When it's ok to break a red light!?

MadDog76 · 07-10-2019 12:37pm

Tazzimus wrote: »

That's simply untrue.
It may not be 50 50 but blame is on both parties.

Elaborate please....... if, as another poster said, a child ran out and the ND slammed on (showing due care attention/expecting the unexpected) and the following car went into the first car then it's clearly the fault of the following car.
We can't say "oh, you stopped for the wrong reason therefore it's your fault now"........ ALL drivers should expect the unexpected at ALL times, point blank.

AndrewJRenko · 07-10-2019 12:46pm

Marcusm wrote: »

That junction is even more hilarious if you join from Merton Drive; the only road in the junction which is not light controlled.

Yes, I've had a few accusations of 'breaking the lights' when I've cycled out of Merton Drive. I've brought a few people back to show them that there is no traffic light on that road, but one lady still wouldn't believe me.

dvdman1 · 07-10-2019 1:16pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, I've had a few accusations of 'breaking the lights' when I've cycled out of Merton Drive. I've brought a few people back to show them that there is no traffic light on that road, but one lady still wouldn't believe me.

The pedestrian crossing is located in a stupid position, it messes up all the adjoining traffic when it goes red

miyoung · 07-10-2019 1:39pm

Thanks for all the comments.

Traffic lights don't come labelled 'for main road traffic only' or otherwise, the golden rule is never break a red light, so when not familiar with a junction drivers should exercise caution when confronted with a red traffic light, particularly where the lights are also for a pedestrian crossing (as is the case here).

hullaballoo · 07-10-2019 2:29pm

Interestingly on this point about confusion arising at these kinds of junctions, particularly where there are pedestrian crossings also involved, the exit junction at Aldi Glenageary has a T junction controlled by lights. If you are exiting and turning right, there is a pedestrian crossing. The red light for traffic to allow pedestrians to cross looks like it is the red light to stop traffic on the main road and allow traffic to exit Aldi.

In other words, there can be simulataneous green lights for traffic turning right onto the main road from Aldi and for pedestrians crossing the main road at that junction.

It's complete bedlam at times. Unfortunately, steetview isn't up to date and does not have the new set of lights controlling the junction but the pedestrian crossing is visible.

Tazzimus · 07-10-2019 2:32pm

Kevin Irving wrote: »

It's easy to understand sitting behind a computer screen with the benefit of time, and yet people still are getting it wrong as we can see.

The junction referenced is an absolutely terrible design that leads to this confusion. Low sun, unclear road markings, rain, unfamiliarity, etc all contribute to this.

If you're unsure, and second guess yourself whatsoever about who the lights apply to, you have no choice but to stop.

If the ND was hit at this particular junction, having stopped in time without slamming on the brakes, they were wrong, but I would have a lot of sympathy for them should they be found partially at fault. I would also have sympathy for the car behind who would not be expecting the car in front to brake right after taking off.

If it was a standard enough junction, and they slammed on the brakes because they're an extremely nervous driver, that's another story. It's not OK to slam on without very very good reason to. You can't just brake test the car behind for the sake of it.

OP hasn't posted where the junction is, unless I missed it, but from description, it sounds like a standard T junction with traffic lights, 2 for the traffic on the horizontal part either side of the junction, 2 for the vertical part also either side of the junction.
The fact that so many people don't understand a controlled T junction is baffling.

MadDog76 wrote: »

Elaborate please....... if, as another poster said, a child ran out and the ND slammed on (showing due care attention/expecting the unexpected) and the following car went into the first car then it's clearly the fault of the following car.
We can't say "oh, you stopped for the wrong reason therefore it's your fault now"........ ALL drivers should expect the unexpected at ALL times, point blank.

If a child ran out in front of the ND car and they slammed on, getting rear ended, then yes, fault is fully with the car behind.
What happened here is the ND stopped for no reason, as they were looking at a red light meant for the traffic that was already stopped, and the car behind rear ended them.
Like I said, not 50/50, but the ND was at fault as well.

07-10-2019 2:51pm

Tazzimus wrote: »

The fact that so many people don't understand a controlled T junction is baffling.

I've seen people turning left at this junction stop at the second set of pedestrian lights once they've turned onto the main road, despite the fact that their original left-turning light was red when the green man is showing on the pedestrian lights.

