scott33

I agree the Paramedic was unprofessional, he agrees he was unprofessional, his trust (employer) agrees he was unprofessional, his governing body agrees he was unprofessional. The issue was dealt with by his trust at the time of the event (over 2 years ago), which resulted in him receiving a "final written warning" to run for 1 year. This recent hearing concluded that there was nothing further to gain by punishing him twice for the same crime, having reviewed the evidence. Or maybe, juuuuuust maybe, they collectively feel there is an element of Karma involved with Hoity-Toity, Hoo-ray Henry, Fox Hunters who injure themselves

Well said.

Yup. Amazing the amount of people who think that US law applies to countries outside the US, before any other law. The mealbreak thing is a hot potato in the UK, and whereas this paramedic arguably may have had some moral obligations he chose not to fulfill, he certainly did not commit gross negligence. Once more for those who missed it - He has already had his disciplinary hearing, and he was found not to have done anything worthy of any official action.

Thanks for sharing again. Tragic loss

Probably a responder vehicle / RRV. Nearest resource available, and BOOKED ON. I agree with the Paramedic's sentiments that he made an error of judgement. Although he was not obligated to do anything, the rules of arse-coverage should have told him to at least have a look. I am sure if it were an immediately life-threatening situation, it would have been different.

Here we go again... although I am a little more impartial with this one. A couple of the non-reported thoughts though. Call was already categorised as Cat C call - non-life threatening, NO lights and sirens to the scene, and an ambulance was already on its way. Pt injured himself while "following a Fox Hunt"... from his Land-rover. Hearing has already been heard and the actual transcript is here. They found that his fitness to practice is not impaired, and he agrees he made an error of judgement. http://www.hpc-uk.org/complaints/hearings/...8&showAll=1

Debate is good, and up until this thread, I would say I have agreed with at least 90% of every one of your posts I have read. I just find it weird that you aren't seeing the obvious; that the UK systems "works" However... Thanks for acknowledging the sad truth of the matter. Shame the OP doesn't seem to see it that way. The only silence around here is following your feeble attempt to cover up for your obvious lack of insight, by trying to make a joke out of it. Listen...

Well done. You have managed to contradict every post you have made on this thread. Please, keep posting

I have seen it too, many times, including in their POVs by utilizing their little blue or green dashboard light. Faking emergencies, in a non-controlled, non-mentored, non-regulated, and illegal manner. My English friends agree with me.

NY will join the 90% of the rest of the US who recognize the NR sooner or later. My NY State EMT-P practicals were the NR practicals, so I only ever took 1 practical and 2 written tests for both State and NR accreditations. I also read that there is a drive by the NREMT, that by 2014, to have only 4 recognized EMT certs nationally. At this time there are noticeably more bridge courses popping up from EMT-CC to paramedic, so I am sure CC is for the chop in the near future, when NY goes completely NR. So, yes, I would go for NR. Anything that is not a protocol exam can only be a good thing.

This news snippet is over half-a-decade old, and interestingly enough, "insufficient driver training" is mentioned as a contributory factor. http://www.emergencydispatch.org/articles/driverfatigue.html So hands up who thinks anything has changed since that report.

Shhhhh !!!!

The previous reference on this thread to cultural insularism is a valid one, as is the often used, but very relevant reference to not knowing what you don't know. Perhaps the reason for the conveniently overlooked Google links to ambulance crashes is simply that ambulance crashes are, and always have been, a US problem, and a European concern. Yes, the combined figures will be higher in the US than any other single Country due to sheer demographics, but not necessarily every other country combined, and not as a percentage of calls answered regardless of location. In the developed world, any country with a functional EMS system will have emergency vehicle crashes making the news. But just to put some proportion on the disproportionate statistics (read reports of accidents), the busiest stand-alone emergency ambulance department / service on the planet is not in the US. The LAS (London Ambulance Service) handle over 1.1 million calls for ambulance responses every year (FDNY have similar figures, but utilize many other systems working under their 911 umberella). That’s over 3,000 calls per day, every day, just for one agency covering one part of the country. Something else which may have set an all-time record, over the new year period this year the LAS handled 1 call every 7 seconds. That’s - [one call every seven seconds!] How many accidents have they had recently? Not many that I can see, although there may have been a few fender benders, but certainly no fatals in quite a while. Most US EMS agencies simply don't have that call volume, so perhaps someone could explain why the figures are so one-sided. The recent triple-fatal in Arizona is showing once again, that something is very wrong with ambulance responses in the US, unlike any other country. Unfortunately, there will be another ambulance accident along in the next couple of weeks in the US, and then another. Nothing will ever fix this endemic problem as long as there are people who subscribe to the idea that minimal training in this field is acceptable. Nothing will change as long as fear of litigation, and "inconveniencing other road users" gets in the way of a higher level of education in road-craft. I will say again - it is a known fact that some people get fast tracked in driving instruction in certain US firehouses / ambulance depts, based on who they know or who they are related to. Watering down the already watered down. This would never fly in the UK, and the mere suggestion of it, would cost someone their job. As for the cries of "where is the statistical proof?" No one in their right mind is going to conduct a study as to why they have a positive outcome in ambulance transport. However there should have been one done years ago in the US to see why the system is flawed. Not unlike US vs European HEMS – same goal, but vastly different accident figures at point of delivery, and seemingly differing opinions as to what constitutes "safe". But, at least the NTSB is actively looking into the problem with HEMS ops in the US. The simple fact is that the UK system for the delivery of ambulance driver-training is way ahead of the US. Repeating antagonistic words or phrases in CAPS or bold typeface on an Internet forum doesn’t change that one iota. Believe me, I wouldn’t be claiming this with such conviction if I did not believe it to be true, as the UK system is far from perfect. You are a driver before you are an ambulance technician in the UK; it is one of the first things you will be assessed on, way before you crack open the A&P books (for those who missed that point when it was previously stated). The prerequisite commercial license needed (C-1, D-1) just to be considered for a position on a technician course or paramedic degree, can cost about a third of the cost of an average US Paramedic program, with no guarantee of a placement on a course, let alone a job at the end. That is how serious they take the driving. Those who fail to show proficiency in driving standards cannot go on to become techs or paramedics. They are unable to complete their course. They fail. One other note-worthy difference between countries is that UK ambulances also don't always utilize a hot response for every call they go to, again minimizing the risk. Yes, it is the way it has been for many years, but unlike the entire US EMS system, has evolved in many other ways. The fact that they do not have the piss poor accident log the US has, in spite of having great pressure to meet response times (the US does not have ORCON or anything like it, and more or less have the freedom to get there when they get there, so even less of an excuse to suck) would suggest that the UK have a system that works. Just one more thing, if anyone is in any doubt as to the disparity in driving standard between the US and the rest of the world... http://www.google.com/search?client=safari...-8&oe=UTF-8 Now show me some literature to the contrary, other than blinkered opinion, paranoid speculation, and an aversion to change.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari...-8&oe=UTF-8

