go thru the red light. Again because he was worried about having chest pains.

Are we now supposed to feel sorry for this guy?

Oh well, traffic laws are only meant to be obeyed if you don't have anything better to do.

Personally, I think the judge made a good call. BUT I got to wonder about the reason they installed the cameras there in the first place.

Using this driver's "logic" he could have run every light on the way to the hospital. There is a reason they put lights and sirens on emergency vehicles. Also, what he really was having a heart attack and lost control of his vehicle.

The judge was absolutely correct.

Power Tripping

I was in a similar situation. I was the driver, not in distress. I was not at a red light camera intersection. Those are the only differences.

It was in the middle of the night, and no other cars were around. The intersection has a sensor, and the light was not changing. I backed up, I moved forward, nothing happened. After waiting for a reasonable amount of time, I went through the red.

Yes, it was a medical emergency. Why else would I be driving someone to the hospital in the middle of the night? Do I think I was wrong? Under the circumstances, no. Did I knowingly do something that could have gotten me a ticket? Yes. Do I care? No. Would I do it again? Yes.

There are times when I've had to call 911. I will continue to call when it's life or death. There are times, however, when it's not necessarily life or death, but still urgent.

The judge is power tripping. No judge should determine if someone's trip to a hospital is a "sufficient excuse." And to charge $125 extra for his time. PLEASE!

For the "Law and Order" posters

Should a person driving to the hospital get a ticket from a traffic camera if the driver didn't stop of a full 3 seconds before making a right turn?

Assume absolutely no cars in sight. Should a person driving to a hospital get a ticket if makes a "rolling stop" before turning right on red?

Sometimes a sensor in the road is broken. How long should a person wait before assuming a light is broken? Assume you know the intersection has a RLC. Assume you've already waited a long time. 5 minutes enough? Do you cautiously proceed through the intersection? Do you call 911 to report a broken light? Make a U turn and go a different way? Go to the side of the road, remove your plates, proceed through the intersection, replace your plates then drive away?

Charging extra for the judges time. JUST WRONG. There is more then enough revenue being generated to cover the costs of running the program, including the cost of processing appeals. Assume the driver wins the appeal. Maybe the light is timed properly. Is the driver compensated for his time in appealing?

Opppsss....... Should have

Opppsss....... Should have downloaded the POI for the RLC warning before driving to the hospital while having chest pains. rolleyes

--
nuvi 250 --> 1250T --> 265T Lost my 1250T

Complicated Picture

The driver could be in a state of emergency and had to drive to the hospital as soon as possible and from a certain standpoint that makes sense. But, in running a red light or multiple red lights, the violation could could result in not just the death of that driver but other drivers because of a potential fatal car accident. Hence it is not simply about money or "common sense" from a certain standpoint but about public safety at a deeper level.

Choices -- Choices Die in a

Choices -- Choices

Die in a car waiting for the light to change or pay the fine for running a red light... Hmmm... or I guess die in a T-bone crash by some unseen speeding vehicle... You pays you money and takes you chances......

--
nuvi 250 --> 1250T --> 265T Lost my 1250T

The case for tickets being issued by a police officer

The RLC is designed for revenue. A cop pulls you over you'll have an opportunity to plead your case. A copy might let you off, assuming your actions were safe, if he thought you had a medical reason. I'm not talking about running the light at 30mph. I'm talking about a rolling stop before making a right turn. I'm talking about a full stop, seeing absolutely no traffic (maybe at night) then proceeding.

The real issue. Drivers who know they are in an intersection with a RLC might be reluctant to move even a little into the intersection for an emergency vehicle (with slights on). A copy wouldn't ticket. I have no confidence the person reviewing the tape will notice the emergency vehicle and not issue the ticket.

Guilty!

Let's say you do get a ticket from an RLC and had to move out of the way for an emergency vehicle. I bet if you tried to contest it, you'd lose, get additional court charges, and be told that that's not an excuse to blow a red light.

have you ever

seen a funeral procession run red lights, with NO police escort? I never understood that behavior, it's dangerous. I have seen one go through a red light intersection with constant flashing. So they are very confident that what they are doing is ok. Does this also apply to bridge tolls/ EZPass?

Funeral Processions

johnnatash4 wrote:

seen a funeral procession run red lights, with NO police escort? I never understood that behavior, it's dangerous. I have seen one go through a red light intersection with constant flashing. So they are very confident that what they are doing is ok. Does this also apply to bridge tolls/ EZPass?

Funeral Processions, in my state anyway, are well established. This is from Illinois Rules of the Road.