MadDog76 · 07-10-2019 3:16pm

Tazzimus wrote: »

OP hasn't posted where the junction is, unless I missed it, but from description, it sounds like a standard T junction with traffic lights, 2 for the traffic on the horizontal part either side of the junction, 2 for the vertical part also either side of the junction.
The fact that so many people don't understand a controlled T junction is baffling.

If a child ran out in front of the ND car and they slammed on, getting rear ended, then yes, fault is fully with the car behind.
What happened here is the ND stopped for no reason, as they were looking at a red light meant for the traffic that was already stopped, and the car behind rear ended them.
Like I said, not 50/50, but the ND was at fault as well.

It doesn't quite work like that, you should be aware enough as a driver to stop in time before hitting the car in front regardless of the reason(s) the car in front slams on........ you seem to believe that it's ok to hit the car in front depending on their reasons for coming to a sudden stop which is baffling at best.
You're either driving at a safe enough speed and a safe enough distance to be able to stop suddenly if/when the need arises or you're not. Simple as that really.

Tazzimus · 07-10-2019 3:23pm

MadDog76 wrote: »

It doesn't quite work like that, you should be aware enough as a driver to stop in time before hitting the car in front regardless of the reason(s) the car in front slams on........ you seem to believe that it's ok to hit the car in front depending on their reasons for coming to a sudden stop which is baffling at best.
You're either driving at a safe enough speed and a safe enough distance to be able to stop suddenly if/when the need arises or you're not. Simple as that really.

That's not what I said....
If I said that, I would have said fault was fully with the ND, it's not.
Majority of the blame is on the person behind being too close to stop safely, but the ND takes some of the blame for suddenly stopping at, presumably, a clear junction because they looked at the wrong set of lights.

ted1 · 07-10-2019 3:26pm

triggermortis wrote: »

Sounds like the ND stopped when she didn't need to to me, but the car behind should have left enough room to avoid a collision. She could have stopped at any time for any reason and it's up to the car behind not to plough into her. I'd say 100% fault of the car following

She should Nit have stopped , TP should be further back and road engineer should have laid out the lights better.

All at fault

MadDog76 · 07-10-2019 3:41pm

Tazzimus wrote: »

That's not what I said....
If I said that, I would have said fault was fully with the ND, it's not.
Majority of the blame is on the person behind being too close to stop safely, but the ND takes some of the blame for suddenly stopping at, presumably, a clear junction because they looked at the wrong set of lights.

That's not the way the insurance company will view........ if your theory was correct every driver in this situation would simply say "a kid ran out in front of me, I slammed on and the kid ran off" hence why insurance companies take a fairly black & white (the driver behind is to blame) stance on these types of collisions.

Tazzimus · 07-10-2019 3:51pm

MadDog76 wrote: »

That's not the way the insurance company will view........ if your theory was correct every driver in this situation would simply say "a kid ran out in front of me, I slammed on and the kid ran off" hence why insurance companies take a fairly black & white (the driver behind is to blame) stance on these types of collisions.

Likely not, but I'm not talking about blame from an insurance company perspective.
Fact is, some of the blame is on the ND for stopping, driver error, which lead to the tailgater behind rear ending them.

Likely, the insurance will rule in favour of them regardless, but there was fault on the ND for stopping for no reason.

MadDog76 · 07-10-2019 5:24pm

Tazzimus wrote: »

Likely not, but I'm not talking about blame from an insurance company perspective.
Fact is, some of the blame is on the ND for stopping, driver error, which lead to the tailgater behind rear ending them.

Likely, the insurance will rule in favour of them regardless, but there was fault on the ND for stopping for no reason.

At the end of the day if a driver is driving too fast/close to the car to avoid hitting the car in an emergency stop then they won't be able to stop to avoid hitting a small child who runs out into the road........ there is no crime in slowing down/stopping but there is in driving too fast, dangerously close to the vehicle in front or not showing due care and attention behind the wheel....... and that's what caused the collision in this situation so that driver is quite rightly legally at fault. Excuses won't change any of the above facts.

SMC92Ian · 07-10-2019 5:25pm

Never.

