Speeding in case of emergency

[AlbertaRose]

Is speeding in case of emergency (like to a hospital with a labouring mother or injured child) a sin?

AlbertaRose

 

[KofC660]

"Speeding’ isn’t necessarily a “sin”, only the potential risk in which you put others is a “sin”. For example, the speed limit may be 55 miles per hour. In certain cities 55 miles per hour is actually UNSAFE, and the safe speed would be closer to 70 miles per hour. We are not obliged to obey the civil (government) authorities if their laws put ourselves and others in danger.

In an emergency situation, even somewhat dangerous maneuvers such as passing on the right would be considered appropriate measures. As long as you do not directly threaten anyone with your dangerous driving, it should be fine (for example do not run red lights and stop signs).

 

[AlbertaRose]

I was reading in “Ask an Apologist” and found this answer from Michelle Arnold"

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=84357&highlight=speeding

what she is saying is contradicting your first paragraph.

I completely agree with your second paragraph.

 

[KofC660]

I was reading in “Ask an Apologist” and found this answer from Michelle Arnold"

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=84357&highlight=speeding

what she is saying is contradicting your first paragraph.

I completely agree with your second paragraph.

I don’t know if Michelle Arnold has a background in transportation engineering/planning, but I do. I speak on this subject as an “expert witness”. It is more dangerous to drive slower than everyone else than it is to drive the same speed. Many, if not MOST [interstate] accidents are caused by differences in speeds, not the speed itself.

Pulling over into the “slow lane” is the absolutely WORST thing to do. You then are competing with entering/exiting vehicles, especially dangerous tractor-trailers. For maximum safety, stay in the middle to left lanes and avoid traveling near tractor-trailers. More often than not, this means “speeding”. Something over 10 miles per hour is usually within the limit of most, if not all police officers.

 

[Genesis315]

Speeding is a sin in general, because all authority comes from God, so we are bound to obey the civil authorities unless they command something openly repugnant to the natural law or law of God.

In an emergency, however, the civil authorities allow speeding and therefore it is not a sin.

 

[Genesis315]

I don’t know if Michelle Arnold has a background in transportation engineering/planning, but I do. I speak on this subject as an “expert witness”. It is more dangerous to drive slower than everyone else than it is to drive the same speed. Many, if not MOST [interstate] accidents are caused by differences in speeds, not the speed itself.

Pulling over into the “slow lane” is the absolutely WORST thing to do. You then are competing with entering/exiting vehicles, especially dangerous tractor-trailers. For maximum safety, stay in the middle to left lanes and avoid traveling near tractor-trailers. More often than not, this means “speeding”. Something over 10 miles per hour is usually within the limit of most, if not all police officers.

Yes, the authorities also say you are not liable for breaking a law if it is safer than following it. So, that is why it is not a sin in such cases.

 

[fix]

I don’t know if Michelle Arnold has a background in transportation engineering/planning, but I do. I speak on this subject as an “expert witness”. It is more dangerous to drive slower than everyone else than it is to drive the same speed. Many, if not MOST [interstate] accidents are caused by differences in speeds, not the speed itself.

That may be true, but does not prove those obeying the law are culpable. The culpable ones would be those disobeying the law.

Pulling over into the “slow lane” is the absolutely WORST thing to do. You then are competing with entering/exiting vehicles, especially dangerous tractor-trailers. For maximum safety, stay in the middle to left lanes and avoid traveling near tractor-trailers. More often than not, this means “speeding”. Something over 10 miles per hour is usually within the limit of most, if not all police officers.

That police choose to not enforce a particular law does not lead me to conclude breaking the law is good.

 

[Jay2]

Food for Thought:

Recently my son & I visited our local fire-station. We needed to talk to a fire-fighter at length about this career to fulfill the requirements for a Scouting Merit Badge. After talking awhile he started to quiz my son…

One of the questions posed by the Fireman to us was “When we’re responding to a call, lights & siren blazing, what is the speed limit for us?”

Answer:
Whatever the sign on the side of the road says it is!

The lights & sirens give them the advantage of moving through traffic unimpeded, and certain exemptions at traffic lights. It does not give them exclusion from the speed limit.

Now a Police Officer may have an entirely different set of “exemptions”, these I cannot comment on.

 

[KofC660]

Food for Thought:

Recently my son & I visited our local fire-station. We needed to talk to a fire-fighter at length about this career to fulfill the requirements for a Scouting Merit Badge. After talking awhile he started to quiz my son…

One of the questions posed by the Fireman to us was “When we’re responding to a call, lights & siren blazing, what is the speed limit for us?”

