Guest guest Posted August 10, 2003 Report Share Posted August 10, 2003 That's the biggest load of crap I've ever heard, and more of the bias against vollunteers I bet. If you or your family lived in my first in POV response territory and you had a problem, you'd be happy as hell to see my FF/Basic, LP, BS ass show up with my 48 " strobe set. What's that do to your theory now ace? Care to back up off that? magnetass sends Re: Emergency Lights > Experience shows that the amount of emergency lights one's personal > vehicle varies inversely with one's level of training. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2003 Report Share Posted August 10, 2003 Facts: 2002 Firefighter Deaths Analysis There were 97 Line of Duty Deaths in 2002. Of these, 8 were traveling to or from an emergency. Of the 8 who died, none were career firefighters--all were volunteers in either POVs or emergency equipment. Source: NFPA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2003 Report Share Posted August 10, 2003 Other facts: Lights and sirens responses have been shown to only decrease response times minimally (not clinically-significant) while, at the same time, significantly increasing the risks to responders and the public. There is a movement in several states to do away with POVs operating with lights and sirens for several reasons: 1. The time savings from L & S responses are not worth the risks. 2. Poor regulation of vehicles (unlike fire and EMS apparatus). 3. Poor or inadequate maintenance of vehicles (unlike fire and EMS apparatus). 4. Increased risks of accidents and public endangerment (marked increase in ambulance accidents over the last 2 years). 5. Insurance companies canceling or refusing to issue automobile policies to cover emergency responders (forcing them to do without insurance or get pricey commercial insurance). It is not worth the risks and you and often in a tenuous legal predicament if the emergency is not bonafide or if you have an accident enroute. This movement is, of course, quite controversial and strongly opposed in states (NY, NJ, MD, PA) where there are a lot of volunteers. But, the reasons and thinking are sound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2003 Report Share Posted August 10, 2003 The question is going to be ultimately judged by society as to do away with emergency response altogether or not, because the number of emergency responses by " bona fide " vehicles, ie. ambulances, fire trucks and police cars poses the greatest risk to the general public. My feeling is that the public will not deal well with everybody waiting thru 6 light cycles on FM. 1960 and having a 30 minute response time to a choking child or a CVA in progress. Emergency response isn't about the speed of the vehicle, but bypassing impediments to continuous travel. Given the recent outrage expressed by the public in the USA Today series, I imagine that emergency response is here to stay, regardless of the studies to the contrary. Again, I'd defy any participants in said study to stand by and watch a member of their family turn blue while the responders cruise leisurely to their house, clinically signifigant or not. magnetass sends RE: Re: Emergency Lights > Other facts: > > Lights and sirens responses have been shown to only decrease response times > minimally (not clinically-significant) while, at the same time, > significantly increasing the risks to responders and the public. There is a > movement in several states to do away with POVs operating with lights and > sirens for several reasons: > 1. The time savings from L & S responses are not worth the risks. > 2. Poor regulation of vehicles (unlike fire and EMS apparatus). > 3. Poor or inadequate maintenance of vehicles (unlike fire and EMS > apparatus). > 4. Increased risks of accidents and public endangerment (marked > increase in ambulance accidents over the last 2 years). > 5. Insurance companies canceling or refusing to issue automobile > policies to cover emergency responders (forcing them to do without insurance > or get pricey commercial insurance). > > It is not worth the risks and you and often in a tenuous legal predicament > if the emergency is not bonafide or if you have an accident enroute. > > This movement is, of course, quite controversial and strongly opposed in > states (NY, NJ, MD, PA) where there are a lot of volunteers. But, the > reasons and thinking are sound. > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2003 Report Share Posted August 10, 2003 Having had been in both vol. & career services for all of my adult life and responded to countless numbers of calls in both situations, I believe that I can speak with credibility on the subject of responses. I am also sure that there are many others on the list with similar experience. There is little, if any difference in response times overall with relation to emergency response. The real difference is in response times most likely lies with other factors ( ie - dispatch, turnout time, district knowledge, opticoms-if your lucky enough to have them & notification times ). I would really appreciate it if you would think to slow down, after all it may be my family or yours on the road that could become involved in a accident with a pov responding code 3. Gerald Randall Eng. / EMT- P AFD >>> magnetass@... 