Responding with lights and siren

[emtannie]

When I started reading this thread, it was from curiousity, but the further I got into it, the more morbid the curiousity got..... kinda like how you can't look away from watching a gory movie....

Robert Gift - are you for real? Wow... I am going to tell my friends I am afraid to travel to Colorado now. You are scary.

You have quoted several driving instructor certs.. I wonder.. Are you like the first aid instructor who has never touched a real patient? I see your profile says "volunteer firefighter, worst responder."

I like to see studies and statistics, so I am going to Google a bit, and see what I find for stats on driving L&S, and running red lights, and see what the stats say about accidents.

In the meantime, I found a website that I think Robert should read...

http://www.coloradoautoinjuries.com/Auto_A..._Accidents.aspx

I wonder if the lawyer will give me a finders fee?

Edited July 22, 2009 by emtannie

[cosgrojo]

I award you no points, and my god have mercy on your soul.

+5 for getting the reference.

[Happiness]

I failed to mention my best advice.

Assume there is a straying toddler out there.

No matter what he has done, no matter how wrong he is, you can't hit him no matter what.

Ok I really dont know what the hell that means.

Yes, these rules are made for those that you can not allow to think on their own.

And let it be known yes I can be allowed to think on my own

[Lone Star]

Driving since 1968.

AAA Driver instructor during college summer breaks starting 1971.

Teaching EV driving 1976 because I was driver instructor. (Before EVOC)

EVOC instructor, 2000.

You know, Robert; with all the 'qualifications' that you brag about having, I'm completely at a loss to understand how you can advocate such reckless behavior, but I think you summed up the full effect of your 'qualifications' best when you said:

But that means nothing.

As far as this is concerned:

If you are driving 90, and we do!, and you see another car approaching, you slow - just in case the driver is not expecting you to be nearing that fast.

No, anyone driving that fast should have their license pulled, driving priveliges suspended, and never let behind the wheel of an emergency vehicle ever again! There is absolutely NO REASON to EVER go that fast in an ambulance, (or fire apparatus)!

With all of the nonsense you've been posting here lately, the only thing you're actually accomplishing is irrevocably destroying any credibility you may have ever had. The days of Mother, Jugs and Speed EMS are long over! You really need to check in with 'reality' and scope out how we do things here in the 'real world'!

What I find really 'odd' is that in your rants about the UK ambulance drivers running 'fake calls', you were INCENSED that they were driving like a bat out of hell, going nowhere; and yet you're advocating putting EVERYONE that even remotely comes near you in danger, because you want to drive 'balls to the wall' to get to a call! How are we supposed to stand in awe of your 'credentials' when you so BLATANTLY contradict everything that you're supposed to be teaching people to keep them safe?

[robert gift]

You know, Robert; with all the 'qualifications' that you brag about having, I'm completely at a loss to understand how you can advocate such reckless behavior, but I think you summed up the full effect of your 'qualifications' best when you said:

Nothing to "brag" about.

What is reckless about not stopping at red signals when there is no traffic, or when all traffic has stopped?

Is it contrary to some religious ritual?

Have I espoused that one may "run" through such intersections?

Merely that following some ridiculous "rule" that lengthens response time, causes more traffic impediment, more wear and tear on the vehicle, more fuel use and pollution by everyone - is needless.

And the Colorado statute also follows that reasoning.

No, anyone driving that fast should have their license pulled, driving priveliges suspended, and never let behind the wheel of an emergency vehicle ever again! There is absolutely NO REASON to EVER go that fast in an ambulance, (or fire apparatus)!

Are you going to travel only 10 mph over the 75 Speed Limit and have others wanting you out of their way?

If conditions allow, there is no problem with making better time to the scene than to follow some assigned speed limit.

Speed limits are conservative - meaning they are posted lower than what the road is engineered for.

In open expanses on dry level Interstates, 15 mph over the speed limit is no problem.

With all of the nonsense you've been posting here lately, the only thing you're actually accomplishing is irrevocably destroying any credibility you may have ever had. The days of Mother, Jugs and Speed EMS are long over! You really need to check in with 'reality' and scope out how we do things here in the 'real world'!

What I find really 'odd' is that in your rants about the UK ambulance drivers running 'fake calls', you were INCENSED that they were driving like a bat out of hell, going nowhere; and yet you're advocating putting EVERYONE that even remotely comes near you in danger, because you want to drive 'balls to the wall' to get to a call! How are we supposed to stand in awe of your 'credentials' when you so BLATANTLY contradict everything that you're supposed to be teaching people to keep them safe?

