| Photo radar ticket because of emergency, lesser fine with plea bargain? - Click HERE for Original Thread |
| Bad Egg |
My wife opened up a photo radar ticket the other day for an offence in Spruce Grove on September 29th. It was for 53 kph in a 30 kph in front of our son's grade school over the noon hour. She remembered the day and time exactly, for reasons that I will get into. My wife has not had a speeding ticket since Mulroney was PM, and she goes within the limits in school zones normally.
September 29th was the day of the Terry Fox run, and my son was participating with his class. He was stung by either a wasp or hornet, and started to have an allergic reaction to the sting. We have an epipen(automatic epinepherine injector used for allergic reactions) in his backpack, but he got so panicked that he couldn't remember to tell the school staff. The staff at the school called my wife at home and she rushed to the school with another epipen. For those not familiar with allergies, an epipen is a life saver for severe allergic reactions. People die from allergic reactions all the time, so my wife was understandably in a bit of a hurry while driving to the school. The picture on the ticket shows her brakes being applied as she is preparing to pull into the school parking lot.
Obviously we know that she was guilty of speeding by 23 km over the limit in a school zone. Where she was actually speeding was not near any kids, but in a residential section adjacent to the school. The front of the school is fenced off, and the playgrounds are all to the rear. Those items are not mentioned to excuse speeding in a school zone, but it should be made clear that she was not endangering any children at the school.
I would like to think that in what could be considered an emergency medical situation that most police officers would not issue a ticket. Photo radar does not have this flexibility. We are leaning towards having my wife appearing on the specified court date in Provincial Court and asking the justice and/or prosecutor if he would either reduce the fine or eliminate it given the circumstances in exchange for a guilty plea. If we cannot come to some kind of agreement, then we will plead not-guilty and prolong the issue.
We have call log records available from the school to back up our story, so I think we have a shot at getting rid of the fine. Anybody have any other suggestions that would be relevant to seeking relief in a Provincial Court(outside City of Edmonton)?
As for my son, he didn't end up needing the epipen because his allergic reaction did not continue to spread after he stopped running in the Terry Fox Run. |
|
|
| stybscelica |
I agree with your story and excuse and i too have severe alergies and carry an epi pen. Where your going to run into trouble is although it was an emergent situation you are not allowed to exceed the speed limit. Medical Reasons are not valid legalized reasons to speed. The prosecuter will say that if it was that serious of a reason to speed, an ambulance should have been called as they are properly trained to administer medical assistance as well as speeding to a call. Also after an epi pen is administered you need to attend the hospital anyhow.
Your wife although has an epipen and speeds to the school is not authorized unless she is an EMT, Volunteer FireFighter or doctor. Only these three people my brake Traffic laws in emergent situations and when they do they are required to drive safely with there hazard lights flashing.
Its certainly worth your effort to try but don't get your hopes up. As I've seen prosecuters that simply do not care.
Hope everything works out for you
My suggestion,Pay the fine, and be done with it, theres no points and will not show up on your record, Not worth taking the day off of work.
Best of luck |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
^^^ Yeah, what he said. I imagine you'd get a lot of leeway though. Clean record, sick child, etc. The judge might make some comment about calling an ambulance instead next time, but I'd be very surprised if he didn't void it or at least reduce it.
EDIT: By the way, bring an affidavit from someone from the school who can vouch for your wife if they can't come in person as your witness. Judges are used to excuses. |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
I know a number of Ambulance drivers/stretcher van drivers. They're not allowed to speed either, I think for them it might be a "policy" rather than a law though.
I dunno how many times I've out run an ambulance doing 5-10 over the limit. |
|
|
| Bad Egg |
Thanks for the input, folks. Like I said, we aren't arguing the guilt part, because that is an obvious lost cause. Our hope is that we can get a serious reduction or elimination of the $140ish ticket.
It is not an issue of time off work to go to court, my wife does not work outside the home, and she is capable of some serious haggling...and the school does have official logs of the calls they made to her and have told us they can be made available for us if we dance through a couple of hoops.