08/10/03 06:15PM >>> The question is going to be ultimately judged by society as to do away with emergency response altogether or not, because the number of emergency responses by " bona fide " vehicles, ie. ambulances, fire trucks and police cars poses the greatest risk to the general public. My feeling is that the public will not deal well with everybody waiting thru 6 light cycles on FM. 1960 and having a 30 minute response time to a choking child or a CVA in progress. Emergency response isn't about the speed of the vehicle, but bypassing impediments to continuous travel. Given the recent outrage expressed by the public in the USA Today series, I imagine that emergency response is here to stay, regardless of the studies to the contrary. Again, I'd defy any participants in said study to stand by and watch a member of their family turn blue while the responders cruise leisurely to their house, clinically signifigant or not. magnetass sends RE: Re: Emergency Lights > Other facts: > > Lights and sirens responses have been shown to only decrease response times > minimally (not clinically-significant) while, at the same time, > significantly increasing the risks to responders and the public. There is a > movement in several states to do away with POVs operating with lights and > sirens for several reasons: > 1. The time savings from L & S responses are not worth the risks. > 2. Poor regulation of vehicles (unlike fire and EMS apparatus). > 3. Poor or inadequate maintenance of vehicles (unlike fire and EMS > apparatus). > 4. Increased risks of accidents and public endangerment (marked > increase in ambulance accidents over the last 2 years). > 5. Insurance companies canceling or refusing to issue automobile > policies to cover emergency responders (forcing them to do without insurance > or get pricey commercial insurance). > > It is not worth the risks and you and often in a tenuous legal predicament > if the emergency is not bonafide or if you have an accident enroute. > > This movement is, of course, quite controversial and strongly opposed in > states (NY, NJ, MD, PA) where there are a lot of volunteers. But, the > reasons and thinking are sound. > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2003 Report Share Posted August 10, 2003 Had an incident in one of the services that I work for in which a second responding crew were involved in an mvc with their pov and their insurance company not only wouldn't cover them but dropped them like a hot potato. TOM RE: Re: Emergency Lights > Other facts: > > Lights and sirens responses have been shown to only decrease response times > minimally (not clinically-significant) while, at the same time, > significantly increasing the risks to responders and the public. There is a > movement in several states to do away with POVs operating with lights and > sirens for several reasons: > 1. The time savings from L & S responses are not worth the risks. > 2. Poor regulation of vehicles (unlike fire and EMS apparatus). > 3. Poor or inadequate maintenance of vehicles (unlike fire and EMS > apparatus). > 4. Increased risks of accidents and public endangerment (marked > increase in ambulance accidents over the last 2 years). > 5. Insurance companies canceling or refusing to issue automobile > policies to cover emergency responders (forcing them to do without insurance > or get pricey commercial insurance). > > It is not worth the risks and you and often in a tenuous legal predicament > if the emergency is not bonafide or if you have an accident enroute. > > This movement is, of course, quite controversial and strongly opposed in > states (NY, NJ, MD, PA) where there are a lot of volunteers. But, the > reasons and thinking are sound. > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2003 Report Share Posted August 10, 2003 I happen to agree with Ronnie......I try like hell NOT to use my lights and siren. The reactions from the public we serve are so unpredictable, it's just safer to go code 1, most of the time. TD Re: Re: Emergency Lights >That's the biggest load of crap I've ever heard, and more of the bias >against vollunteers I