Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find it amazing that people actually think 102 is fast. Seriously, just about any car on the road today can easily and safely achieve speeds of 100+ mph. Most passenger cars are governed at 118, which is the limit of the speed rating on most passenger car all season tires, not the limits of the car.
Besides, at 3am how many people were on the road? He had also achieved that speed on an interstate highway, not some local street. While it is never legal to speed, the "justification" or "necessity" defense is perfectly valid.
In my case, I have driven at much higher speeds on public roads (when younger and dumber) and would do so in a hearbeat during a medical emergency.
MANCHESTER, N.H. -- A Londonderry, N.H., man appeared in court yesterday to face charges of excessive speeding to get his pregnant wife to the hospital.
John Coughlin was found not guilty of speeding as the judge took into account the frantic 911 call made to report his wife was having a baby and was given a police escort at the end of the harrowing 3am trip last September, MyFoxBoston reports.
The reasons for not doing this are many, but the main reasons are that if you are driving your loved one in the case of emergency, you are unable to concentrate fully on the road, and attend to their needs at the same time. You are putting the life of yourself, your wife, the baby, and anyone else on the road at risk. The best thing to do is stay put, offer any help you can, and call 911. The majority (yes there are exceptions) of people live within a 3-5 minute response time from emergency vehicles. It is far better to have EMT's deliver a baby in your home than for your wife to deliver the baby on the floor of the car without any help.
The reasons for not doing this are many, but the main reasons are that if you are driving your loved one in the case of emergency, you are unable to concentrate fully on the road, and attend to their needs at the same time. You are putting the life of yourself, your wife, the baby, and anyone else on the road at risk. The best thing to do is stay put, offer any help you can, and call 911. The majority (yes there are exceptions) of people live within a 3-5 minute response time from emergency vehicles. It is far better to have EMT's deliver a baby in your home than for your wife to deliver the baby on the floor of the car without any help.
Comments like this drive me crazy. Because everything turned out ok you can say things like this. However I have known many people to suffer complications during child birth that can result in serious problems. Its easy to say the woulda shoulda coulda's when you know the outcome.
The reasons for not doing this are many, but the main reasons are that if you are driving your loved one in the case of emergency, you are unable to concentrate fully on the road, and attend to their needs at the same time. You are putting the life of yourself, your wife, the baby, and anyone else on the road at risk. The best thing to do is stay put, offer any help you can, and call 911. The majority (yes there are exceptions) of people live within a 3-5 minute response time from emergency vehicles. It is far better to have EMT's deliver a baby in your home than for your wife to deliver the baby on the floor of the car without any help.
Agree, but take this scenario:
Contractions begin, you leave the house. It's not an emergency yet. It's a 20 minute drive to the hospital. Labor progresses rapidly and about halfway to the hospital, delivery is imminent. Do you pull over and call 911 or do you drive as quickly and safely as you can to the hospital?
I have to say that the best choice here is to drive directly to the hospital as quickly as you can. Pulling over and calling 911, would waste at least 5 minutes waiting for the responder, who will then still need to drive to the hospital arguably no faster than you could yourself. In that scenario, the person who chose to drive directly there and disregarded traffic laws in a reasonable manner (e.g. running a redlight when there was no traffic coming or speeding) has the better chance of delivering the baby at the hospital and a much better chance of saving the mothers life if there complications.
I actually ran into this scenario myself. We were at my in-laws house and my son was around 13 months old and walking. My SIL absent mindedly put a bowl of steaming hot soup on the table which my son promptly grabbed and dumped on himself. His chin and chest were literally melting. The nearest hospital was less than 10 minutes of regular driving away. We knew his best prognosis was to get to a hospital as quickly as possible. Calling 911 would have meant waiting 5 minutes or so for an ambulance and then making that same 10 minute ride.
I grabbed my keys, my wife grabbed my son and we were at the hospital in about 5 minutes. I definitely was speeding and rolled through a couple stop signs, but we got there faster than any emergency services could and I would do it again as long as the hospital was within close proximity. If the hospital was further away, than it definitely makes sense to call 911 and wait.
As for my son, he is fine today with only a barely noticeable scar on his chin (my SIL is still recovering from her wounds, lol). The hospital staff credited him getting to the hospital so quickly with their ability to effectively treat him and avoid a worse outcome.
The judge is a jackass. So is the driver. Not even ambulances, with lights and sirens and trained drivers, go 100+ mph because of the mortal threat to anyone on the road.
The judge is a jackass. So is the driver. Not even ambulances, with lights and sirens and trained drivers, go 100+ mph because of the mortal threat to anyone on the road.
Actually ambulances don't go that fast because their not designed to do so. Have you ever ridden in one? Not a very smooth ride. Also they have other options such as helicopters in life threatening emergencies.
Also the idea of the ambulance is they have medical expertise and supplies on board that can stabalize you till you get to the hospital. Last time I checked my car didn't have that in it.
The judge is a jackass. So is the driver. Not even ambulances, with lights and sirens and trained drivers, go 100+ mph because of the mortal threat to anyone on the road.
No the judge followed the letter and spirit of the law, which allows "necessity" as a defense. If you want to take an extreme example, you are stopped at a redlight. An attacker points a gun at you, you run the redlight to get away. Should you then be guilty of running a redlight? No, you did what you had to do.
Ambulances don't go that fast, because they can't go that fast. They are large trucks with several thousand pounds of equipment and a service body on them. They are also an incredibly rough ride and going fast would make everyone and everything inside bounce around like crazy. Cars can easily and safely travel at 100+mph, most ambulances even being driven flat out can't go more than 75 or 80 mph with a full load and are in danger of tipping around bends do to all the weight they carry. Driving an ambulance at high speed is stupid, doing it in a car is relatively safe for even average drivers.
The judge is a jackass. So is the driver. Not even ambulances, with lights and sirens and trained drivers, go 100+ mph because of the mortal threat to anyone on the road.
No, because ambulances can't go 100+ mph safely. You can't compare a car with a heavy vehicle like that.
I see no problem with it what he did. I think there are several things to take into account. Also if it was me, I feel I'm a competent driver, I would just speed to the hospital. **Let this also be a reason why you slow pokes in the left lane should be out of it if not passing.
Cars can easily go in excess of 100MPH. If he was in a rickety old boat of a car and did this, I would not let it slide as the judge. Vehicle doing the delivery and age/skill of driver should be taken into account.
102 is a danger to his wife and child that was coming as well as to anyone else on the road.
Well actually no.
Given that he was in court, meant that he actually survived.
As the reason he was in court was for a speeding ticket and not for crashing into someone then it means he did not have an accident.
Amazing isn't it. That someone can travel at that amazing speed of 102mph and survive.
maybe these messages about speed and danger are .... well... not scientifically based.
I had thought that as soon as a person traveled faster than a galloping horse that they would die but apparently not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