Funeral Processions

"Motorists encountering a funeral procession must yield the right-of-way to all vehicles in the procession. Motorists should NOT drive between vehicles in an organized funeral procession, except when required to do so by a law enforcement officer, join a funeral procession for the purpose of securing the right-of-way, or attempt to pass any vehicle in an organized funeral procession, except where a passing lane has been specifically provided."

In in regards to red light camera intersections, I would hope that those in the procession don't get a surprise in the mail. And it's not unsafe as long as everyone yields to the procession.

here's where common sense comes into play

twix wrote:
johnnatash4 wrote:

seen a funeral procession run red lights, with NO police escort? I never understood that behavior, it's dangerous. I have seen one go through a red light intersection with constant flashing. So they are very confident that what they are doing is ok. Does this also apply to bridge tolls/ EZPass?

Funeral Processions, in my state anyway, are well established. This is from Illinois Rules of the Road.

Funeral Processions

"Motorists encountering a funeral procession must yield the right-of-way to all vehicles in the procession. Motorists should NOT drive between vehicles in an organized funeral procession, except when required to do so by a law enforcement officer, join a funeral procession for the purpose of securing the right-of-way, or attempt to pass any vehicle in an organized funeral procession, except where a passing lane has been specifically provided."

In in regards to red light camera intersections, I would hope that those in the procession don't get a surprise in the mail. And it's not unsafe as long as everyone yields to the procession.

So you think then, it would be safe, to go over the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge, rolling through all stop signs and red lights, on the way to a cemetery in Queens, from Fort Lee, NJ? I attended one that went over the GW Bridge, , and it stopped at all traffic signals.

There's quite a difference between what the law says, and what makes common sense. And like the point you brought up, those rlcs will snap pics, do you want 7-12 of them showing up in your mailbox, and then have to take time off from work to fight them? Or would you rather just stop.

um

I don't know how I can answer your "safety" question, when I've never been to the area in question.

If I were in a funeral procession, and had to decide whether or not to go through a red light camera intersection, yes, I would go through. Supposedly, there are humans that review violations before sending them, and hopefully, that human would know not to send notices to participants in funeral processions. But then again, maybe I shouldn't put my faith in the integrity of those in charge. I'd still go through the red light.

For the few funeral

For the few funeral processions I have been in, the lead car typically stops for red lights. After all pulling in front of oncoming traffic is a really good way to get hit. However, once the procession has entered the intersection, all following vehicles will run the red light. At this point any crossing traffic should be stopped and you would hope they would not start until the intersection is clear.

Given the great deal of “care” some jurisdictions exercise, I suspect if there is a red light camera, they all get tickets.

Sad that this guy was surprised

I think it is sad that this guy was surprised about any of the whole affair.

First, it's completely obvious that the camera is there to generate revenue.

Second, the guy thought that the court system was worth his time. Traffic court rarely ever gets anything more than additional court fees for the convenience.

Those cameras are just money makers

I had an incident with Clewston where it was shown on the camera that I would have been slammed by a tractor trailer had I not ran the red light. But what did the Judge say? "You ran the red light, you should have let them hit you then you wouldn't have gotten the ticket"

2nd post

Is obviously from a paid shill for the RLC companies. Ken, quit licking their boots.

Call 911 is a better choice

Cyberian75 wrote:

He'd have just called 911.

If two patients with the same condition arrived ER at the same time, one by ambulance, one on his/her own, guess who will receive care first?

@nrbovee

nrbovee wrote:

[2nd post] Is obviously from a paid shill for the RLC companies. Ken, quit licking their boots.

"Paid shill"??????

I am not sure what you were wanting to convey. Is "2nd post" a person? Or, was "2nd post" the second poster in this thread (which happened to be Ken)?

If Ken, then what did he say that makes him a "paid shill"?

If not Ken, then who?

WOW!

twfisher wrote:

I had an incident with Clewston where it was shown on the camera that I would have been slammed by a tractor trailer had I not ran the red light. But what did the Judge say? "You ran the red light, you should have let them hit you then you wouldn't have gotten the ticket"

Unbelievable! You're supposed to risk injury, property damage, and perhaps even death to avoid a TICKET? What's wrong with that judge?

vehicle doesn't matter

cameotabby wrote:
Cyberian75 wrote:

He'd have just called 911.

If two patients with the same condition arrived ER at the same time, one by ambulance, one on his/her own, guess who will receive care first?

The one who has insurance. Technically it should be the person who has the cash, but insurance is king.

I know a little OT, but it's common knowledge that when a patient has insurance, the charges are either 3X or 5X cost. With no insurance, it's much lower.