Answer:
Whatever the sign on the side of the road says it is!

The lights & sirens give them the advantage of moving through traffic unimpeded, and certain exemptions at traffic lights. It does not give them exclusion from the speed limit.

Now a Police Officer may have an entirely different set of “exemptions”, these I cannot comment on.

Because fire departments respond to LOCAL calls, and are not, generally, on limited access highways (such as an “interstate” highway in the USA). Local roads speed limits are set by engineers for safety. Interstate highway speed limits are set by the government, for various reasons, not specifically for safety. The “safe” speed for travel on most limited access roads in America, especially well maintained Federal interstate highways, would be in excess of 100 miles per hour for many drivers in many vehicles. Most people would be comfortable driving between 70 and 80 miles per hour, and, not surprisingly, most people drive between 70 and 80 miles per hour.

When I stated above, that speeding was not necessarily a “sin”, I meant that to be for limited access highways, especially the interstate highway system. Local speed limits ARE to be obeyed, and I’ve found that in some places the limits are a bit too high - the engineers haven’t been called in to re-evaluate speed limits on some roads that have gone from being lightly traveled rural roads to highly traveled suburban roads.

 

[otjm]

That may be true, but does not prove those obeying the law are culpable. The culpable ones would be those disobeying the law.

That police choose to not enforce a particular law does not lead me to conclude breaking the law is good.

But it should not necewssarily lead to the conclusion that breaking the law is a sin, either. One needs to determine what the purpose of the law is.

There is a difference between the speed limits in neighborhoods and other non-highway speed limits, and the interstate limits of 55.

The non-highway limits are based on a combination of factors including stopping distances, sight distances, and the likelyhood of pedestrians darting into the street, or someone in a parked car opening their door as you approach, or entering traffic from a side street or driveway. They are all based on safety as the primary issue.

The 55 mph limit on interstate highways, however, was imposed by the federal government years ago during the first major gas crunch, as an overall average to reduce gas consumption (I say overall average because some cars actually get their highest efficiency at higher speeds, and it was a balancing between consumption and time of travel).

The 55 mph speed limit was forced on the states by the same federal government that had a hand in the design of the highways to be able to safely handle speeds between 65 and 75; in other words, it was not a safety issue but a conservation issue.

Safety has a moral implication; others can argue whether or not conservation has a moral implication. But the bottom line is that the highways were designed for travel faster than the conservation based federally imposed speed limit. Calling that a moral issue seems to be stretching it a tad bit; trying to push it into the category of a serious moral issue is only fodder for a couple of self anointed theologians after their third pint of good beer - at which point they should not be driving anyway.

 

[Altesse]

Is speeding in case of emergency (like to a hospital with a labouring mother or injured child) a sin?

AlbertaRose

Call 911, the medics can usually get to you faster than you can get to the hospital. The ambulance is equipped with pretty much everything they need to help and they have those nifty lights and sirens to make other drivers get out of the way .

Speeding in your own car may get you pulled over by the police. They won’t let you drive at excessive speeds, and you will be in serious trouble if you don’t stop for them.

That will significantly delay urgent medical care. Cops don’t have the equipment or training for anything but the most basic first aid.

Under stress you are at an extremely high risk for a crash.
(They are not called accidents anymore, because one or both parties can be shown to have been in violation of at least one traffic law in most cases).

 

[Altesse]

Is speeding in case of emergency (like to a hospital with a labouring mother or injured child) a sin?

AlbertaRose

Call 911, the medics can usually get to you faster than you can get to the hospital. The ambulance is equipped with pretty much everything they need to help and they have those nifty lights and sirens to make other drivers get out of the way .

Speeding in your own car may get you pulled over by the police. They won’t let you drive at excessive speeds, and you will be in serious trouble if you don’t stop for them.

That will significantly delay urgent medical care. Cops don’t have the equipment or training for anything but the most basic first aid.

Under stress you are at an extremely high risk for a crash.
(They are not called accidents anymore, because one or both parties can be shown to have been in violation of at least one traffic law in most cases).

 

[RobNY]

Guys, read St. Thomas Aquinas on the Law. See Prima Secundae Partis, Q. 96, Article 6.

Whether he who is under the law may act beside the letter of the law?

On the contrary, Hilary says (De Trin. iv): “The meaning of what is said is according to the motive for saying it: because things are not subject to speech, but speech to things.” Therefore we should take account of the motive of the lawgiver, rather than of his very words.