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari...-8&oe=UTF-8

The credibitlity of the UK tabloids are directly poroportionate to the amount of clothing the model on page 3 has on. The Sun has had girls getting them out for over 30 years, and also reports world news, but is positively tame compaired to the Sunday Sport, which for some reason, is allowed to pass itself off as a newspaper. I won't send you a link to the latter, don't want to be acused of spamming the site.

Fair points, and I agree with a gradual exposure to this type of driving which should start in the classrom, then the parking lot / closed track, rural or remote areas, then congested areas. Remember though, on this side of the pond, on call number one when "your up", there will be kids around, and surely with zero previous exposure to emergency driving, the higher risks are there. Personally, I believe even with the sucky way it is done in the US, I think it is only common sense to have their first few hot responses, to those calls with no apparent life threats - Alpha, and Bravo type calls, for those who use AMPDS (US). But technically, there is nothing to stop the situation where the first time a noob driver EVER gets behinds the wheel of an ambulance, using audible and visual warning devices, diving in excess of the posted speed limit, and requesting the right of way through dense traffic - is for a child arrest. I find that very unnerving.

So clearly you have never visited, nor met anyone from England, but no doubt have a shitload of DVDs starring Hugh Grant Thank you. The most sensible and accurate thing you have stated yet.

And where are they? Less enlightened people who do the job for a living, not vollying from home. Of course, how stupid of me No you are not And with a greater risk to the public... http://www.google.com/search?client=safari...-8&oe=UTF-8

Dust, I will forever treasure the initial misconceptions I had about you I can only deduce from your reply that you are out to ruffle feathers, and that you don't honestly believe the crap this troll has been spouting. As for the OP, I am not out to prove anything, merely replying to his verbal diarrhea about a system he knows absolutely nothing about, as perfectly illustrated by his "geographically-challenged" comments here and on YouTube. He doesn't even have an argument; more an opinion which sounds more like a 4 year old wanting to know why the moon keeps following them. For those who live in boxes, a good starting point would be here. http://www.google.com/search?client=safari...-8&oe=UTF-8 See any trends?

You see now you are just being antagonistic for the hell of it. You have lost the argument, and embarrassed yourself. You are clearly trolling here and on YouTube. You have failed to formulate a credible argument for what you believe to be “malpractice”. You have failed to acknowledge that those foreign driving practices occur with full support of the law in other countries. You have failed to acknowledge the input of 3 English members here who have more experience of this issue that you or I. You have failed to enlist the support of your "English friends". You have failed to cite any references that suggest the US system of emergency driver training is better than the European model. You have admitted you are just a jolly volley, and to hearing voices in your head. I get it - short yellow school bus Jog on.

What is it you are not getting about the fact that this is mentored, regulated, controlled, and required practice in some countries? Take the UK for example, this is the standard practice of emergency driver training for NHS staff - the government run healthcare system. NO LAWS ARE BEING BROKEN! The police would laugh in your face if you were to try and report it over there. It is the way the course is SUPPOSED to be taught. Not like the fast-track "but he is the chief's Son" crap I have heard of over here. You are continually displaying your insular and blinkered viewpoint, and as a self-proclaimed "jolly volly", have little to be vocal about. At your own admission, your experience is very limited. As for inconveniencing other road users - do you think there should be a law against filming movies / TV reenactments with ambulances and firetrucks using lights and sirens? I see it a lot in Manhattan. Would you report some "extra" to the police for driving the vehicle? Your argument is flawed, immature, and tantamount to Trollism. Not all Countries EMS systems live in such fear of litigation, that their training and education are restricted to the degree it is in the US. Why you have such a hard on about it is anybody's guess. Personally, I would be far more frightened when a 21 year old child, with no experience of driving under emergency conditions, gets a flap on for their first ever call, than I would with someone who had met the GOVERNMENT REQUIRED, minimal competencies in emergency vehicle operations - and all that entails.

I have a (rumor has it, soon to be a thing of the past) NY State EMT-CC patch you can have for nothing if that is any use.

Not really, it's about as good as it gets here too.