Outside of an emergency, the cash payer gets the best treatment.

yes

twix wrote:

I was in a similar situation. I was the driver, not in distress. I was not at a red light camera intersection. Those are the only differences.

It was in the middle of the night, and no other cars were around. The intersection has a sensor, and the light was not changing. I backed up, I moved forward, nothing happened. After waiting for a reasonable amount of time, I went through the red.

Yes, it was a medical emergency. Why else would I be driving someone to the hospital in the middle of the night? Do I think I was wrong? Under the circumstances, no. Did I knowingly do something that could have gotten me a ticket? Yes. Do I care? No. Would I do it again? Yes.

There are times when I've had to call 911. I will continue to call when it's life or death. There are times, however, when it's not necessarily life or death, but still urgent.

The judge is power tripping. No judge should determine if someone's trip to a hospital is a "sufficient excuse." And to charge $125 extra for his time. PLEASE!

I totally agree!

--
nightrider --Nuvi's 660 & 680--

& yep

lewc wrote:

Should a person driving to the hospital get a ticket from a traffic camera if the driver didn't stop of a full 3 seconds before making a right turn?

Assume absolutely no cars in sight. Should a person driving to a hospital get a ticket if makes a "rolling stop" before turning right on red?

Sometimes a sensor in the road is broken. How long should a person wait before assuming a light is broken? Assume you know the intersection has a RLC. Assume you've already waited a long time. 5 minutes enough? Do you cautiously proceed through the intersection? Do you call 911 to report a broken light? Make a U turn and go a different way? Go to the side of the road, remove your plates, proceed through the intersection, replace your plates then drive away?

Charging extra for the judges time. JUST WRONG. There is more then enough revenue being generated to cover the costs of running the program, including the cost of processing appeals. Assume the driver wins the appeal. Maybe the light is timed properly. Is the driver compensated for his time in appealing?

I agree with this, too!

--
nightrider --Nuvi's 660 & 680--

3 second stop???

lewc wrote:

Should a person driving to the hospital get a ticket from a traffic camera if the driver didn't stop of a full 3 seconds before making a right turn?

Are there states where a 3 second stop is necessary for a "complete stop"?

Or is this like the uninformed that always stop when an emergency vehicle is in the oncoming lane? YOU DO NOT have to stop in Illinois when an emergency vehicle is approaching. "Yield right of way" and "move to the right lane and slow down on a 4 lane road" are the only rules. Even I know a fireman thought traffic had to stop.

--
Zumo 550 & Zumo 665 My alarm clock is sunshine on chrome.

Other States

There are plenty of other states whose law reads, "On the approach of an Emergency Vehicle from any direction, you shall pull to the nearest shoulder and stop." Not applicable to PHYSICALLY decided roadways. You can fill in the blanks with the the clauses about lights and siren, etc.

There is nothing wrong with coming to a stop, nor illegal. There is with not stopping and the Emergency driver expecting you to.

And this has nothing to do with a 3 second stop. I've never heard of that. All I've ever seen is "complete stop".

--
Frank DriveSmart55 37.322760, -79.511267

Illinois Law

dave817 wrote:

Are there states where a 3 second stop is necessary for a "complete stop"?

Or is this like the uninformed that always stop when an emergency vehicle is in the oncoming lane? YOU DO NOT have to stop in Illinois when an emergency vehicle is approaching. "Yield right of way" and "move to the right lane and slow down on a 4 lane road" are the only rules. Even I know a fireman thought traffic had to stop.

I'm from Illinois, and I stop when I yield the right-of-way for emergency vehicles. Here's what the yield sign says in the Illinois Rules of the Road Book, 2013.

Yield

The three-sided (triangle) sign tells you to give the right-of-way to all vehicles and pedestrians near you. Slow down to a safe speed and stop if necessary. When stopping, do so at a marked crosswalk or before entering the intersection. you also may see YIELD signs on expressway ramps. These signs are posted when there is no extra lane where drivers may speed up to merge with expressway Traffic.

So, in theory, it might not be required to stop, but when you do, you're showing that you're giving the right-of-way. Besides, how do you know where the emergency vehicle is going? What if you're approaching an intersection, and they turn left in front of you? Not an intersection with a light, but a side street?

My interpretation is, YIELD = STOP.

Everywhere

Yesterday, when a woman blew a red, did an illegal right on red and sailed into my lane holding her space grey iPhone 5S ( ok that's an assumption) in her left hand, when I had a solid green left arrow, I felt there should be video traffic cams everywhere with $999 fines. The end.

Scary

johnnatash4 wrote:

Yesterday, when a woman blew a red, did an illegal right on red and sailed into my lane holding her space grey iPhone 5S ( ok that's an assumption) in her left hand, when I had a solid green left arrow, I felt there should be video traffic cams everywhere with $999 fines. The end.