Tazzimus · 07-10-2019 5:38pm

MadDog76 wrote: »

At the end of the day if a driver is driving too fast/close to the car to avoid hitting the car in an emergency stop then they won't be able to stop to avoid hitting a small child who runs out into the road........ there is no crime in slowing down/stopping but there is in driving too fast, dangerously close to the vehicle in front or not showing due care and attention behind the wheel....... and that's what caused the collision in this situation so that driver is quite rightly legally at fault. Excuses won't change any of the above facts.

Had a detailed ish post written out and closed the browser before I hit reply...

Not arsed writing it all again so bullet points:
Driver behind was mostly at fault
ND was also at fault, due to driver error.
Insurance would rule in favour of ND regardless.
People need to understand traffic lights/T junctions and how they work.

MadDog76 · 07-10-2019 5:46pm

Tazzimus wrote: »

Had a detailed ish post written out and closed the browser before I hit reply...

Not arsed writing it all again so bullet points:
Driver behind was mostly at fault
ND was also at fault, due to driver error.
Insurance would rule in favour of ND regardless.
People need to understand traffic lights/T junctions and how they work.

ND is at "fault" only according to you which means zero regarding the Op's query........ even you admit that the insurance company will find in favour of the ND and quite rightly for reasons previously explained to you.

Bikerman2019 · 07-10-2019 9:42pm

SMC92Ian wrote: »

Never.

Wrong.

You can go through red traffic lights and break other road rules if it is a matter of life or death.

fritzelly · 07-10-2019 9:47pm

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

Wrong.

You can go through red traffic lights and break other road rules if it is a matter of life or death.

Not unless you have a blue flashing light on your roof
Spot spouting nonsense

Bikerman2019 · 07-10-2019 9:50pm

fritzelly wrote: »

Not unless you have a blue flashing light on your roof
Spot spouting nonsense

When i was giving CPR and using an AED on a baby at Fairyhouse market in December, A guard standing next to me told somebody on the phone.

What were you saying ?

I am also a First Responder and if I needed to, I can and would break a red light in appropriate circumstances.

fritzelly · 07-10-2019 9:52pm

What???

Bikerman2019 · 07-10-2019 9:54pm

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

When i was giving CPR and using an AED on a baby at Fairyhouse market in December, A guard standing next to me told somebody on the phone.

What were you saying ?

I am also a First Responder and if I needed to, I can and would break a red light in appropriate circumstances.

fritzelly wrote: »

What???

My post is quite clear and well written, please read it again.

Now, you were saying I was spouting nonsense ????

fritzelly · 07-10-2019 9:57pm

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

My post is quite clear and well written, please read it again.

Now, you were saying I was spouting nonsense ????

Yeah clear as mud

A guard standing next to me told somebody on the phone.

Doesn't matter, you are endangering every other road user and pedestrian

Bikerman2019 · 07-10-2019 10:03pm

As you wish...

the_syco · 07-10-2019 10:18pm

chooseusername wrote: »

The lights on the main road on the map posted by the-sycho are pedestrian lights (just move forward and turn left or right and you will clearly see they are pedestrian lights).
Red pedestrian lights at junctions should stop all traffic,
In this instance the pedestrian lights on green should stop all traffic on the main road and side road.

All car lights, for all three roads, go red for the pedestrian lights to go green.

fritzelly · 07-10-2019 10:20pm

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

As you wish...

Removing the superfluous comment makes more sense

a person driving or using a vehicle under the direction of a member of the Garda Síochána,

where such use does not endanger the safety of road users

If the garda was with them then fine but not because a gard told you to break all red lights, average Joe doesn't have the skills to be flying thru red lights and endangering all other road users

Bikerman2019 · 07-10-2019 10:27pm

fritzelly wrote: »

Removing the superfluous comment makes more sense

If the garda was with them then fine but not because a gard told you to break all red lights, average Joe doesn't have the skills to be flying thru red lights and endangering all other road users

Still wrong. I said under appropriate circumstances. A matter of life or death is appropriate. This still does not absolve you from the requirement to drive in a safe manner at all times.

If we go through a red light and cause an accident, of course there will be repercussions, however, under appropriate circumstances, it is allowed and permitted. It is handy to have an garda escort (which has happened), but not essential.