The facts are; we know she was not allowed to speed, the school called her at home and told her her son had been stung and had started having a escalating allergic reaction and they did not have his epi pen. She sped to potentially save her boy, got caught speeding by the camera, and now we are going to have to see if the prosecutor is a little bit human.
If they deny us any kind of break at all, then we will have to decide if we want to plead not guilty and drag it out. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Bad Egg
Thanks for the input, folks. Like I said, we aren't arguing the guilt part, because that is an obvious lost cause. Our hope is that we can get a serious reduction or elimination of the $140ish ticket.
It is not an issue of time off work to go to court, my wife does not work outside the home, and she is capable of some serious haggling...and the school does have official logs of the calls they made to her and have told us they can be made available for us if we dance through a couple of hoops.
The facts are; we know she was not allowed to speed, the school called her at home and told her her son had been stung and had started having a escalating allergic reaction and they did not have his epi pen. She sped to potentially save her boy, got caught speeding by the camera, and now we are going to have to see if the prosecutor is a little bit human.
If they deny us any kind of break at all, then we will have to decide if we want to plead not guilty and drag it out.
Well.....there's more to it than "guilt" or "innocence" though. Is your wife guilty of speeding? Yes. But name one parent who wouldn't if their child was in trouble? While I'm not saying it's legally correct or not, it's a moral issue. In future perhaps she'd react differently, such as call an ambulance. But the fact is that ANYONE can break ANY law to save a life. Period.
It's called guilty with reason, the same as if you murder someone who broke into your house with a gun to defend yourself and your family. While laws don't allow for it in how they're written, it's a fact of our legal system. Both our Constitution (which gives our government and our laws their power and authority) and our Charter (which defines our basic rights and freedoms no law or person can take from us) have clauses to protect us in these cases.
Will the prosecutor just decide to drop the charges? Maybe, but if he doesn't that doesn't mean he isn't human, it means he feels it's his job to prosecute (which it kind of is) and a magistrate or judge's job to pass a judgement (which is also true).
I can't provide with details about how Alberta works, but in Ontario and Manitoba, you would just talk to the Magistrate and tell them your situation. Here it seems everything is a mandatory court thing, so you might have to ask the judge how you should proceed when you're there. Judges understand you aren't a lawyer, they'll advise you to the best of their knowledge, possibly even dismiss the case right there.
Since it's photo and bears no demerits and doesn't hurt a licence, maybe it's not worth it to you, your call.
As for ambulance drivers and stretcher folk, the law only extends to members of a Fire/Paramedic service. If their vehicle doesn't have lights, siren and EMERGENCY written on it somewhere, they probably can't speed.
A volunteer firefighter can't technically speed as the law is concerned, but "reasonable" speed is allowed by any officer I've met. Here's the official word on who can break the law.
quote:
Operating and parking emergency vehicle
63(1) Where, considering the circumstances, it is reasonable and safe to do so, a person driving an emergency vehicle may while the vehicle’s siren is operating do one or more of the following:
(a) drive the vehicle in excess of the speed limit;
(b) proceed past a traffic control signal indicating stop or a stop sign without stopping;
(c) contravene any provision that is prescribed by the Act, this or other regulations or a municipal bylaw governing the use of the highways.
(2) An emergency vehicle, while its siren is operating, has the right of way over all other vehicles.
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), when sirens are operating on emergency vehicles, the persons driving the emergency vehicles, where practicable, should drive the vehicles in such a manner so that the vehicles, with respect to each other, are operated in the following order:
(a) firstly, a vehicle operated by a fire protection service;
(b) secondly, an ambulance;
(c) thirdly, a vehicle operated by a police service;
(d) fourthly, a vehicle operated as a gas disconnection unit of a public utility;
(e) fifthly, a vehicle designated by regulation as an emergency response unit.
(4) Where, considering the circumstances, it is reasonable and safe, an emergency vehicle may, while its flashing lights are operating, be parked contrary to any provision that is prescribed by the Act, this or other regulations or a municipal bylaw governing the parking of motor vehicles.