I think where you live, people should not be allowed to drive. That, or the entire licensing process should be overhauled.

everybody

twix wrote:
johnnatash4 wrote:

Yesterday, when a woman blew a red, did an illegal right on red and sailed into my lane holding her space grey iPhone 5S ( ok that's an assumption) in her left hand, when I had a solid green left arrow, I felt there should be video traffic cams everywhere with $999 fines. The end.

I think where you live, people should not be allowed to drive. That, or the entire licensing process should be overhauled.

Everyone is "aware" of the don't text while driving, and the hands-free laws, but nobody takes them seriously. We have the technology, so why not now enforce the laws with a steep penalty, like $1000 on the first offense (nobody should be driving if they can't afford to pay that), and on the 2nd offense, $25,000 fine. It's basically 2nd strike, go and take out a home equity loan if you didn't get the message after the first time. So there's no complaining over "it's a money grab," all the proceeds go towards the feeding of stray puppies. Who doesn't like puppies?

Sounds like a money grab to me

johnnatash4 wrote:
twix wrote:
johnnatash4 wrote:

Yesterday, when a woman blew a red, did an illegal right on red and sailed into my lane holding her space grey iPhone 5S ( ok that's an assumption) in her left hand, when I had a solid green left arrow, I felt there should be video traffic cams everywhere with $999 fines. The end.

I think where you live, people should not be allowed to drive. That, or the entire licensing process should be overhauled.

Everyone is "aware" of the don't text while driving, and the hands-free laws, but nobody takes them seriously. We have the technology, so why not now enforce the laws with a steep penalty, like $1000 on the first offense (nobody should be driving if they can't afford to pay that), and on the 2nd offense, $25,000 fine. It's basically 2nd strike, go and take out a home equity loan if you didn't get the message after the first time. So there's no complaining over "it's a money grab," all the proceeds go towards the feeding of stray puppies. Who doesn't like puppies?

Regardless of what cause you would have the fees go to, those are outrageous amounts. I'm not sure what part of the world you are living in where you are constantly having close calls and you think fines like that are OK, but I'm glad I'm not there (at least I assume I'm not). Money grabs by municipalities and traffic camera vendors are the big problem and the cameras need to be banned.

My case

When my wife was pregnant with our first child she had a problem (turned out to be OK though). It seemed VERY serious at the time due to the evidence of blood. I ran every light in town and even Starsky&Hutched a couple of turns to get her and our unborn the emergency room. I did it as safe as possible and had good clear line of sight to oncoming travel lanes. It was clearly breaking the law but I consciously made the decision in about .5 seconds as to what I was going to do. I fully accepted the chance of multiple tickets and even possibly losing my license for reckless driving. I didn't get ticketed or pulled over but I would have gladly paid the fines if so.

--
Garmin dezl560 LMT

From a Different Perspective

marinegundoctor wrote:

When my wife was pregnant with our first child she had a problem (turned out to be OK though). It seemed VERY serious at the time due to the evidence of blood. I ran every light in town and even Starsky&Hutched a couple of turns to get her and our unborn the emergency room. I did it as safe as possible and had good clear line of sight to oncoming travel lanes. It was clearly breaking the law but I consciously made the decision in about .5 seconds as to what I was going to do. I fully accepted the chance of multiple tickets and even possibly losing my license for reckless driving. I didn't get ticketed or pulled over but I would have gladly paid the fines if so.

However, from the standpoint of safety, in a hypothetical situation, another driver could be in a precisely similar "bind" as this driver with his wife and if an accident were to happen, there could be 6 total "victims": 1. the husband as a driver, the pregnant wife and the unborn baby in the one car and 2. the husband as a driver, the pregnant wife and the unborn child in the other car.

True

LS wrote:

However, from the standpoint of safety, in a hypothetical situation, another driver could be in a precisely similar "bind" as this driver with his wife and if an accident were to happen, there could be 6 total "victims": 1. the husband as a driver, the pregnant wife and the unborn baby in the one car and 2. the husband as a driver, the pregnant wife and the unborn child in the other car.

That's true, but when your in an emergency situation you have to weigh out risks and outcomes. I'm not saying my decision was or would ever be the best but I figured the low traffic in a small town lowered the risk of a wreck. Anything can happen of course, but that's just life I suppose.
I'd have to say that if I were having a cardiac arrest and ran a red light getting to the ER that I would gladly accept the ticket. Money and risk well spent in my opinion. However, running that light might have more consequences than just a ticket.
This is why a green light doesn't mean "GO". It means proceed if the intersection is clear and safe. It also means that you have the right-of-way so if someone runs through and hits you they are at fault--but you're still hit and possible injured so you'd better attempt to look before going on your green light.