I answer that, As stated above (4), every law is directed to the common weal of men, and derives the force and nature of law accordingly. Hence the jurist says [Pandect. Justin. lib. i, ff., tit. 3, De Leg. et Senat.]: “By no reason of law, or favor of equity, is it allowable for us to interpret harshly, and render burdensome, those useful measures which have been enacted for the welfare of man.” Now it happens often that the observance of some point of law conduces to the common weal in the majority of instances, and yet, in some cases, is very hurtful. Since then the lawgiver cannot have in view every single case, he shapes the law according to what happens most frequently, by directing his attention to the common good. Wherefore if a case arise wherein the observance of that law would be hurtful to the general welfare, it should not be observed. For instance, suppose that in a besieged city it be an established law that the gates of the city are to be kept closed, this is good for public welfare as a general rule: but, it were to happen that the enemy are in pursuit of certain citizens, who are defenders of the city, it would be a great loss to the city, if the gates were not opened to them: and so in that case the gates ought to be opened, contrary to the letter of the law, in order to maintain the common weal, which the lawgiver had in view.
Nevertheless it must be noted, that if the observance of the law according to the letter does not involve any sudden risk needing instant remedy, it is not competent for everyone to expound what is useful and what is not useful to the state: those alone can do this who are in authority, and who, on account of such like cases, have the power to dispense from the laws. If, however, the peril be so sudden as not to allow of the delay involved by referring the matter to authority, the mere necessity brings with it a dispensation, since necessity knows no law.

Thomas Aquinas, as always, answers with great insight and wisdom.

-Rob

 

[Katie1723]

How would you explain it to someone when in your haste to get there, you ran a yellow light and caused an accident?
Kathy

 

[Brenda_V]

Call 911, the medics can usually get to you faster than you can get to the hospital. The ambulance is equipped with pretty much everything they need to help and they have those nifty lights and sirens to make other drivers get out of the way .

Speeding in your own car may get you pulled over by the police. They won’t let you drive at excessive speeds, and you will be in serious trouble if you don’t stop for them.

That will significantly delay urgent medical care. Cops don’t have the equipment or training for anything but the most basic first aid.

Under stress you are at an extremely high risk for a crash.
(They are not called accidents anymore, because one or both parties can be shown to have been in violation of at least one traffic law in most cases).

I agree with this.

 

[fix]

But it should not necewssarily lead to the conclusion that breaking the law is a sin, either. One needs to determine what the purpose of the law is.

I can see that one needs to determine if a law is just or unjust. But, to claim we each have the authority to determine what the purpose of any particular just law is by ourselves seems very incorrect. If a particular law seems unduly restrictive we have ways of challenging that law through proper, and licit, channels.

There is a difference between the speed limits in neighborhoods and other non-highway speed limits, and the interstate limits of 55.

Is that stated in the law?

The non-highway limits are based on a combination of factors including stopping distances, sight distances, and the likelyhood of pedestrians darting into the street, or someone in a parked car opening their door as you approach, or entering traffic from a side street or driveway. They are all based on safety as the primary issue.

There basis is one thing, but the authorities have set the limit. They chose that limit. Did they say it was not a real limit?

The 55 mph limit on interstate highways, however, was imposed by the federal government years ago during the first major gas crunch, as an overall average to reduce gas consumption (I say overall average because some cars actually get their highest efficiency at higher speeds, and it was a balancing between consumption and time of travel).

Even if that plays a role it does not release us from obeying the law.

The 55 mph speed limit was forced on the states by the same federal government that had a hand in the design of the highways to be able to safely handle speeds between 65 and 75; in other words, it was not a safety issue but a conservation issue.

Again, even if true it does not allow each of us to disregard the law. The authorities set the standard.

Safety has a moral implication; others can argue whether or not conservation has a moral implication. But the bottom line is that the highways were designed for travel faster than the conservation based federally imposed speed limit.

This is your personal view. Objectively, the law says what the upper limit is. No matter why it is the limit. I can imagine many folks who claim to know better than the authorities claiming they may exempt themselves.

Calling that a moral issue seems to be stretching it a tad bit; trying to push it into the category of a serious moral issue is only fodder for a couple of self anointed theologians after their third pint of good beer - at which point they should not be driving anyway.

Obeying the civil law is a moral issue in that the Church has told us we are obligated to do so if the law is just. Circumstances can exist that may dispense us in individual circumstances such a serious necessity, but I have seen no argument to prove the Church has said we each decide which just laws we may disregard because we know better than the authorities. If you have some proof I would be happy to change my position.

 

[fix]

Guys, read St. Thomas Aquinas on the Law. See Prima Secundae Partis, Q. 96, Article 6.