I have assisted the gardai on multiple occasions, I have used AED Defibs and under the appropriate circumstances, red lights are not an issue

MonkieSocks · 07-10-2019 10:34pm

Tazzimus wrote: »

It's meant for the traffic on the main road you're turning onto, if it's the one I'm thinking of. Main road has a set of lights either side of the junction, that red light is for them, not traffic turning onto the road.

Have to agree with this.

I see it on a daily basis at dcu on Collins ave.

Cars get the green light to exit dcu to right onto Collins ave,go to turn right and the see a red light for the traffic light for the oncoming traffic which is for all those cars already stopped behind the white line them, they get a beeping from all the other cars following out of dcu behind them.

example: red car is turning right, get a green signal to proceed.....it moves but immediately on turning onto Collins ave, see's a red light for the traffic already stopped behind them on Collins ave.....and stops,,,incorrect

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3861775,-6.255201,3a,65.2y,41.75h,90.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sd28LqXip9c1fX_TKKAriVw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Griffith Avenue right turn onto the swords roadwhere i see this frequently

Pataman · 07-10-2019 10:41pm

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

Still wrong. I said under appropriate circumstances. A matter of life or death is appropriate. This still does not absolve you from the requirement to drive in a safe manner at all times.

If we go through a red light and cause an accident, of course there will be repercussions, however, under appropriate circumstances, it is allowed and permitted. It is handy to have an garda escort (which has happened), but not essential.

I have assisted the gardai on multiple occasions, I have used AED Defibs and under the appropriate circumstances, red lights are not an issue

Not legal! You may try argue with the judge, but you are breaking the law.
Only emergency services are allowed break the lights, and only as necessary in the circumstances.

martingriff · 09-10-2019 12:51pm

Deleted User wrote: »

it sounds very likely that the driver in this instance looked at a set of reds that clearly didnt apply to them (having just turned into that road) and braked in error

id say they have a fair amount of culpability in that instance

Where I live in limerick there is a T junction down to the main road and I see this so often and it does my head in

DavyD_83 · 09-10-2019 1:08pm

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

Wrong.

You can go through red traffic lights and break other road rules if it is a matter of life or death.

Or if you're sure nobody is watching

GM228 · 09-10-2019 1:24pm

Pataman wrote: »

Not legal! You may try argue with the judge, but you are breaking the law.
Only emergency services are allowed break the lights, and only as necessary in the circumstances.

Anyone can break the rules of the road (with exception to the speed limit) when there is an emergency situation confronting a road user which could not reasonably have been expected or anticipated.

The question though is what is considered to be an emergency situation.

AulWan · 09-10-2019 1:26pm

miyoung wrote: »

Thanks for the comments. The inference is that in the case that the red light is for traffic on the main road, it's ok for those turning onto the main road to brake this red light?

I used to come across almost this exact situation every day at the Junction of Waterloo road, and Baggot Street Upper. To add confusion, there is a yellow box junction too.

HERE

Anyone who turns right from Waterloo Rd onto Baggot Street Upr is immediately stopped by a red light, (at Searsons Pub) but gets beeped horrendously by the traffic coming behind also turning. Even when there are pedestrians crossing at the red light!

I always found it really confusing and annoying.

09-10-2019 1:35pm

They're not being stopped by the red light, they are choosing to obey a red light that does not apply to them.

RobbieMD · 09-10-2019 1:35pm

Pataman wrote: »

Not legal! You may try argue with the judge, but you are breaking the law.
Only emergency services are allowed break the lights, and only as necessary in the circumstances.

It’s not only emergency services that can avail of exemptions.

Any person driving or using a vehicle under the direction of a member of An Garda Siochana may avail of exemptions from most sections of the Road Traffic Act, provided such use does not endanger the safety of other road users.

AulWan · 09-10-2019 2:28pm

Deleted User wrote: »

They're not being stopped by the red light, they are choosing to obey a red light that does not apply to them.

But there is a light for the main road before the junction, then this one, straight after it.

Often pedestrians crossing too.. it seems extremely dangerous.

Tazzimus · 09-10-2019 2:43pm

AulWan wrote: »

I used to come across almost this exact situation every day at the Junction of Waterloo road, and Baggot Street Upper. To add confusion, there is a yellow box junction too.

