helicopper

I'd rather see legislation that makes it impossible to sue someone when you were negligent or otherwise at fault. Oops, I got squashed by a bus crossing the street with my iPod - let me sue the City and MTA because they should have known that I'm not paying attention. No way! I'm a burglar and got injured while in your house - I'm going to sue you for the cost of my medical bills. No way! My coffee was too hot and McDonalds didn't warn me - did I order ICED coffee, NOooooo. But they didn't warn me so I deserve a ton of money and McDonalds should have to pay to have "CAUTION - contents may be hot" on their insulated coffee cups. No way! People really need to get a life!

Interesting - from a legal perspective I don't know if he can be the prosecutor and defendant at the same time. Any legal types out there with input on that aspect of this?

Hey, ALS - Consider that motto stolen for duplication!!! As for the law, the scary part is this (from section 1104 NYS VTL): If you have an accident while engaged in an emergency operation and exercising the privileges granted an emergency vehicle I am willing to bet that any lawyer will cite this section (e) and accuse you of "reckless disregard" for "running a red light" or whatever else. Then they'll bring in a troop of "experts" who'll all cite NFPA, or EVOC, or Defensive Driving, or good ol' common sense and say that they absolutely stop for red lights and stop signs. End result - you're royally and thoroughly screwed! And, if you're found to have violated this section, I bet alot of insurance companies won't cover a claim because you were negligent and/or reckless. What baffles me is that New York, one of the richest States (read most taxed) in the country, doesn't have this technology on all state roads and major local roads! With all the other nonsense they put out there, you'd think this is a no-brainer! This is one scary statistic that we should all be fighting to change! Better training, better policies, and more attention to the problem is definitely required with these kinds of senseless deaths!

Plan? What do we need a plan for? The other benefit to radio crossovers is they don't bear the cost that tielines do. The dedicated tielines are an incredible expense - I don't know why anyone would stick with them if other options were available.

What he said! ALS is so right! If there's already a vehicle on scene for blocking I prefer the ambulance be IFO the accident - that leaves the blocking vehicle, wrecked vehicles and distance between me, the patient, and the ambulance.

That's great - now we just have to hold all our radio traffic until 2010 assuming the vendor stays on schedule and all our local agencies/communities elect to buy in.

Just curious - how did they measure the bubbles? Was it the size of each bubble or the total number of bubbles? Did they average it out per gallon of wash water? How did they count them? If a bubble popped after being counted, did they have to start over? Seriously, if the soap doesn't measure up and they were smart enough to put that in their contract more power to them! It's just a shame it's getting media attention. With unions battling for healthcare coverage and pay increases, this makes them appear petty to the average, uninformed person. By the way, the type of gun and ammunition that I am issued isn't in my contract.

Can you elaborate on what the SWN is?

The Yankees!

I worked in all three types of ambulances on a variety of chassis and think there are disadvantages and advantages to all of them. I also think the wear and tear on ambulances has as much to do with driver training and procedures as it does with the chassis it is built on. Standing on the brakes traffic light to traffic light is going to burn through brakes on any chassis and I know we've all seen that done! I've seen plenty of commercial vehicles built on the same chassis as an ambulance, carrying more weight than an ambulance, and not suffering for it. Personally, I think ambulances are getting ridiculously big - too big to fit on some driveways and even smaller roads. As ALS said, they're being built to be as wide or wider than traffic lanes and that is a problem! If you need to transport multiple patients, get more ambulances - don't create a clown car with two backboarded and three ambulatory patients in one! What happens if one goes south, vomits, or anything else. There is no room to work with a baseball team in the back! I was also trained to believe that there should be no more than two patients to an EMT - one if the patient is critical - so transporting any more than two is difficult in any vehicle!

In a nutshell, there was an MVA off the road (by about 30 feet) and EMS was requested by the Trooper for a victim complaining of back pain (no extrication required - victim out of the vehicle). The FD responded with EMS (apparently automatic response) and the apparatus blocked the right lane. According to the article there were no response vehicles in the right lane and the SP vehicle and ambulance were well off the roadway. Trooper requested FD move the apparatus, FD refused, egos and attitudes inflamed, shouting match, Fire Chief charged with disobeying Trooper. At issue - was blocking lane necessary given the circumstances? Fire Chief sentenced to apology and commitment to prevent this from recurring. Criminal charge dismissed. So, here we are! If you search a little you'll find the whole thread and accompanying articles but that's the snap shot/readers digest version. The issue was never the dispatch policy or response - it was all about interagency communications and cooperation at the scene of a minor incident. (Just imagine if it was a big one?!?!?!)

aowen, you're not the only one to call this overreaction. Listening to the radio this morning made my blood pressure go up quite a bit. The DJ's were calling the Boston response overreaction and asking how they can respond to something so obviously a prank this way. So obviously a prank? OK, right! Just like asking cops why they didn't just shoot the gun out of somebody's hand. Do these people even live on this planet???? Sheesh!!!