(5) Where a peace officer is not present, the person driving and the other personnel of an emergency vehicle, if the circumstances so require, have the powers of a peace officer under the Act and this Regulation with respect to traffic control and direction to the extent necessary to enable them to efficiently perform their duties.
While that isn't explicit, as I said, anyone can speed or break any law to save a life as long as they show due diligence and operate with caution, but you will bear the burden of proof to show that you were in fact doing it. That's how doctors and volunteer firefighters get away with it. I think you guys should be able to have this ticket voided, the circumstances are certainly valid, especially if your wife argues she was panicking and never considered alternatives, but in future she'd call an ambulance instead now that she's been able to think about it with calm nerves. |
|
|
| stybscelica |
Ya some great comment all around dtjohnst, Didn't mean to shake your confidence Bad egg i was mearly pointing out what the prosecuter will confront you with when you tell him your story. Remember Traffic Prosecuters hear it all every day and will not show much sympathy as they deal with alot of people looking for the easy way out, not to say yours is the easy way out. Just giving you a heads up. As for the judges in Alberta they will mearly send you to a public defender for advise, they don't have the time to explain the law to every one in court as they hear hundreds of tickets daily. Your only option to plead your story is plead not guilty and talk to the prosecuter on the actual trail day as thats when the appropriate time to explain your case is.
Cheers and best of luck to you |
|
|
| Bad Egg |
Some more constructive comments guys, and you are reinforcing some of what I am already somewhat familiar with. It is a bit different process in every province, as I experienced in pleading "guilty with an explanation" in Manitoba and managed to have a speeding ticket discharged over a speedo problem.
I have also gone through the court system in Alberta years ago, where I plead not-guilty and on the trial day the prosecutor approached me just before court and immediately after learning the details of my case promptly asked the judge for a discharge (He didn't want to waste time on an obvious lost cause, and the rookie officer had made an obvious mistake in interpertation of the appropriate law).
The nuances of dtjohnst last post are valuable bits to use in our preperations, and there will be preperations made. My wife is a stickler for detail, and she will be well prepared when the time comes for court with everything she needs to prove her story is true. Don't worry stybscelica, you haven't killed our confidence at all, and your suggestion about the plea and meeting with the prosecutor on the trial date has refreshed my memory of the one case I did challenge in court here and was successful. All the talk of negotiation with the Edmonton courts the last few years distracted me a little from the way the Provincial Courts operate.
As for the ambulance suggestion, I am sure that it is made in all sincerity, but it wasn't really feasible at the time. The call made from the school stated that my son was stung during the Terry Fox run and that they could not locate his epi pen. They told her that they made him stay where he was to slow the reaction. The school could have called emergency services if they felt it was appropriate, but my wife would not have even been able to give them proper directions or details. Given the information she had to work with, I cannot fathom how anyone would have acted much differently than she did.
Thanks guys. |
|
|
| accordt |
| To many threads to read, but I think you will be SOL I got a call one day and was told my son was missing. So I'm driveing and ofcourse I start to fly home to try and help find him. I get stoped and the cop gave me every ticket possible even though he knew what had just happened and the cops where already called and aswell on the way to look for my son. |
|
|
| 180sxforthewin |
That sucks man
I imagine if they new the facts perhaps they would reduce the fine but im not sure. Same situation if your wife was in labour speeding to the hospital.
Good luck |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by 180sxforthewin
That sucks man
I imagine if they new the facts perhaps they would reduce the fine but im not sure. Same situation if your wife was in labour speeding to the hospital.
Good luck
Again, that's why they have ambulances. The answer to any medical emergency is......"Why didn't you call an ambulance?" And really.........there's no reason why not. They can even do emergency child births if need be, you can't. In the OP's situation, they carry epipens as well as epinephrin needles and know how to recognize anaphylactic shock, plus the staff at the school apparently knew. So the answer would be "Why didn't you call an ambulance?"