bet. If you or your family lived in my first in POV >response territory and you had a problem, you'd be happy as hell to see my >FF/Basic, LP, BS ass show up with my 48 " strobe set. What's that do to your >theory now ace? Care to back up off that? >magnetass sends > Re: Emergency Lights > > >> Experience shows that the amount of emergency lights one's personal >> vehicle varies inversely with one's level of training. >> >> >> >> >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2003 Report Share Posted August 10, 2003 Get over yourself, I have worked in both paid and volunteer services AND the people who got into trouble for driving violations were the ones with all the woo woo lights, and why, o why , would you put a siren on your vehicle? This has occurred even with the use of flashers/hazards. I personally see l/s as a job perk, however I am required to drive like everyone else, So are you. The bringing harm to no one part of being a medic should stop sirenheads from driving like maniacs. Does it? Why don't you look up the facts and see for yourself. Ask yourself why a medic would take a 3000 gallon water tanker to an imminent birth call. Really happened. Tom Fuller EMT-I Maintenance Officer Community EMS Medina Valley EMS Re: Emergency Lights > Experience shows that the amount of emergency lights one's personal > vehicle varies inversely with one's level of training. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2003 Report Share Posted August 10, 2003 The literature (although scant) shows only a 46 second and 66 second improvement in response time when L & S are used (including bypassing impediments). It is unlikely in a rural area that you will sit through a signal 6 times unless the local preacher has died and his funeral procession is passing at that time. And, what will 60 seconds improved response time do for a stroke patient anyway? E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP Midlothian, Texas Re: Re: Emergency Lights The question is going to be ultimately judged by society as to do away with emergency response altogether or not, because the number of emergency responses by " bona fide " vehicles, ie. ambulances, fire trucks and police cars poses the greatest risk to the general public. My feeling is that the public will not deal well with everybody waiting thru 6 light cycles on FM. 1960 and having a 30 minute response time to a choking child or a CVA in progress. Emergency response isn't about the speed of the vehicle, but bypassing impediments to continuous travel. Given the recent outrage expressed by the public in the USA Today series, I imagine that emergency response is here to stay, regardless of the studies to the contrary. Again, I'd defy any participants in said study to stand by and watch a member of their family turn blue while the responders cruise leisurely to their house, clinically signifigant or not. magnetass sends RE: Re: Emergency Lights > Other facts: > > Lights and sirens responses have been shown to only decrease response times > minimally (not clinically-significant) while, at the same time, > significantly increasing the risks to responders and the public. There is a > movement in several states to do away with POVs operating with lights and > sirens for several reasons: > 1. The time savings from L & S responses are not worth the risks. > 2. Poor regulation of vehicles (unlike fire and EMS apparatus). > 3. Poor or inadequate maintenance of vehicles (unlike fire and EMS > apparatus). > 4. Increased risks of accidents and public endangerment (marked > increase in ambulance accidents over the last 2 years). > 5. Insurance companies canceling or refusing to issue automobile > policies to cover emergency responders (forcing them to do without insurance > or get pricey commercial insurance). > > It is not worth the risks and you and often in a tenuous legal predicament > if the emergency is not bonafide or if you have an accident enroute. > > This movement is, of course, quite controversial and strongly opposed in > states (NY, NJ, MD, PA) where there are a lot of volunteers. But, the > reasons and thinking are sound. > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2003 Report Share Posted August 10, 2003 --- " Ronnie Tocci " wrote: P.S. In the Navy, pilots in training fly little orange and white airplanes so everyone knows to stay FAR FAR away. Is there a correlation here? Perhaps the multitude of emergency lighting will warn emergency crews of a pending disaster involving blue lighters. COMMENT: I always thought the paint scheme was to make it easier to recognize floating debris or as a contrast in swampy areas when the would-be naval aviators augured in. :-) True story - saw this at A & M