HERE

Anyone who turns right from Waterloo Rd onto Baggot Street Upr is immediately stopped by a red light, (at Searsons Pub) but gets beeped horrendously by the traffic coming behind also turning. Even when there are pedestrians crossing at the red light!

I always found it really confusing and annoying.

That red light, to the right and just past the yellow box, is for the traffic currently stopped coming from the left, not for the traffic turning right.
If pedestrians are crossing, either they're crossing on a red pedestrian light, or something is up with the sequencing.

The yellow box is to stop people driving into that area of the road and blocking traffic coming from a different direction, if the lights change before they can clear it. Fairly standard yellow box placement.

09-10-2019 3:02pm

AulWan wrote: »

But there is a light for the main road before the junction, then this one, straight after it.

Often pedestrians crossing too.. it seems extremely dangerous.

That light "straight after it" ((i.e. the one outside Searson's) does not apply to you if you have been on Waterloo road and are turning right onto Baggot Street.

You'll notice that the green light is on for traffic exiting Waterloo road, and the red man is showing for people crossing outside Searson's. Those should never both be green at the same time, there is almost always a "green man for all pedestrians" setting in the cycle at such junctions.

Anyone who follows the blue arrow and stops at the red light is an idiot. That means that literally only one car can get through per light change.

AulWan · 09-10-2019 3:04pm

Tazzimus wrote: »

That red light, to the right and just past the yellow box, is for the traffic currently stopped coming from the left, not for the traffic turning right.
If pedestrians are crossing, either they're crossing on a red pedestrian light, or something is up with the sequencing.

The yellow box is to stop people driving into that area of the road and blocking traffic coming from a different direction, if the lights change before they can clear it. Fairly standard yellow box placement.

But there is no traffic coming from the left.

Anyway, it's a horrible lay out! I avoid it, where possible.

Edited to add: Just saw the picture, thanks! Yes, I always drove through it, but did wonder if I should have stopped.

XVII · 09-10-2019 3:04pm

hullaballoo wrote: »

In other words, there can be simulataneous green lights for traffic turning right onto the main road from Aldi and for pedestrians crossing the main road at that junction.

so it did happen to someone else!
I swear I had this once on one of my local junctions, and I even wanted to inform RSA about that. I was never confused with traffic lights in scenarios like described in OP, but after this happened, you are not sure anymore. The distance between the junction and lights can vary, and go figure if it's separate or related to the junction.

I also don't get traffic lights not far from big roundabouts, which are actually NOT related to the roundabout. Like 10 meters away or so. So you start driving on green, and then still supposed to give way to the traffic on your right, as usual. It's just ridiculous and terrible design choice.

Bikerman2019 · 09-10-2019 3:05pm

GM228 wrote: »

Anyone can break the rules of the road (with exception to the speed limit) when there is an emergency situation confronting a road user which could not reasonably have been expected or anticipated.

The question though is what is considered to be an emergency situation.

Agreed, In an appropriate situation.

If a plane crashes down the road, and I am qualified to assist, I can break every red light on the way, I dont need a blue light on my car. Of course, if I am driving dangerously, I will be for it, but if driven properly I am fine.

If there is an explosion in the local shopping centre, and I am qualified to assist, I can do it again. I have been berated here and scoffed at so I am now bowing out.

If I end up in a court of law and explain I broke a red light in an appropriate situation, I am fine. But I have been told here in no circumstances.

So bowing out now. I know what I can and cannot do.

09-10-2019 3:07pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

it's never ok to break them.

Let's not blanket something either.
99.9% of the time it is not ok but for a medical emergency I would never expect someone to wait.

Stop, look, ensure it's safe? Yes but wait when clear to proceed? No

Tazzimus · 09-10-2019 3:32pm

AulWan wrote: »

But there is no traffic coming from the left. Anyway, it's a horrible lay out! I avoid it, where possible.

Edited to add: Just saw the picture, thanks! Yes, I always drove through it, but did wonder if I should have stopped.

From the picture above $shifty posted, the traffic would be stopped on your left as you make that right turn, from Waterloo road, if any is there. That's who the traffic lights would be for. Although I can't see any the other side of the junction, normally there would be a set either side of the junction for them, similar to how there is two sets either side for traffic coming from Waterloo road.

crossman47 · 09-10-2019 4:18pm

XVII wrote: »

I also don't get traffic lights not far from big roundabouts, which are actually NOT related to the roundabout. Like 10 meters away or so. So you start driving on green, and then still supposed to give way to the traffic on your right, as usual. It's just ridiculous and terrible design choice.