Like I said, claiming you didn't think about it in the spur of moment might be valid. And if you mention you would do that in future now that you've time to think about it, it shows you learned a lesson. That helps. |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
Again, that's why they have ambulances. The answer to any medical emergency is......"Why didn't you call an ambulance?" And really.........there's no reason why not. They can even do emergency child births if need be, you can't. In the OP's situation, they carry epipens as well as epinephrin needles and know how to recognize anaphylactic shock, plus the staff at the school apparently knew. So the answer would be "Why didn't you call an ambulance?"
Like I said, claiming you didn't think about it in the spur of moment might be valid. And if you mention you would do that in future now that you've time to think about it, it shows you learned a lesson. That helps.
Hmm why didn't I call an Ambulance, cause if I'm with said person when they need medical attention 90% of the time I could have the patient to the hospital faster than what it would take and Ambulance to get to me. Plus there's cost, you pay $$$$ if they come to you, if you get the patient to say the clairview medical centre and they need to go to U of A or another hospital you don't pay. My mom had a pulminary embelism, he got her to the Clareview place, they shipped her to the Alec.
But in a situation where I'd have to drive to the patient then get them to a hospital, an Ambulance "could" have them recieving medical attention sooner. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
Presumably, an ambulance should get to you relatively quickly. And once the ambulance has arrived, for all intents and purposes, they victim IS receiving medical treatment. Ambulances aren't taxis for hurt people, they're mobile hospitals that'll do everything but surgery pretty much.
Yes, it costs money, but so does speeding. Not wanting to spend money isn't a valid reason to speed, not thinking clearly if you're panicked is.
If your wife was with your son when he got sick and the hospital was relatively close, then by all means, drive away. But you won't be given much leeway for speeding. An ambulance should be there in the same (or less) time then it takes you to get to a hospital assuming it's an actual life-threatening emergency. |
|
|
| Bad Egg |
I don't know why the ambulance keeps being brought up. Yes, they have good emergency services in Spruce Grove, in fact they are a lot closer to the school than our house is. As I stated above, however, my wife was not there with my son when he was stung and had his allergic reaction.
If an ambulance was required, I am reasonably sure that the school would have called one. My wife was in no position to make that call, since she was not present and would not have been able to tell the operator where to send the ambulance. Her only option was to go to the school, which is what she did. We are not arguing that she has the same legal rights as an emergency vehicle.
BTW, if a officer was going to write a ticket for a traffic offense of someone driving faster than the speed limit in a medical emergency situation, then they have the legal right to do so and I would not try to say any differently. The world is not always black and white or right and wrong, and that is why we have to use our best judgement sometimes. If my son was dying and I was speeding to the Emergency Room, I would let the officer know he can write my ticket/s at the hospital after I hand off my son for medical attention. Then I would take whatever punishment that was coming my way and either pay it or challenge it depending on the circumstances, because I would rather try to keep my son alive than keep my driver's abstract shiny and clean. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Bad Egg
I don't know why the ambulance keeps being brought up. Yes, they have good emergency services in Spruce Grove, in fact they are a lot closer to the school than our house is. As I stated above, however, my wife was not there with my son when he was stung and had his allergic reaction.
If an ambulance was required, I am reasonably sure that the school would have called one. My wife was in no position to make that call, since she was not present and would not have been able to tell the operator where to send the ambulance. Her only option was to go to the school, which is what she did. We are not arguing that she has the same legal rights as an emergency vehicle.
BTW, if a officer was going to write a ticket for a traffic offense of someone driving faster than the speed limit in a medical emergency situation, then they have the legal right to do so and I would not try to say any differently. The world is not always black and white or right and wrong, and that is why we have to use our best judgement sometimes. If my son was dying and I was speeding to the Emergency Room, I would let the officer know he can write my ticket/s at the hospital after I hand off my son for medical attention. Then I would take whatever punishment that was coming my way and either pay it or challenge it depending on the circumstances, because I would rather try to keep my son alive than keep my driver's abstract shiny and clean.
It keeps coming up because it's the one thing that might hurt your chances of getting it reduced. Your wife could have told them to call an ambulance, there was no need for her to "speed" to get there. That's where I'm going with these but people keep arguing that an ambulance isn't a valid reason. To have qualified medical care during the drive and a way to get to injured people fast is the reason we have a paramedic service.