Novel concept - perhaps they should have tried working together from the start!

I was on the fence about this initially but the more I think about it the more I lean toward this - in these times of heightened security (or borderline paranoia, depending on your view) how can you place any kind of device (kids toy, hoax device) in sensitive locations like train stations, highway overpasses, pedestrian walkways and not expect someone to react the way Boston did. This isn't the first time someone has tried to monopolize on press coverage of a stupid stunt. Did Boston overreact? Really? How do we respond to hold-up alarms at banks or fire alarms at houses? We respond like its a hold-up or a fire, right? So, Boston took the precautions they deemed necessary given the totality of the circumstances. Remember all the white powder calls in 2001/2002 and even today? Did we overreact? Probably but given the circumstances we deemed it appropriate at the time! Also, how smart would it be for terrorists or other lunatics to disguise a real device as a toy or something else? As was previously posted, cops and members of the military have been killed by explosives that weren't designed to look like explosives. Let's not criticize their skepticism and concern - remember complacency kills!!! Bottom line - stupid stunt by a pair of morons (talking about their hair during a press conference did not improve their standing) and different responses by different agencies to handle it (apparently Chicago also used their bomb squad to respond at first).

All this water talk prompted a couple of questions... Do you use existing water supplies (lakes, streams. reservoirs, etc.) for drafting? Are you allowed to use reservoirs as a water source for fire suppression? I've heard that the DEC goes crazy in other parts of the state if you try that. Just curiosity questions from a non-fire type! OK, now all this water talk prompted... Well, let's just say I'll read the replies later!

Thanks for the clarification - I think the equivalent in NIMS/ICS terminology will be Division Supervisor. If anyone on the scene is changing strategies or tactics without the consent or even knowledge of the IC, that's a recipe for problems! I agree that is going to complicate things greatly! Yeesh!

Actually, this is a common misconception! Though they are chiefs, when they respond to someone else's incident they are not an incident commander. If the XYZ fire chief is on the scene of an incident in XYZ, he/she is the IC. Fire chiefs from mutual aid departments become agency representatives (to use the ICS terminology) and should be at the ICP available to the IC so they can discuss limitations, equipment, training, etc. They may be reassigned to other ICS positions, Safety Officer, Operations Section Chief, Interior Division Supervisor, etc. also. These mutual aid chiefs, PD or EMS supervisors, Con Ed supervisors, DPW/Water Department Supervisors all report to the Liaison Officer if one is appointed so as not to distract the IC from being the IC. If there isn't a liaison officer, having all these people showing up at the ICP should be a pretty good reminder to appoint one! As for "Sector Chiefs", what exactly are you referring too because that is not a NIMS or ICS position? Interesting side note - if you follow any of the higher alarm assignments in FDNY, they now assign a battalion chief to serve as the Resource Unit Leader and on third alarm or higher jobs a chief rides with NYPD Aviation as an air recon person. They've really embraced ICS and if you look at pictures of wildfires out west, don't be surprised to see someone wearing FDNY gear at the ICP - they're actually going out west to get checked out (red-carded) in ICS positions for the NWCG.

The above come from a five minute Google search... And I'm sure that this is only a fraction of what happens every day around the Country. None of the above are motor vehicle accidents (whether struck by a vehicle at a scene or involved in an MVA). To degrade EMS and assert that their work is not dangerous is unfair and inaccurate. This also doesn't include the increasing incidence of EMT's and medics contracting illnesses or diseases such as Hepatitis, HIV, meningitis, etc. According to the National EMS Memorial Service, there were 22 line of duty DEATHS in 2005 and at least 12 in 2006. Thankfully, this is far fewer than either the fire service or law enforcement suffered in the same years but to say that EMS isn't dangerous is contradicted by these statistics! It boggles my mind that another emergency provider hase such negative opinions of EMS. Hey, big bad FF - when you get hurt at a fire, who's coming to take care of your opinionated a$$? In all your hours of experience have you ever been on the scene of a call where EMS was needed? Who did you look over your shoulder for? EMS, of course! If you want to make a cavalier statement like that you should have some facts first! Now, maybe we can put this tangent to rest and get back to the two real issues that were raised... Agencies not being able to get out the door and the poor recognition and inattention EMS receives from municipalities.