Why do you erroneously state I complained "bat out of hell" when I never said such nor observed them doing that?

They are FAKE runs. Not emergencies. Taking right of way from others, causing traffic impediment and disruption, makng others move off the roadway possibly causing vehicle damage or tire damage, exposing others to hazards - is not justified for fake runs.

They can accomplish the same practice without lights and siren.

[robert gift]

I failed to mention my best advice.

Assume there is a straying toddler out there.

No matter what he has done, no matter how wrong he is, you can't hit him no matter what.

Ok I really dont know what the hell that means.

It is an analogy which could happen.

Around a blind corner could be a toddler who does not know the meaning of your siren and that he should get out of the street.

The toddler could be anyone, drunk/drugs, incompetent, deaf or blind, etc.

We must compensate for other's mistakes and not allow a terrible outcome.

Locomotive engineers are they only ones to which this does not apply.

Yes, these rules are made for those that you can not allow to think on their own.

And let it be known yes I can be allowed to think on my own

Good.

But the ridiculous rules won't allow it.

You MUST stop at red signals, even if all cross-traffic has stopped or there is no traffic present or approaching.*

You MUST stop at Stop signs, even if no one else is present or approaching.

You MUST blare the siren into citizen's homes and businesses, even if no one is in your way.

*Recently, westbound signalling turning south, I stopped at a rather open intersection because I was not convinced a northbound driver was going to stop.

Southbound driver, who had stopped, took off, not wanting to wait.

[emtannie]

http://publicsafety.com/article/article.js...p;siteSection=2

- a 2003 article by Bryan Bledsoe

- statistics in this article show that L&S may improve times statistically, but CLINICALLY they do not make a difference

- the article also reviews EMS fatalities, most of which are motor vehicle related

http://www.emergencydispatch.org/articles/...llingmyths1.htm

- old data from 1989, but shows that most ambulance accidents occur in daylight, and in good road conditions

- The majority of ambulance accidents occurs when making turns or when broadsided at an intersection (hmmmm….. interesting)

- Locations where traffic signaling devices exist present the greatest risk for an ambulance accident to occur. (hmmm…. Interesting)

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3852764/FIREFI...JURY-STATISTICS

States in part (and note, ambulances are part of these statistics):

NYS DMV Fire Vehicle Accident Reports: Manner of Collision, 2007 (accident not necessarily caused by FD driver)

Top Human Factors Cited:

51 – Failure to Yield Right of Way

36 – Driver Inattention

13 – Unsafe Backing

13 – Unsafe speed

12 – passing or lane change improper

(Hmmmmm – interesting)

It would appear that the vast majority of accidents are caused by driver error – no big surprise. Then, it would make sense that we enact laws to reduce the possibility of driver error – LIKE STOPPING AT RED LIGHTS, instead of flying through and having an accident. Just because you THINK the intersection is clear, doesn’t mean it is.

It would appear from your comments, that you feel like the laws are put in place due to stupidity. Well, yes they are… they are put in place to protect us from those who refuse to see that slowing down, stopping (heaven forbid) and taking those few extra seconds DOES protect us.

Robert, could you please post some studies on how running red lights and speeding improves patient outcomes?

I would like to see the scientific evidence to support your comment “Merely that following some ridiculous "rule" that lengthens response time, causes more traffic impediment, more wear and tear on the vehicle, more fuel use and pollution by everyone - is needless.”

Until you can show me the studies showing that your methods are better, I will not believe a word you say. I can provide more references to support my position. Can you?

And, I think you should again review the link I provided in my previous post:

http://www.coloradoautoinjuries.com/Auto_A..._Accidents.aspx

It would appear that Colorado law isn’t going to back you when you slam into someone doing 90…..