Like I said, yes, she was panicked and stressed and she didn't consider it. But I'd be very surprised if this question doesn't come up during your hearing. If you don't want to consider it and think it's out of the question, so be it. If the school didn't think an ambulance was needed, there should have been no need to speed. These are the problems you'll run into in court. These are the types of things you need to think about if you're going to ask for leniancy, because the court will want to make sure you won't do this kind of thing again, and if you can't answer these types of questions, you can't show that. And maybe they won't be asked, and that's fine. You came for advice, I'm telling you how I see courts reacting based on my experiences and giving you tips, like suggest next time you'd call an ambulance.
It started a discussion on ambulances in these situations, which is relevent to your initial post I think, and that's why it's a recurring theme.
For the record, if I had someone in the passenger seat that was dieing, I wouldn't even stop to tell the cop to write the ticket later, I'd keep driving. Now that I got lights and siren behind me, cars will probably stop at intersections, and I'd be running the red lights too if it's safe. Like I said, when you're trying to save a life, all bets are off. |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
For the record, if I had someone in the passenger seat that was dieing, I wouldn't even stop to tell the cop to write the ticket later, I'd keep driving. Now that I got lights and siren behind me, cars will probably stop at intersections, and I'd be running the red lights too if it's safe. Like I said, when you're trying to save a life, all bets are off.
I might stop run up to the cop with my hands up said I'm going to X hopsital he can either escort me or not, but I'm leaving, or I would call 911/dispatch and while driving tell them to relay to the cop behind me why I'm not stopping, just so they don't try to pit me. Or use an ESD(I hear we got those now, well you guys do in Edmonton, was supposidly used on a civic down on Parsons road) |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by SilverNeonRacer
I might stop run up to the cop with my hands up said I'm going to X hopsital he can either escort me or not, but I'm leaving, or I would call 911/dispatch and while driving tell them to relay to the cop behind me why I'm not stopping, just so they don't try to pit me. Or use an ESD(I hear we got those now, well you guys do in Edmonton, was supposidly used on a civic down on Parsons road)
They shouldn't try and pit you anyways. That kinda thing became a no no a long time ago. And even back in the old days, that was only if you posed a significant hazard. If you're speeding responsibly, you shouldn't be that big a hazzard for them to risk that kind of thing. But yeah, letting them know doesn't. It's just not something I'd bother with. |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
They shouldn't try and pit you anyways. That kinda thing became a no no a long time ago. And even back in the old days, that was only if you posed a significant hazard. If you're speeding responsibly, you shouldn't be that big a hazzard for them to risk that kind of thing. But yeah, letting them know doesn't. It's just not something I'd bother with.
True.... not to mention my car probably wieghs more than a standard police cruiser.
But we're getting a little off topic. |
|
|
| Bad Egg |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
It keeps coming up because it's the one thing that might hurt your chances of getting it reduced. Your wife could have told them to call an ambulance, there was no need for her to "speed" to get there. That's where I'm going with these but people keep arguing that an ambulance isn't a valid reason. To have qualified medical care during the drive and a way to get to injured people fast is the reason we have a paramedic service.
Like I said, yes, she was panicked and stressed and she didn't consider it. But I'd be very surprised if this question doesn't come up during your hearing. If you don't want to consider it and think it's out of the question, so be it. If the school didn't think an ambulance was needed, there should have been no need to speed. These are the problems you'll run into in court. These are the types of things you need to think about if you're going to ask for leniancy, because the court will want to make sure you won't do this kind of thing again, and if you can't answer these types of questions, you can't show that. And maybe they won't be asked, and that's fine. You came for advice, I'm telling you how I see courts reacting based on my experiences and giving you tips, like suggest next time you'd call an ambulance.
It started a discussion on ambulances in these situations, which is relevent to your initial post I think, and that's why it's a recurring theme.
