I fail to see why this topic seems to be so difficult to understand. Speaking from my own protocols, and only my protocols, the whole concept is easy enough to understand.
I realize that other geographical areas may do things differently.
Since the revival of this thread, I've noticed alot of 'back and forth' mud slinging....each side defending how it 'should be'.
Since the only available information is from a news article, how else can we discuss this on any other information?
Whether your views support the actions of the crew that stopped at the fender bender, or you don't, either way you're basing your support or condemnation on the same news article.....why cast aspersions to one side, for doing exactly what the other side is doing?
I know that MY protocols clearly state that if you have a patient on board and are transporting them, you're 'out of service' to any and all other calls until the completion of the call, which includes a 'proper' transfer of care (verbal and written reports complete).
If you're 'empty', then you are subject to local laws that apply about having to stop for accidents (providing you're not running to a priority 1 call [emergent call]).
If you're enroute to a priority 2 (no dawdling on your way to the call), or priority 3 (lowest priority ...usually BLS transfer), and you witness an accident, or are flagged down by Law Enforcement....you stop, notify the dispatch center and follow their directions, PRIOR to making patient contact.
I don't know about other counties/states and their protocols, nor do I really care what they are (I dont have to play under those rules).
I hate to say it, but watching this thread go back and forth, with this "I'm right, because I said so" mentality isn't productive to the entire topic.