I agree. There is a very bad example on the Fonthill Rd. in Dublin if you have left Liffey Valley and are travelling towards Clondalkin. You can exit the roundabput and have to stop almost immediately. Stupid design.

AulWan · 09-10-2019 4:20pm

crossman47 wrote: »

I agree. There is a very bad example on the Fonthill Rd. in Dublin if you have left Liffey Valley and are travelling towards Clondalkin. You can exit the roundabput and have to stop almost immediately. Stupid design.

Yes, I thought of this one as well, there are also cars trying to exit the shopping centre at the same time.

GM228 · 09-10-2019 5:14pm

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

Agreed, In an appropriate situation.

If a plane crashes down the road, and I am qualified to assist, I can break every red light on the way, I dont need a blue light on my car. Of course, if I am driving dangerously, I will be for it, but if driven properly I am fine.

If there is an explosion in the local shopping centre, and I am qualified to assist, I can do it again. I have been berated here and scoffed at so I am now bowing out.

If I end up in a court of law and explain I broke a red light in an appropriate situation, I am fine. But I have been told here in no circumstances.

So bowing out now. I know what I can and cannot do.

Correct, once there is an emergency situation confronting a road user which could not reasonably have been expected or anticipated then that road user is not bound by the rules of the road (there is no similar exemption however for speed limits).

Bikerman2019 · 09-10-2019 5:44pm

GM228 wrote: »

Correct, once there is an emergency situation confronting a road user which could not reasonably have been expected or anticipated then that road user is not bound by the rules of the road (there is no similar exemption however for speed limits).

That last sentence is very interesting.

So in an emergency, I can break a light, but not the speed limit? So if a woman is in the final stages of a distressed labour and I am a mile from the hospital, , or a plane crash where I am qualified to assist, i cannot speed?

What is the thinking behind that?

GM228 · 09-10-2019 5:55pm

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

That last sentence is very interesting.

So in an emergency, I can break a light, but not the speed limit? So if a woman is in the final stages of a distressed labour and I am a mile from the hospital, , or a plane crash where I am qualified to assist, i cannot speed?

What is the thinking behind that?

It is primarily due to the way the law is written, speed limit offences (which are strict liability offences) are in accordance with an Act of the Oireachtas which afforded no defence save for emergency services, traffic and parking rulels on the other hand such as those relating to traffic lights, prking etc are in accordance with Ministerial Regulations (also strict liability offences) afford a defence for anyone subject to an emergency situation as already outlined.

martingriff · 09-10-2019 5:56pm

Wasn't there a case of an ambulance that went through a red light and a car crashed into it and the ambulance was done for driving through a red even though it had its siren.

GM228 · 09-10-2019 6:02pm

martingriff wrote: »

Wasn't there a case of an ambulance that went through a red light and a car crashed into it and the ambulance was done for driving through a red even though it had its siren.

All emergency services are exempt from the provisions of the RTAs including traffic lights when in the course of their duties irrespective of using lights or not, the caveat though is they must not endanger the public etc.

If there was such a case it is not simply for driving through a red light, it would be based on the circumstances of the situation and other factors relevant, they would not be done for simply passing a red, they are exempt.

I do know of a case where an ambulance went through a red light and collided with a vehicle who had a green, the driver of the vehicle who had the green was held 75% liable for the collision due to the facts of the case.

Bikerman2019 · 09-10-2019 6:18pm

Wow, very interesting. This is legal discussions after all, but if there is no accident and you were speeding, I have seen gardai use common sense. They are not the demons some people make them out to be.

I work alongside them regularly and know that if you have a genuine verifiable reason for doing something, you have nothing to fear. Maybe, while something is a breach of the law, it will only proceed if it is deemed unreasonable, and if if it does end up in court, the judge can and will, well, judge.

I stabbed that man, yes, but he had a knife and had just stabbed two people.

I was speeding on the M50 as someone was bleeding to death and was 5 mins away from James Connolly hospital.

When it's ok to break a red light!?

Comments