during fire school (loved those beefalo steaks) too many years ago. Late '60s Ford F150 pickup RED, high gloss paint job. Old style, non-aerodynamic Federal Twinsonic (it has been a few years ago)lightbar with 4 rotating stations (8 lights total)Front and rear bumper mounted red and blue pancake lights. A close inspection of the grill showed two speakers, plus the cone speaker on the Twinsonic. No exempt plates or door markings. The only identifiers - An ECA patch sticker and an XYZ VFD half license plate, mounted fore and aft. I am sure most ECAs (at least those with good taste) wouldn't do that. Larry RN LP EMSI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2003 Report Share Posted August 10, 2003 Dear " Magnetass " - I do not put one segment of the population at risk to the benefit of another. The public will eat to excess, smoke cigarettes, not check their smoke alarms, have to have laws to make them wear seat belts and helmets, drive while under the influence of intoxicants, and would rather borrow money they don't have to build sports palaces rather than hire more cops, firefighters and medics to protect their lives and property. They have no notion of what it takes to provide these essential services and have little inclination to more than complain about long response times and high taxes. (When less and less of these taxes are being used to pay for essential services......) I will train hard, perform to the limits of my ability, and expect nothing less from my crew. When on duty I will stay at the station or on board my unit. I will be familiar with my district. I will proceed to every emergency as quickly as safely possible, I will not take risks with the safety of the public at large, and I will not risk the safety of my crew. And in spite of doing all the above, my service's response time places a medic at the patients side in an average of 6-7 min. This is in a district of 22,000 people, in 20 square miles covered by 2 ambulances, utilizing paid and volunteer staff. If that is not enough to make you or the " Public " happy than so be it. I don't set my jib to the whims of an article in a publication who's watchword is " All The News That Fits " and I suggest you re-evaluate your reasons for having lights, sirens or an EMS or Fire certification. Driving fast kills people, Dog, no matter how much fun you think it is or what you use to justify it. The numbers have been proving this for years.......it just takes time for the lesson to sink in to some folks. Emergency driving is the single most dangerous act we, as Emergency Services Providers do. Be careful out there..... Terry Dinerman EMTP Re: Re: Emergency Lights >The question is going to be ultimately judged by society as to do away with >emergency response altogether or not, because the number of emergency >responses by " bona fide " vehicles, ie. ambulances, fire trucks and police >cars poses the greatest risk to the general public. My feeling is that the >public will not deal well with everybody waiting thru 6 light cycles on FM. >1960 and having a 30 minute response time to a choking child or a CVA in >progress. Emergency response isn't about the speed of the vehicle, but >bypassing impediments to continuous travel. Given the recent outrage >expressed by the public in the USA Today series, I imagine that emergency >response is here to stay, regardless of the studies to the contrary. Again, >I'd defy any participants in said study to stand by and watch a member of >their family turn blue while the responders cruise leisurely to their house, >clinically signifigant or not. > >magnetass sends > RE: Re: Emergency Lights > > >> Other facts: >> >> Lights and sirens responses have been shown to only decrease response >times >> minimally (not clinically-significant) while, at the same time, >> significantly increasing the risks to responders and the public. There is >a >> movement in several states to do away with POVs operating with lights and >> sirens for several reasons: >> 1. The time savings from L & S responses are not worth the risks. >> 2. Poor regulation of vehicles (unlike fire and EMS apparatus). >> 3. Poor or inadequate maintenance of vehicles (unlike fire and EMS >> apparatus). >> 4. Increased risks of accidents and public endangerment (marked >> increase in ambulance accidents over the last 2 years). >> 5. Insurance companies canceling or refusing to issue automobile >> policies to cover emergency responders (forcing them to do without >insurance >> or get pricey commercial insurance). >> >> It is not worth the risks and you and often in a tenuous legal predicament >> if the emergency is not bonafide or if you have an accident enroute. >> >> This movement is, of course, quite controversial and strongly opposed in >> states (NY, NJ, MD, PA) where there are a lot of volunteers. But, the >> reasons and thinking are sound. