^ sigh. next they'll complain about how you described his clothes in a deliberate attempt to prime certain negative stereotypes and associations. 'black, blue, beard'

Actually I wear boots, a black hoodie and black ball caps and used to have shoulder length hair and a full beard ( not recently) so what's the problem? I'm giving you a hypothetical description...if it makes you feel any better...the guy was wearing ballet slippers and a pink tutu with a diamond tiara...it was haloween. :) The description matched so the guy gets checked...if I can't check him because ballet dancers feel they are being "dance profiled", then, well....I give up.

^ LOL

naw...i mean you know "black + blue = bruises -> violence -> black people. beards -> al quaida -> osama -> terrorism -> violence?

lol

i have another technicality issue:

lets say two people get injured and need medical attention. it's not practical enough to call an ambulance but it would be best for them to be admitted into the hospital. can a guy with an N drive them legally, since they have no other practical means of transportation? Would it be considered appropriate for the driver to going a modest 15km/h over the speed limit, since it's an emergency??

if it's an emergency enough that you use it as an excuse for speeding, then call an ambulance. otherwise I think officer would let you go/escort you to the hospital.

You could try the defence of necessity:

Almost all common-law and statutory definitions of the necessity defense include the following elements: (1) the defendant acted to avoid a significant risk of harm; (2) no adequate lawful means could have been used to escape the harm; and (3) the harm avoided was greater than that caused by breaking the law. Some jurisdictions require in addition that the harm must have been imminent and that the action taken must have been reasonably expected to avoid the imminent danger. All these elements mirror the principles on which the defense of necessity was founded: first, that the highest social value is not always achieved by blind adherence to the law; second, that it is unjust to punish those who technically violate the letter of the law when they are acting to promote or achieve a higher social value than would be served by strict adherence to the law; and third, that it is in society's best interest to promote the greatest good and to encourage people to seek to achieve the greatest good, even if doing so necessitates a technical breach of the law.

The defense of necessity is considered a justification defense, as compared with an excuse defense such as duress. An action that is harmful but praiseworthy is justified, whereas an action that is harmful but ought to be forgiven may be excused. Rather than focusing on the actor's state of mind, as would be done with an excuse defense, the court with a necessity defense focuses on the value of the act.

I'll modify your reply a bit underscore...

If its emergency enough for the people to need medical attention and needing to be admitted into the hospital as well as speeding there, you'd better be calling an ambulance.

If the hospital was close enough, i'd probably follow the car driving the speed limit, and then depending on the circumstances, serve the driver with some tickets once arrived at the hospital and the injured were taken care of. If it wasn't, i'd call for an ambulance and ticket the driver on the spot.

^ so that last bit would be after pulling over the speeding car and learning why it was speeding (the injured passengers), correct?

I would be pulling it over to find out why it was speeding, and why an N driver had extra passengers.