Nothing in NIMS or ICS gives anyone authority "over" another department/agency/discipline. The whole point of NIMS and ICS is to communicate, collaborate, and fix the damn problem so everyone can go home! This whole incident seems to center on poor communications (face to face - not radios), big egos and attitudes, and lack of compromise. Had they actually tried to see each other's side of the issue it probably would have worked out without any major conflict. According to the original thread, the accident was 30 feet off the roadway and nobody (vehicles, victims or responders) was in a travel lane of the highway. The FD showed up and shut down the right lane. If everyone was off 30 feet off the road, was that necessary? Of course, that can (and will) be debated! Sorry, but I'm keeping my hat on and not applauding either the trooper or the chief for allowing the incident to escalate as far as it did. According to the article, and it seems that there are two different stories being discussed, it was a single car rollover, all occupants were out of the vehicle and one was complaining of back pain. Sounds pretty clear to me - you need EMS for someone with back pain. If the FD goes with EMS, fine but that's not the point. Perhaps by SOP the FD is needed on the scene of a medevac but I've seen plenty of medevac operations all over the country where the helicopter lands and takes off without a fire department. I think the whole point is that these two individuals didn't recognize each other as professionals, communicate and resolve the problem - both sides say it degenerated to a shouting match. You know, that strictly from a NIMS/ICS perspective, the trooper was the IC and unless/until command was transferred to the fire chief he wasn't "in charge". I know this is going to spark some major controversy but that's the way ICS is supposed to work - and in other parts of the country it works very well. To avoid a police/fire conflict, if it were a DOT or Thruway Authority supervisor on the scene first they would have been IC. Why does this always have to be a debate about "who's in charge"? Both police and fire have authority at the scene of an accident and I'll always say that neither is more in charge than the other. They have different responsibilities but the first is always safety so they should be able to work things out! Now, on the subject of highway safety - a question. If you have a dual response to a highway job (one department eastbound and one westbound - or north/south), and the accident is on only the westbound side, why does apparatus stop eastbound? This means that you've either stopped in the left lane or on the shoulder and you've got to cross lanes of traffic in BOTH directions. How is that safe?

They give out 18 million condoms a year? Wow, that's a lot of naked stories in the naked city!!! They even distribute them to prisons?!?! Ouch!

I don't think most emergency service agencies buy any kind of equipment/vehicle that they "can't afford". Using bonds or loans or other means of credit is not the same as not affording it. It would seem that the department in question DID however buy a vehicle they couldn't afford if their sole means of paying it off was BINGO??? Really, in suburban Maryland - commuting distance from the nation's capital and in one of the most affluent counties in the country? It is a disgrace that in the 21st Century an emergency service doesn't receive more community support and relies on BINGO to sustain it! If the municipality they serve isn't willing to assist them in this time of need (either through donations or tax support, or both), maybe they should let their trucks be repossessed and close the station!

Maybe some of our scholarly brothers can enlighten us but I'm pretty sure that the founding fathers reference to "life" in the Declaration of Independence wasn't referring to the provision of EMS or even healthcare but rather the freedom from persecution by the Government. Was there even any organized healthcare system in the 18th century? As ALS said, sure our system if flawed but it's still way better than most of the alternatives! I once vacationed on an island in the Caribbean that didn't have a defibrillator - anywhere on the island of several thousand people. The "hospital" on the island didn't even have one! We have defibrillators EVERYWHERE. Just as one simple example. And, just so someone else gets their chops busted a little - Hey ALS, didn't you swear to support and defend the Constitution? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happy hour is in the Declaration of Independence. Sorry, smelled blood and wanted to swarm. I think tax subsidies for emergency services are important to insure that the system exists but the taxes should be offset by user fees or charges so the taxpayer doesn't suffer. BVFDJC316, don't get discouraged because people disagreed with you - that's one of the reasons I joined EMTBravo - to exchange ideas, discuss thoughts, learn from other members, and stay abreast of what's going on around me. You're doing the same thing and there's nothing wrong with that. Edited for my insanity!

Wait a minute - you mean actually pay for a service that I receive? The nerve! Please forgive the sarcasm but I don't see anything wrong with charging the users of EMS service for that service - providing the fees are customary and reasonable and actually reflect the services provided! It's like tolls - compare any other road in NYS with the Thruway after a snowstorm and invariably the Thruway is clear before other highways. Due, in part, to the tolls providing for the maintenance and a higher expectation for this level of service. As has been posted before, many agencies now bill for service as a way of reducing the financial burden on the community as a whole. It's what we pay to have insurance for!

Hey, anyone know what day the meeting is on? Is it Tuesday?

This same point came up in a thread a while back and I'm someone more saavy on this site will find it and post a link to it here again. Why do we still embrace the use of "courtesy" lights so much? They're just that - a courtesy light to indicate that someone is going to a fire/EMS call. Nobody is under any obligation to yield to these vehicles and the operator has no special privileges under the law but we all here stories time and time again about someone being bullied to move over by a blue/green lighter or stories like the news story that started this thread. Unless there is substantially more education for the users of these lights, I think they're a dis-service to our services.