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2003 Report Share Posted August 10, 2003 I have a far different view of that issue, and in my fairly vast experience, I have not encountered the types of individuals that you are denegrating......still. magnetass sends Re: Emergency Lights > Hey MagnetAss - easy there tiger! You seem to have wadded up your > panties. My statement was based on UNscientific evidence consisting > mainly of personal observation. > > It has been, by far, the exception and not the rule that the folks > with 2 lightbars, a federal Q2b siren, and enough strobe lights to > require the use of three alternators are often the ones who have > little or no training. This does happen in many volunteer > organizations because most career services prohibit the creation of a > mobile disco on one's personal vehicle. I am sure there are many > volunteer services that have rules against this as well. > > I'v always been amazed that the one' who have no training are often > the ones who want to the first ones there and have a seat in the > front row. > > If you are the lone paramedic, nurse, vet, or whatever in a small > town, then maybe it is warranted. > > Ronnie > > P.S. In the Navy, pilots in training fly little orange and white > airplanes so everyone knows to stay FAR FAR away. Is there a > correlation here? Perhaps the multitude of emergency lighting will > warn emergency crews of a pending disaster involving blue lighters. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2003 Report Share Posted August 10, 2003 I don't use L & S in a rural area, and neither do most emergency vehicles. I'll bet you next years salary that we can leave my fire station at the same time, me driving L & S, you normal traffic, at 4:45 pm, to a call 5 miles away and I'll beat you by more than 66 seconds. I am no proponent of driving emergency, as after having done it for a while now, it scares the crap outta me. My point is merely that I don't believe the public at large will stand for narmal traffic responses in emergency situations. Christ, they already complain enough about response times as it is! magnetass sends RE: Re: Emergency Lights > > > > Other facts: > > > > Lights and sirens responses have been shown to only decrease response > times > > minimally (not clinically-significant) while, at the same time, > > significantly increasing the risks to responders and the public. There is > a > > movement in several states to do away with POVs operating with lights and > > sirens for several reasons: > > 1. The time savings from L & S responses are not worth the risks. > > 2. Poor regulation of vehicles (unlike fire and EMS apparatus). > > 3. Poor or inadequate maintenance of vehicles (unlike fire and EMS > > apparatus). > > 4. Increased risks of accidents and public endangerment (marked > > increase in ambulance accidents over the last 2 years). > > 5. Insurance companies canceling or refusing to issue automobile > > policies to cover emergency responders (forcing them to do without > insurance > > or get pricey commercial insurance). > > > > It is not worth the risks and you and often in a tenuous legal predicament > > if the emergency is not bonafide or if you have an accident enroute. > > > > This movement is, of course, quite controversial and strongly opposed in > > states (NY, NJ, MD, PA) where there are a lot of volunteers. But, the > > reasons and thinking are sound. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2003 Report Share Posted August 10, 2003 " I don't set my jib to the whims of an article in a publication who's watchword is " All The News That Fits " and I suggest you re-evaluate your reasons for having lights, sirens or an EMS or Fire certification. Driving fast kills people, Dog, no matter how much fun you think it is or what you use to justify it. The numbers have been proving this for years.......it just takes time for the lesson to sink in to some folks. " Neither do I, " homes " , however everything kills people. Not responding L & S would kill people, so I don't get your point. I sure as hell don't think it's fun, and I thank whoever made the decision that allows my service to respond non-emergency to the myriad of frequent flyers that I see. My point about the USA Today piece is that the public apparently expects the impossible from us, which is, less than 5 minute response and no accidents. They also expect grandpa to be shocked out of asystole after being dead for 20 minutes and play frisbee in the backyard like they saw on Rescue 911. I'm not saying they are right, just that