Thomas Aquinas, as always, answers with great insight and wisdom.

-Rob

Thanks. As he said necessity dispenses from the law.

 

[otjm]

I can see that one needs to determine if a law is just or unjust. But, to claim we each have the authority to determine what the purpose of any particular just law is by ourselves seems very incorrect. If a particular law seems unduly restrictive we have ways of challenging that law through proper, and licit, channels.

It may seem incorrect if one is not familiar with a) how law is made, b) the history of speed laws, c) the reasoning of speed laws, and d) in particular the public history of the 55 mph limit on highways. My comments are specific to them.

Is that stated in the law?

Yes, if by the law you mean not only the written statutes but also the legislative history of them.

There basis is one thing, but the authorities have set the limit. They chose that limit. Did they say it was not a real limit?

“real limit” is a meaningless term in this point. The real limits of all speed laws are safety; that is why one can be ticketed even when going below the posted speed limit; the over-riding law for speed is safety given the conditions existing at the time. As I have said in an earlier post, going 45 on sheet ice in a 45 mph zone is grounds for a ticket; going 35 would also be as one cannot drive safely at that speed for those zones on sheet ice. In cases other than the interstate highway, going faster than the posted speed limit on dry pavement with clear visibility with no traffic is still prima facia evidence of going too fast and you will lose in court almost all of the time. A judge may dismiss a ticket if you are not significantly over the posted limit (other than a highway) if there is an emergency and other conditions do not indicate any significant safety issues (kids present, traffic, etc.).

But since you want to use “real limit” I will define the term: a real limit is a safety limit; and the interstate highways are designed for well over 55. That was not a real limit in the sense of a safety issue; it was an artificial limit in terms of conservation. It was real enough when you got the ticket, but it is not a recent phenomenon that it was generally not widely enforced even when it was imposed; keep in mind that previous to it, the “real limit” was posted on the highways and was higher. And it is not enforced now generally in most places on interstate highways.

Even if that plays a role it does not release us from obeying the law.

On the contrary, the Feds imposed the limit but never enforced it (the FBI doesn’t write speeing tickets); the State was the enforcing agent and the State has chosen not to enforce it generally. The State, through it’s lack of enfocement has said that it is not a “real limit” to use your term. Some states have been more consistent than others, and all have seen a relaxing of enfocement.

Again, even if true it does not allow each of us to disregard the law. The authorities set the standard.

Again, the authority that set the standard does not enforce it. The Feds set it, the State if it chooses to, enforces it and generally doesn’t.

No, it is not my personal view. It is the history of interstate speed laws. People are not exempting themselves; the State is exempting them by specifically not enforcing it.

Obeying the civil law is a moral issue in that the Church has told us we are obligated to do so if the law is just. Circumstances can exist that may dispense us in individual circumstances such a serious necessity, but I have seen no argument to prove the Church has said we each decide which just laws we may disregard because we know better than the authorities. If you have some proof I would be happy to change my position.

Who said anything about knowing better than the authorities? And which authorities are you referring to - the Feds who changed the laws or the states who choose not to enforce it? The point you are choosing to ignore is that there are conflicting authorites, there is not even any question as to how the 55 mph limit was imposed (it is in the Federal Record), the authorities - both the Feds and the States - have never said that it was a safety issue; and you have yet to show any moral issue with driving at a safe speed over a posted conservation speed. Your mantra that it was imposed by Authority therefore has to be obeyed is a simplistic avoidance of the issue. But it is patently not a safety issue on clear dry pavement with flowing trraffic at, say, 65. That used to be the lower posted speed on highways - others at 70 to 75 and was what the highways were engineered for.

[/QUOTE]

 

[fix]

It may seem incorrect if one is not familiar with a) how law is made, b) the history of speed laws, c) the reasoning of speed laws, and d) in particular the public history of the 55 mph limit on highways. My comments are specific to them.

Again, that one has knowlede about the history of any law does not exempt them from the law. The law still applies to each of us.

Yes, if by the law you mean not only the written statutes but also the legislative history of them.

I mean does the law state one is free to speed if one chooses.

“real limit” is a meaningless term in this point. The real limits of all speed laws are safety; that is why one can be ticketed even when going below the posted speed limit;

Does the law not also include proscribing unsafe driving practice? Going very slow would violate that law. Your example does not prove one is free to speed.

the over-riding law for speed is safety given the conditions existing at the time.

That does not allow one to break the upper limit at will.