For the record, if I had someone in the passenger seat that was dieing, I wouldn't even stop to tell the cop to write the ticket later, I'd keep driving. Now that I got lights and siren behind me, cars will probably stop at intersections, and I'd be running the red lights too if it's safe. Like I said, when you're trying to save a life, all bets are off.
I appreciate the ideas, and you have given me some good ones dt, but the reason I am dismissing the ambulance as an alternative has been explained several times already. We are well aware of the role of ES, and have no problem with calling them if the situation warrants it. This time it didn't.
You can't call an ambulance to a scene if you don't know where it is. Initially my son was not at the school, but out on the Terry Fox run, as I have pointed out. He was brought back into the school by staff while the run was still going on, after they called my wife.
The school was the one bringing him back to the school from the TF run, and they were the only ones who could have called ES at that time.
Instead they called us, so they did not judge that the situation meritted ES, but it was important enough to call my wife to school with a back up epi-pen in case it was needed. His condition stabilized once he was able to remain still, but before that his reaction had been spreading up his arm.
Given what information she had at the time, I don't know what my wife could have reasonably been expected to do differently. The logic of hindsight makes it seem a lot more simple than it is when you are picturing your kid gasping for air...
We have clarified arrangements for medical response with the school, and there should not be any confusion there in the future. We will pay up if we have to, but we will not be doing it the easy way. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Bad Egg
I appreciate the ideas, and you have given me some good ones dt, but the reason I am dismissing the ambulance as an alternative has been explained several times already. We are well aware of the role of ES, and have no problem with calling them if the situation warrants it. This time it didn't.
You can't call an ambulance to a scene if you don't know where it is. Initially my son was not at the school, but out on the Terry Fox run, as I have pointed out. He was brought back into the school by staff while the run was still going on, after they called my wife.
The school was the one bringing him back to the school from the TF run, and they were the only ones who could have called ES at that time.
Instead they called us, so they did not judge that the situation meritted ES, but it was important enough to call my wife to school with a back up epi-pen in case it was needed. His condition stabilized once he was able to remain still, but before that his reaction had been spreading up his arm.
Given what information she had at the time, I don't know what my wife could have reasonably been expected to do differently. The logic of hindsight makes it seem a lot more simple than it is when you are picturing your kid gasping for air...
We have clarified arrangements for medical response with the school, and there should not be any confusion there in the future. We will pay up if we have to, but we will not be doing it the easy way.
You're wife could have told the school to call an ambulance when they called her, and if it wasn't a big enough emergency to call an ambulance, there should have been no reason speed. Which is why I would suggest if the question comes up at your hearing, to say that's what you'd do in future.
The logic of hindsight, exactly. That's what I've been saying. To inform that judge that under panick your wife was unsure what to do, but now that you've had time to think about it, you'd react differently in future.
Otherwise, you're saying that not only did you break the law, but that you'd do it again despite the alternatives. |
|
|
| Britain |
quote:
Originally posted by Bad Egg
Thanks for the input, folks. Like I said, we aren't arguing the guilt part, because that is an obvious lost cause. Our hope is that we can get a serious reduction or elimination of the $140ish ticket.
It is not an issue of time off work to go to court, my wife does not work outside the home, and she is capable of some serious haggling...and the school does have official logs of the calls they made to her and have told us they can be made available for us if we dance through a couple of hoops.
The facts are; we know she was not allowed to speed, the school called her at home and told her her son had been stung and had started having a escalating allergic reaction and they did not have his epi pen. She sped to potentially save her boy, got caught speeding by the camera, and now we are going to have to see if the prosecutor is a little bit human.
If they deny us any kind of break at all, then we will have to decide if we want to plead not guilty and drag it out.
Honestly, go to court.. they'll be leniant for sure! Probably will throw it out... |
|
|
| albertarc |
One thing that everyone here has overlooked is that there are school zone speed restrictions for a reason. If there is a school / playground zone then there is a chance of a child rushing out from somewhere that a driver would not expect, and hence the lower speed so there is more reaction time ... especially when the driver is thinking about a sick family member etc. That's what I tell people when I stop them & they say they're going to see their family member in the hospital. They are more distracted & there's less attention paid to their driving skills.