--
Garmin dezl560 LMT

ER

LS wrote:
marinegundoctor wrote:

When my wife was pregnant with our first child she had a problem (turned out to be OK though). It seemed VERY serious at the time due to the evidence of blood. I ran every light in town and even Starsky&Hutched a couple of turns to get her and our unborn the emergency room. I did it as safe as possible and had good clear line of sight to oncoming travel lanes. It was clearly breaking the law but I consciously made the decision in about .5 seconds as to what I was going to do. I fully accepted the chance of multiple tickets and even possibly losing my license for reckless driving. I didn't get ticketed or pulled over but I would have gladly paid the fines if so.

However, from the standpoint of safety, in a hypothetical situation, another driver could be in a precisely similar "bind" as this driver with his wife and if an accident were to happen, there could be 6 total "victims": 1. the husband as a driver, the pregnant wife and the unborn baby in the one car and 2. the husband as a driver, the pregnant wife and the unborn child in the other car.

No hypothetical people were hurt in this hypothetical situation.

All in all, we have traffic rules to keep everyone safe. We stop at stop signs to avoid collisions. We yield to traffic when they have the right of way. When it comes down to emergency situations and breaking the law, sometimes it's necessary. We'll have to deal with the consequences of our actions. So in that vein, as long as no one gets hurt, and it's truly an emergency, there should be no tickets given.

Did you read what he said?

LS wrote:

However, from the standpoint of safety, in a hypothetical situation, another driver could be in a precisely similar "bind" as this driver with his wife and if an accident were to happen...

Did you read what he said?

marinegundoctor wrote:

I ... had good clear line of sight to oncoming travel lanes.

I see nothing about running lights in front of on-coming traffic. Just said he didn't wait for lights to cycle.

The Problem

zeaflal wrote:
LS wrote:

However, from the standpoint of safety, in a hypothetical situation, another driver could be in a precisely similar "bind" as this driver with his wife and if an accident were to happen...

Did you read what he said?

marinegundoctor wrote:

I ... had good clear line of sight to oncoming travel lanes.

I see nothing about running lights in front of on-coming traffic. Just said he didn't wait for lights to cycle.

The problem is that virtually everyone who encounters an accident, it seems to me, believes that they "had a good clear line of sight to oncoming travel lanes." If a person knows that a car is about to hit them, it doesn't seem likely that they would continue on through a red light. This type of problematic dilusional psychology of believing in oneself and what presumably one "sees" it seems to me is "par for the course"--prior to an accident.

I don't get it

LS wrote:

The problem is that virtually everyone who encounters an accident, it seems to me, believes that they "had a good clear line of sight to oncoming travel lanes." If a person knows that a car is about to hit them, it doesn't seem likely that they would continue on through a red light. This type of problematic dilusional psychology of believing in oneself and what presumably one "sees" it seems to me is "par for the course"--prior to an accident.

There was no accident.

common sense

In an emergency common sense should prevail.

Running a red light in a "clear" intersection makes sense to me if you have an emergency.

Pulling in front of another vehicle because you have an emergency .....

--
garry

Red Light Camera Traffic tickets are not the same in Miami-Dade

FL Court Questioning RLC Procedures

Things are heating up in Florida for cities that use the RLC System to bolster their revenues. The article below tells the story:

http://flaglerlive.com/66049/moore-stens-red-light-cameras/

--
romanviking

Right

garry1p wrote:

In an emergency common sense should prevail.

Running a red light in a "clear" intersection makes sense to me if you have an emergency.

Pulling in front of another vehicle because you have an emergency .....

I honestly don't believe that people here lack common sense. My hunch is that this is the internet, rather anonymous, and they simply like to argue. Like the guy who claimed he got a rlc ticket when he didn't run the light. When asked a simple question, was there one pic behind the line when the light turned red, another proceeding through the intersection on red, and a third of his plate, he simply disappeared. Silence, no response. Which implies he was lying.

In a true emergency, who even cares about a $110-$490 rlc fine? Should we remove the rlc to accommodate 1/10000 cases?

Lie Detector

Just because someone doesn't respond, doesn't mean they're lying. I think it would be difficult to prove either way, if they're telling the truth. Besides, this isn't a court of law here. It's just a message board where people can communicate. We shouldn't be judging people.

As far as red light cameras, when they're near hospitals, it does seem suspect. Especially when someone explains an emergency situation, and the judge doesn't budge.

Page 1>>