that's what they expect, and they pay the bills. magnetass sends RE: Re: Emergency Lights > > > > > >> Other facts: > >> > >> Lights and sirens responses have been shown to only decrease response > >times > >> minimally (not clinically-significant) while, at the same time, > >> significantly increasing the risks to responders and the public. There is > >a > >> movement in several states to do away with POVs operating with lights and > >> sirens for several reasons: > >> 1. The time savings from L & S responses are not worth the risks. > >> 2. Poor regulation of vehicles (unlike fire and EMS apparatus). > >> 3. Poor or inadequate maintenance of vehicles (unlike fire and EMS > >> apparatus). > >> 4. Increased risks of accidents and public endangerment (marked > >> increase in ambulance accidents over the last 2 years). > >> 5. Insurance companies canceling or refusing to issue automobile > >> policies to cover emergency responders (forcing them to do without > >insurance > >> or get pricey commercial insurance). > >> > >> It is not worth the risks and you and often in a tenuous legal > predicament > >> if the emergency is not bonafide or if you have an accident enroute. > >> > >> This movement is, of course, quite controversial and strongly opposed in > >> states (NY, NJ, MD, PA) where there are a lot of volunteers. But, the > >> reasons and thinking are sound. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2003 Report Share Posted August 10, 2003 Not sure about the law, but that is the policy of every agency I've ever had firsthand knowlege of. magnetass sends Re: Emergency Lights > We are trained in Texas that there is no such thing as running just > lights with no siren I believe this is state law. > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2003 Report Share Posted August 10, 2003 From my understanding that is 100% correct Re: Emergency Lights We are trained in Texas that there is no such thing as running just lights with no siren I believe this is state law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2003 Report Share Posted August 10, 2003 Unless you get behind a cattle truck going 45 or 50 on a curvy road! Ralph ,Lp Magnetass wrote: I don't use L & S in a rural area, and neither do most emergency vehicles. I'll bet you next years salary that we can leave my fire station at the same time, me driving L & S, you normal traffic, at 4:45 pm, to a call 5 miles away and I'll beat you by more than 66 seconds. I am no proponent of driving emergency, as after having done it for a while now, it scares the crap outta me. My point is merely that I don't believe the public at large will stand for narmal traffic responses in emergency situations. Christ, they already complain enough about response times as it is! magnetass sends RE: Re: Emergency Lights > > > > Other facts: > > > > Lights and sirens responses have been shown to only decrease response > times > > minimally (not clinically-significant) while, at the same time, > > significantly increasing the risks to responders and the public. There is > a > > movement in several states to do away with POVs operating with lights and > > sirens for several reasons: > > 1. The time savings from L & S responses are not worth the risks. > > 2. Poor regulation of vehicles (unlike fire and EMS apparatus). > > 3. Poor or inadequate maintenance of vehicles (unlike fire and EMS > > apparatus). > > 4. Increased risks of accidents and public endangerment (marked > > increase in ambulance accidents over the last 2 years). > > 5. Insurance companies canceling or refusing to issue automobile > > policies to cover emergency responders (forcing them to do without > insurance > > or get pricey commercial insurance). > > > > It is not worth the risks and you and often in a tenuous legal predicament > > if the emergency is not bonafide or if you have an accident enroute. > > > > This movement is, of course, quite controversial and strongly opposed in > > states (NY, NJ, MD, PA) where there are a lot of volunteers. But, the > > reasons and thinking are sound. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2003 Report Share Posted August 10, 2003 --- S wrote: I'M SO SICK OF ALL THIS MACHO FIGHTING....CAN WE PLEASE DISCUSS SOMETHING ELSE!!! I think everyone is stressed big time between the weather, the economy, maybe the Mars perigee, Iraq, Al Queda, new EMS rules, Arnold running for Governor, 137 EMS providers (and counting) in the Houston area, etc., etc.... Larry (the other Larry) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2003 Report Share Posted August 10, 2003 Must have figured that he need to boil some of it! <g> Schadone, NREMT-Paramedic City of Austin Austin/ County EMS Medic 12 / Medic 24 @... