On the other hand it feels like there's been a huge money grab with automated systems mailing out tickets or maybe I'm just at sore at the $180 red light camera ticket I just paid.
Before anyone starts bleating about companies changing cycle times: that's only happened in a few areas and most municipalities and states have caught on to the scam. It's an easy legislative fix to require light timings be based off federal standards, which they should be anyway.
Also a couple months after, then Culver City stopped the red light traffic camera program
One example: https://www.speedtrap.org/california/lone-pine/
This is just someone sour because they got caught speeding. For reference 90 mph is 145 km/h, it's pretty fast, and the limit in CA seems to be 70 mph at the most. Driving at 90mph is always wrong unless you are rushing someone to the hospital or similar emergencies.
For example, on a two lane road I'll move into the left lane if there's a cyclist on the right shoulder, if the left lane is clear.
As for a red light, my pedal will be to the metal if my buddy is bleeding out in the passenger seat. Is that far-fetched? It happened to a friend of mine at Boeing. He didn't get his friend to the hospital in time.
As always, use your best judgement rather than blindly following rules. This is also why cops, prosecutors, judges, and juries have discretion about applying the law, because the law simply cannot be blindly applied.
(Which is why I object to mandatory sentencing laws.)
sorry about your friend's friend.
I'm merely pointing out these absolutist statements are wrong.
If someone is "bleeding out" in that they have an uncontrolled hemorrhage driving faster is never the preferred option.
Generally speaking there are two types of hemorrhage:
1. Those that can be controlled through direct pressure and the body's clotting ability.
2. Those that cannot be controlled through direct pressure and the body's clotting ability.
If the hemorrhage is type 1 the best course of action is to calm down, slow down, and apply direct pressure while the patient is immobile until the bleeding stops. Driving fast will only stress the patient and may possibly lead to additional bleeding through jostling or poor application of direct pressure. Once the bleeding has stopped you can travel to the hospital at a reasonable and prudent speed.
If the hemorrhage is type 2 the only course of action is to apply a tourniquet. Once the tourniquet is applied you can proceed to the hospital at a safe pace. It is impossible to drive fast enough to save someone with an uncontrollable hemorrhage unless you are within 180-to-300 seconds of a hospital. A tourniquet can be anything, including a shoelace, belt, or torn-up shirt.
Even if the hemorrhage is a type that cannot be stopped by a tourniquet or pressure, like a chest wound, driving faster will likely not help because without applying an occlusive bandage to the wound(s) the patient will likely be dead in minutes. An occlusive bandage is any airtight barrier, like a piece of plastic, that can create a seal needed to allow for adequate respiration.
In all cases treating for shock is more important than speed. For non-EMS personnel the only preventative measures for shock are: stop bleeding, wrap patient to retain body heat, and place patient in a position of comfort.
When it comes to bleeding driving faster without basic interventions does little-to-nothing to improve the outcome for the patient, and a lot to increase the chances of creating more than one patient.
Driving faster than is reasonable is called "diesel therapy" and the only times I have used that is for breech presentations during childbirth, which are also the only times I've heard my paramedic sound scared and we've run some gnarly calls.
If you come across someone who has amputated their leg with a chainsaw and you are five minutes from the hospital at maximum speed and EMS is 30 minutes away, it is better to lie the patient down, keep them still, apply a tourniquet to the appendage, do whatever is necessary to warm them (including putting them in an idling car, preferably lying down, with the heater at maximum), and call 911 than it is to throw them in a car and drive fast.
Although I would drive fast, I would not drive recklessly, as I am well aware that causing an accident would do nobody any good.
What I said is the exact same stuff they teach you in Lifeguard training, and if 15-year-old me can learn it, anyone can. Never took it, but babysitter training probably covers it as well.
https://www.redcross.org/take-a-class/first-aid/first-aid-tr...
More details here: https://redlightrobber.com
https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-county-news-sun/...
The officer's presence would encourage safer driving at problematic intersections.
A police officer doesn't need to be present for code enforcement (ie. property inspections etc..).
A police officer doesn't need to be present for parking enforcement.
A police officer doesn't need to be present for toll fee collection enforcement.
Why should police then be present when violating traffic rules? What makes speeding or running a red light so meaningfully special that its enforcement cannot be automated, but violating parking rules can be?
> The officer's presence would encourage safer driving at problematic intersections.
Cameras would be the exact same type of encouragement, and not be nearly as disruptive or dangerous as a cop pulling someone over.
What gives?
If an office is stated at an intersection it is an important issue. Similar in spirit to warrants as an important step in violating people's privacy.
But that's just like your opinion man.
> not safety improvement devices.
But they are. Speed and red light cameras reduce injury and death. I want myself and my family to live in a city where we won't get randomly murdered or maimed. The carrot isn't working on drivers, it's time for the stick.
> Similar to warrants
It's not at all. A warrant is invasion of somebody's home because executive power has reason to belief crime is going on. A speed camera invades no-ones privacy, and just registers violations of traffic rules.
The Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution requires that to be the case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause
And wrt court challenge, I mean, the photographic evidence is right there, car running red light, can't be more clear. Why would it be dismissed?
And Why does every crime need witness? Plenty of prosecutions on photographic or forensic 3videnc3 alone.
Also, is traffic violation a crime (is it, genuinely asking (?))
Tbh, this often feel like people rummaging around the couch cushions for reasons (not saying you, link much appreciated, til)