Please don't get me wrong ... I am a father that would do anything for his child; however, it doesn't do me any good to hit a child while responding to something that the school staff determined did not require an ambulance. With all of the allergies / diseases etc out there, school staff are a lot more dilligent on recognizing a need for medical help than they were when I went to school. Maybe there should be a new policy set up w/ the school as far as directing how epipens / inhalors / first aid kits etc should be kept track of.
And let's look at one other consideration (remembering of course that I drove an emergency vehicle in Spruce Grove) from one corner of Spruce Grove to the diagonally opposite corner (longest distance) travelling 23 km/h over the speed limit (83 in a 60 ... 73 in a 50 ... 53 in a 30 etc) how much quicker do you think you could make it to the other corner of the city (not just from a residence to a nearby school)? 30 seconds ... 60 seconds ... & that is of course if you don't get behind someone who is travelling the speed limit.
As far as volunteer firefighters / ambulance drivers etc ... they are not allowed to break any of the rules of the road when responding to the ambulance garage / fire station. They are to either put their hazard flashers on or use a flashing green light which tells people (not exactly sure how many people know this though) that they are a volunteer enroute to the station etc. People should give them consideration but nothing in law says Joe Public has to.
Anytime someone is in need of emergency medical treatment an ambulance should be called. I have driven accident victims towards the nearest hospital (in my own vehicle as well as a police vehicle) & then turned them over to the ambulance staff when they approach ... of course this requires some type of coordination w/ dispatch etc.
I am very glad to hear that your son did not require emergency medical treatment & as such can run the TFR next year. Let's use this as a learning experience for all of us.
Just my two bits (then again, a lot of years of experience & the laws stand behind those two bits!)
Jimbo:drama: |
|
|
| shorti |
quote:
Originally posted by albertarc
As far as volunteer firefighters / ambulance drivers etc ... they are not allowed to break any of the rules of the road when responding to the ambulance garage / fire station. They are to either put their hazard flashers on or use a flashing green light which tells people (not exactly sure how many people know this though) that they are a volunteer enroute to the station etc. People should give them consideration but nothing in law says Joe Public has to.
That's exactly what I do when I go to the hospital to get an ambulance (flashing hazards). You'de be suprised at how many people get out of the way. |
|
|
| Bad Egg |
quote:
Originally posted by albertarc
One thing that everyone here has overlooked is that there are school zone speed restrictions for a reason. If there is a school / playground zone then there is a chance of a child rushing out from somewhere that a driver would not expect, and hence the lower speed so there is more reaction time ... especially when the driver is thinking about a sick family member etc. That's what I tell people when I stop them & they say they're going to see their family member in the hospital. They are more distracted & there's less attention paid to their driving skills.
Please don't get me wrong ... I am a father that would do anything for his child; however, it doesn't do me any good to hit a child while responding to something that the school staff determined did not require an ambulance. With all of the allergies / diseases etc out there, school staff are a lot more dilligent on recognizing a need for medical help than they were when I went to school. Maybe there should be a new policy set up w/ the school as far as directing how epipens / inhalors / first aid kits etc should be kept track of.
And let's look at one other consideration (remembering of course that I drove an emergency vehicle in Spruce Grove) from one corner of Spruce Grove to the diagonally opposite corner (longest distance) travelling 23 km/h over the speed limit (83 in a 60 ... 73 in a 50 ... 53 in a 30 etc) how much quicker do you think you could make it to the other corner of the city (not just from a residence to a nearby school)? 30 seconds ... 60 seconds ... & that is of course if you don't get behind someone who is travelling the speed limit.
As far as volunteer firefighters / ambulance drivers etc ... they are not allowed to break any of the rules of the road when responding to the ambulance garage / fire station. They are to either put their hazard flashers on or use a flashing green light which tells people (not exactly sure how many people know this though) that they are a volunteer enroute to the station etc. People should give them consideration but nothing in law says Joe Public has to.