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2003 Report Share Posted August 10, 2003 Drive safely, " magnetass " , wherever you are.... TD Re: Re: Emergency Lights > " I don't set my jib to the whims of an article in a publication who's >watchword is " All The News That Fits " and I suggest you re-evaluate your >reasons for having lights, sirens or an EMS or Fire certification. > >Driving fast kills people, Dog, no matter how much fun you think it is or >what you use to justify it. The numbers have been proving this for >years.......it just takes time for the lesson to sink in to some folks. " > > >Neither do I, " homes " , however everything kills people. Not responding L & S >would kill people, so I don't get your point. I sure as hell don't think >it's fun, and I thank whoever made the decision that allows my service to >respond non-emergency to the myriad of frequent flyers that I see. My point >about the USA Today piece is that the public apparently expects the >impossible from us, which is, less than 5 minute response and no accidents. >They also expect grandpa to be shocked out of asystole after being dead for >20 minutes and play frisbee in the backyard like they saw on Rescue 911. I'm >not saying they are right, just that that's what they expect, and they pay >the bills. > >magnetass sends > RE: Re: Emergency Lights >> > >> > >> >> Other facts: >> >> >> >> Lights and sirens responses have been shown to only decrease response >> >times >> >> minimally (not clinically-significant) while, at the same time, >> >> significantly increasing the risks to responders and the public. There >is >> >a >> >> movement in several states to do away with POVs operating with lights >and >> >> sirens for several reasons: >> >> 1. The time savings from L & S responses are not worth the risks. >> >> 2. Poor regulation of vehicles (unlike fire and EMS apparatus). >> >> 3. Poor or inadequate maintenance of vehicles (unlike fire and EMS >> >> apparatus). >> >> 4. Increased risks of accidents and public endangerment (marked >> >> increase in ambulance accidents over the last 2 years). >> >> 5. Insurance companies canceling or refusing to issue automobile >> >> policies to cover emergency responders (forcing them to do without >> >insurance >> >> or get pricey commercial insurance). >> >> >> >> It is not worth the risks and you and often in a tenuous legal >> predicament >> >> if the emergency is not bonafide or if you have an accident enroute. >> >> >> >> This movement is, of course, quite controversial and strongly opposed >in >> >> states (NY, NJ, MD, PA) where there are a lot of volunteers. But, the >> >> reasons and thinking are sound. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2003 Report Share Posted August 10, 2003 I always do Terry, I always do. magnetass sends RE: Re: Emergency Lights > >> > > >> > > >> >> Other facts: > >> >> > >> >> Lights and sirens responses have been shown to only decrease response > >> >times > >> >> minimally (not clinically-significant) while, at the same time, > >> >> significantly increasing the risks to responders and the public. There > >is > >> >a > >> >> movement in several states to do away with POVs operating with lights > >and > >> >> sirens for several reasons: > >> >> 1. The time savings from L & S responses are not worth the risks. > >> >> 2. Poor regulation of vehicles (unlike fire and EMS apparatus). > >> >> 3. Poor or inadequate maintenance of vehicles (unlike fire and EMS > >> >> apparatus). > >> >> 4. Increased risks of accidents and public endangerment (marked > >> >> increase in ambulance accidents over the last 2 years). > >> >> 5. Insurance companies canceling or refusing to issue automobile > >> >> policies to cover emergency responders (forcing them to do without > >> >insurance > >> >> or get pricey commercial insurance). > >> >> > >> >> It is not worth the risks and you and often in a tenuous legal > >> predicament > >> >> if the emergency is not bonafide or if you have an accident enroute. > >> >> > >> >> This movement is, of course, quite controversial and strongly opposed > >in > >> >> states (NY, NJ, MD, PA) where there are a lot of volunteers. But, the > >> >> reasons and thinking are sound. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2003 Report Share Posted August 11, 2003 We did some very unofficial research in Arlington in the 80's testing response times with and without lights and sirens. In all cases using the lights and sirens only gained 30-45 second. We started the priority system to reduce the risk associated with a code 3 response. Bernie Stafford EMTP >>> bbledsoe@... 