As I have said in an earlier post, going 45 on sheet ice in a 45 mph zone is grounds for a ticket; going 35 would also be as one cannot drive safely at that speed for those zones on sheet ice. In cases other than the interstate highway, going faster than the posted speed limit on dry pavement with clear visibility with no traffic is still prima facia evidence of going too fast and you will lose in court almost all of the time. A judge may dismiss a ticket if you are not significantly over the posted limit (other than a highway) if there is an emergency and other conditions do not indicate any significant safety issues (kids present, traffic, etc.).

Right, the judge has the authority, not you or I.

But since you want to use “real limit” I will define the term: a real limit is a safety limit; and the interstate highways are designed for well over 55. That was not a real limit in the sense of a safety issue; it was an artificial limit in terms of conservation.

That does not matter at all. What matters is what the law says. Th reasons for it you may like or not like. It does not matter. We each are not the judge.

It was real enough when you got the ticket, but it is not a recent phenomenon that it was generally not widely enforced even when it was imposed; keep in mind that previous to it, the “real limit” was posted on the highways and was higher.

So what? If there is no stop sign one day and and then there is one the next day do I get to run it because things changed?

And it is not enforced now generally in most places on interstate highways.

On the contrary, the Feds imposed the limit but never enforced it (the FBI doesn’t write speeing tickets); the State was the enforcing agent and the State has chosen not to enforce it generally.

Again that sometyhing is not enforced does not make it licit to disobey.

The State, through it’s lack of enfocement has said that it is not a “real limit” to use your term. Some states have been more consistent than others, and all have seen a relaxing of enfocement.

That is not in your authority to decide.

Who said anything about knowing better than the authorities? And which authorities are you referring to - the Feds who changed the laws or the states who choose not to enforce it?

The state is chraged with the duty. Do you override the state?

The point you are choosing to ignore is that there are conflicting authorites, there is not even any question as to how the 55 mph limit was imposed (it is in the Federal Record), the authorities - both the Feds and the States - have never said that it was a safety issue; and you have yet to show any moral issue with driving at a safe speed over a posted conservation speed.

The law exists and it is just. You think you are the authority to decide which stretch of every single road has the proper upper limit?

Your mantra that it was imposed by Authority therefore has to be obeyed is a simplistic avoidance of the issue.

It may be simple or complex but that is taught by Christ.

But it is patently not a safety issue on clear dry pavement with flowing trraffic at, say, 65. That used to be the lower posted speed on highways - others at 70 to 75 and was what the highways were engineered for.

Again, you claim to be an expert even above the law. I hope most do not think that way as we would have more chaos then we do now.

 

[AHapka]

This will depend upon the state you are in. In Wisconsin, police and firefighters responding to a call have no speed limit. There is, however, the statutorily mandated responsibility to drive with “due regard” for the other motorists while exceeding the speed limit. Police in Wisconsin may also speed without giving audible/visual signal when 1) collecting evidence of a speed violation, and 2) when giving signal may cause the actor to either flee, harm someone, or dispose of evidence (don’t want to let a burglar know you are coming when you are still a mile out).

There are some other issues for emergency vehicles, though: you won’t often see ambulances going extremely fast, because if you are trying to work on somone, you can’t be bounced around too much.

As a Deputy Sheriff myself in a rural and urban county, it’s always a hard decision as to how fast you respond to a scene. You have to judge the time of year (school going on, weather conditions), time of day (dark, light, other traffic), the severety of the alleged crime or situation you are responding to, as well as other variables that always seem to change.

Anyway…to the original poster…

If you are speeding for a legitijmate emergency, I can’t speak for others, but if it was me, I’d offer to call rescue. From a legal standpoint, I can’t exactly tell you that it’s ok to speed. Even if I wanted to, there’d be a serious liability problem if I told someone it was ok to speed and they got in an accident (the lawsuits would fly).

I did ask a Priest in confession once if it was a sin to speed and his answer was “no,” unless you are endangering someone.

Hope this helps,

Andy

Food for Thought:

Recently my son & I visited our local fire-station. We needed to talk to a fire-fighter at length about this career to fulfill the requirements for a Scouting Merit Badge. After talking awhile he started to quiz my son…

One of the questions posed by the Fireman to us was “When we’re responding to a call, lights & siren blazing, what is the speed limit for us?”

Answer:
Whatever the sign on the side of the road says it is!

The lights & sirens give them the advantage of moving through traffic unimpeded, and certain exemptions at traffic lights. It does not give them exclusion from the speed limit.

Now a Police Officer may have an entirely different set of “exemptions”, these I cannot comment on.