Anytime someone is in need of emergency medical treatment an ambulance should be called. I have driven accident victims towards the nearest hospital (in my own vehicle as well as a police vehicle) & then turned them over to the ambulance staff when they approach ... of course this requires some type of coordination w/ dispatch etc.
I am very glad to hear that your son did not require emergency medical treatment & as such can run the TFR next year. Let's use this as a learning experience for all of us.
Just my two bits (then again, a lot of years of experience & the laws stand behind those two bits!)
Jimbo:drama:
Hi there Jim, it's good to have you back. I won't even try to argue that speeding in a school zone is excusable. We aren't debating the school zone necessity, that is a given, but the chance of a child from the school rushing out at this particular location at this time was extremely remote. In another handful of minutes and the school zone time would have changed and the photo trap would have moved on to another target enviornment. The photo truck did not capture the reading in front of the school. As for the epipen, there is a policy in place at schools regarding dispensing medication, but for some reason there was a mix-up this time. Her message from the school was; "Get here as soon as possible."
The spot where she got her picture taken by the photo radar truck was on Mcleod Ave westbound just before Broxton Park School. The school zone starts a couple of houses before the school, and she was snapped by the photo truck in front of those last couple of houses. After the end of the residential section there is the parking lot entrance, where she was turning right to enter. As you probably know, Broxton is surrounded by fences with the playgrounds to the rear and side.
It is a different matter than I originally brought up, but photo enforcement in that short stretch is actually only covering the last two houses of a residential street where the speed limit is reduced to 30 km/h from the standard 50 km/h before the sign. It does nothing to enforce the school zone in front of the school, it is just a good "trap" location, in fact the photo enforcement employee wouldn't be able to view the road in front of the school from where the picture was taken.
I find that the placement of photo enforcement in Spruce Grove, and indeed many other locales, is determined more by the revenue that can be generated than the safety issues that are usually used to advance their use. A photo vehicle parked in a conspicuous location in a school zone would slow all but the most dense drivers, but you almost never see one there. Instead you see them using whatever cover they can to produce tickets in areas where the value of enforcement is at best, debatable. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Bad Egg
We aren't debating the school zone necessity, that is a given, but the chance of a child from the school rushing out at this particular location at this time was extremely remote. In another handful of minutes and the school zone time would have changed and the photo trap would have moved on to another target enviornment. The photo truck did not capture the reading in front of the school. As for the epipen, there is a policy in place at schools regarding dispensing medication, but for some reason there was a mix-up this time. Her message from the school was; "Get here as soon as possible."
Snipped the rest to play devil's advocate. "The chance of a child from the school rushing out at this particular location at this time was extremely remote" are pretty famous last words. And incidently, you're wife wasn't caught in the school zone, but here's were you blush and admit she was speeding when she was in it regardless of where she was caught.
I still think they'll be lenient on you, probably very. I just like emphasising how dangerous speeding can be, to benefit the young speed freaks who visit this forum more than yourself BadEgg. |
|
|
| Bad Egg |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
Snipped the rest to play devil's advocate. "The chance of a child from the school rushing out at this particular location at this time was extremely remote" are pretty famous last words. And incidently, you're wife wasn't caught in the school zone, but here's were you blush and admit she was speeding when she was in it regardless of where she was caught.
I still think they'll be lenient on you, probably very. I just like emphasising how dangerous speeding can be, to benefit the young speed freaks who visit this forum more than yourself BadEgg.
School zone speed limits are a local decision in which they take a number of things into account, including fences, playground placement, etc. There are numerous schools in Edmonton that people drive by every day without having to slow below 50 km/h, and nobody seems too worried about it.
I didn't want to get into the whole zone thing, since it was not an issue. I was merely responding to the "child running out" bit from Jimbo's post. As for catching anybody in a confession, if you read the first post in the thread we admitted that she was over the speed limit, so finding us admitting it again is hardly newsworthy. Furthermore, to be literally accurate, if you are going to critique my statement, please note that I specifically said "in front of the school", not "in the school zone", so my statement was not a contradiction.
I would like to thank DT & Jimbo for their answers, they have been helpful. I think this thread has gone as far as it could so... |
|
|
|
|