8/10/03 7:42:52 PM >>> The literature (although scant) shows only a 46 second and 66 second improvement in response time when L & S are used (including bypassing impediments). It is unlikely in a rural area that you will sit through a signal 6 times unless the local preacher has died and his funeral procession is passing at that time. And, what will 60 seconds improved response time do for a stroke patient anyway? E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP Midlothian, Texas Re: Re: Emergency Lights The question is going to be ultimately judged by society as to do away with emergency response altogether or not, because the number of emergency responses by " bona fide " vehicles, ie. ambulances, fire trucks and police cars poses the greatest risk to the general public. My feeling is that the public will not deal well with everybody waiting thru 6 light cycles on FM. 1960 and having a 30 minute response time to a choking child or a CVA in progress. Emergency response isn't about the speed of the vehicle, but bypassing impediments to continuous travel. Given the recent outrage expressed by the public in the USA Today series, I imagine that emergency response is here to stay, regardless of the studies to the contrary. Again, I'd defy any participants in said study to stand by and watch a member of their family turn blue while the responders cruise leisurely to their house, clinically signifigant or not. magnetass sends RE: Re: Emergency Lights > Other facts: > > Lights and sirens responses have been shown to only decrease response times > minimally (not clinically-significant) while, at the same time, > significantly increasing the risks to responders and the public. There is a > movement in several states to do away with POVs operating with lights and > sirens for several reasons: > 1. The time savings from L & S responses are not worth the risks. > 2. Poor regulation of vehicles (unlike fire and EMS apparatus). > 3. Poor or inadequate maintenance of vehicles (unlike fire and EMS > apparatus). > 4. Increased risks of accidents and public endangerment (marked > increase in ambulance accidents over the last 2 years). > 5. Insurance companies canceling or refusing to issue automobile > policies to cover emergency responders (forcing them to do without insurance > or get pricey commercial insurance). > > It is not worth the risks and you and often in a tenuous legal predicament > if the emergency is not bonafide or if you have an accident enroute. > > This movement is, of course, quite controversial and strongly opposed in > states (NY, NJ, MD, PA) where there are a lot of volunteers. But, the > reasons and thinking are sound. > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2003 Report Share Posted August 11, 2003 The only reasons I have any warning equipment on my vehicle are: 1. Many days/nights I am the only available Medic or back-up medic at my volunteer service. 2. To make my vehicle more visible on highway incident scenes. 3. I paid $50 for the Whelen lightbar on the roof, and the strobes and siren were free. If I had to pay for all the goodies, I'd still just have the minibar I would toss on the roof after arriving on scene, or had bolted to the headache rack of my OLD truck. Pay $400... $500... $1000 or more for that stuff? Hardly! I'm too cheap to spend that much for ANYTHING... 8^) Barry E. McClung, FF/EMT-P Official EMS Dinosaur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2003 Report Share Posted August 12, 2003 Amen, my brother. TOM RE: Re: Emergency Lights > > >> Other facts: >> >> Lights and sirens responses have been shown to only decrease response >times >> minimally (not clinically-significant) while, at the same time, >> significantly increasing the risks to responders and the public. There is >a >> movement in several states to do away with POVs operating with lights and >> sirens for several reasons: >> 1. The time savings from L & S responses are not worth the risks. >> 2. Poor regulation of vehicles (unlike fire and EMS apparatus). >> 3. Poor or inadequate maintenance of vehicles (unlike fire and EMS >> apparatus). >> 4. Increased risks of accidents and public endangerment (marked >> increase in ambulance accidents over the last 2 years). >> 5. Insurance companies canceling or refusing to issue automobile >> policies to cover emergency responders (forcing them to do without >insurance >> or get pricey commercial insurance). >> >> It is not worth the risks and you and often in a tenuous legal predicament >> if the emergency is not bonafide or if you have an accident enroute. >> >> This movement is, of course, quite controversial and strongly opposed in >> states (NY, NJ, MD, PA) where there are a lot of volunteers. But, the >> reasons and thinking are sound. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.