[Happiness]

well done my friend

[robert gift]

http://publicsafety.com/article/article.js...p;siteSection=2

- a 2003 article by Bryan Bledsoe

- statistics in this article show that L&S may improve times statistically, but CLINICALLY they do not make a difference

- the article also reviews EMS fatalities, most of which are motor vehicle related

http://www.emergencydispatch.org/articles/...llingmyths1.htm

- old data from 1989, but shows that most ambulance accidents occur in daylight, and in good road conditions

- The majority of ambulance accidents occurs when making turns or when broadsided at an intersection (hmmmm….. interesting)

- Locations where traffic signaling devices exist present the greatest risk for an ambulance accident to occur. (hmmm…. Interesting)

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3852764/FIREFI...JURY-STATISTICS

States in part (and note, ambulances are part of these statistics):

NYS DMV Fire Vehicle Accident Reports: Manner of Collision, 2007 (accident not necessarily caused by FD driver)

Top Human Factors Cited:

51 – Failure to Yield Right of Way

36 – Driver Inattention

13 – Unsafe Backing

13 – Unsafe speed

12 – passing or lane change improper

(Hmmmmm – interesting)

It would appear that the vast majority of accidents are caused by driver error – no big surprise. Then, it would make sense that we enact laws to reduce the possibility of driver error – LIKE STOPPING AT RED LIGHTS, instead of flying through and having an accident. Just because you THINK the intersection is clear, doesn’t mean it is.

It would appear from your comments, that you feel like the laws are put in place due to stupidity. Well, yes they are… they are put in place to protect us from those who refuse to see that slowing down, stopping (heaven forbid) and taking those few extra seconds DOES protect us.

Robert, could you please post some studies on how running red lights and speeding improves patient outcomes?

I would like to see the scientific evidence to support your comment “Merely that following some ridiculous "rule" that lengthens response time, causes more traffic impediment, more wear and tear on the vehicle, more fuel use and pollution by everyone - is needless.”

Until you can show me the studies showing that your methods are better, I will not believe a word you say. I can provide more references to support my position. Can you?

And, I think you should again review the link I provided in my previous post:

http://www.coloradoautoinjuries.com/Auto_A..._Accidents.aspx

It would appear that Colorado law isn’t going to back you when you slam into someone doing 90…..

Sorry, did not see your previous link.

Thank you for your research and stats.

Who said anything about "flying through intersections"?

And who is going to "slam into someone at 90" mph?

Going into opposing lanes takes pressure off drivers ahead who may move forward into traffic.

Also lessens vehicles maneuvering to get out of the way from bumping.

(A woman in lane one moved right. Woman in lane two moved forward causing damage.

That Rural/Metro Ambulance could easily have gone around, not holding up everyone while

drivers figured what to do and maneuvered. The signal had already turned green

but no one noticed because they were maneuvering!)

Fortunately, Colorado does not have laws prohibiting smart moves.

[emtannie]

Robert, you have not responded to my request: could you please post some studies on how running red lights and speeding improves patient outcomes?

Your quote: Nonsense about saving minimal time. We save A LOT of time not having to wait in line for traffic signals which may take two cycles to get through. Sometimes three cycles for left turns.

Your quote: You can also blow your little siren continuously, annoying people in their homes, warning non existent drivers, motorcyclists, bicyclists, pedestrians.

Your quote: There are few accidents.

Again, refer above to my request.

Your quote: If no one is there, does it matter that I am breaking some of your rules?

Your quote: Best is to get everyone to make good decisions

The logic in the above comments evades me. As long as no one sees you, it is ok to break the rules? Wow… how come my parents didn’t go with that when I broke rules when they weren’t around? I can see that logic working in court “well, no one SAW me kill him, so it must be ok.” Yes, an extreme example, but it shows the flaw in your theory. A good decision would be to follow the rules EVERY time, regardless of whether someone is watching or not.

You have made comments about others being “holier than thou” and “not in the picture” (yes, I realize what picture that is referring to). Instead of replying with offensive comments, please, show the proof that your way works.

Your quote: Would be horrible to have children harmed because of a grade crossing signal failure - though I have never heard of even one.

Try google:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa38...12/ai_n9008828/

I could probably find more if I had time....

NIOSH recommendations are to STOP, not roll through. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2003-121/

The reason, you ask? Because PEOPLE ARE STUPID. Quote from Conrail Operation Lifesaver (which you should be familiar with): Nearly two-thirds of all crossing accidents occur during daylight hours. Because two-thirds of all accidents occur at crossings equipped with automatic warning devices, driver inattention is clearly the major cause. (http://www.conrail.com/oplife.htm)

By stopping at the crossing, the driver is forcing him or herself to be attentive, and not be in an accident.

We go through these actions of stopping at red lights, of stopping at train tracks, of slowing down, of not cutting into other lanes when there is oncoming traffic, because PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES. It must be wonderful to be as perfect as you, that you have never made a driving mistake. The reason those laws are in place, is based on evidence. I still haven’t seen your evidence to the contrary, and until I see evidence, I won’t continue with this discussion because your comments are moot until then.