Highway Relationships Between PD And FD

[x635 4,066]

Recently, we've all heard about the case where a NJ Fire chief was locked up because he refused to move his rigs, because he wanted to protect his men.

On the troopers side, he wanted to, and is required to, keep traffic flowing to the best of his abilty, among several other duties. He has a job to do as well, and consequences to face if he doesn't do it.

Now, maybe personalities clashed at this scene here, but I'm not looking to discuss this isolated incident.

I've heard of this happening before, in various locales, and I'm wondering what can be done to better improve the working relationship between PD and FD on our dangerous highways.

We have the duty, as FF's, to manage the scene, minimize the hazards, and treat the patients.

The troopers often have the same goal in mind, but they recieve pressure from up above to keep the traffic flowing, have a lot of paperwork to do, and also need to clear the scene as quickly as possible because they cover a large are. Often, these are directives issued by superior officers. Many times, the troopers just want an ambulance, but don't understand how we do things.

Sometimes, I can even see where a trooper is coming from. Once, while dispatching, there was a VERY minor MVA on the Saw Mill, with a car into the guardrail. The PD requested an ambulance, and as per FD policy, the FD responded as well. Understandable. But now, you have the ambulance, the paramedic flycar, three fire chiefs, a rescue truck, an engine, a support vehicle, and VAC members personal vehicles, along with the HELP truck and Tow truck ALL on scene of this minor, one patient MVA on a very narrow roadway during rush hour. Then, to top it all off, one of the responding VAC members responded in their personal vehicle, and LEFT IT ON THE LEFT LANE while the VAC transported. If I was a trooper, I'd be pretty pissed off too.

So, what can be done to immprove our working relationships? Could training and both sides working together so we understand each others roles help to minimize tensions on the scene and keep us all safe, and more importantly, keep us all happy and working together?

Edited December 1, 2006 by x635

[antiquefirelt 994]

Up here in the Right hand corner, the Fire Chief (read FD) , by law, has the ultimate authority at accidents scenes to ensure the safety of the public and personnel. Unti recently this has conflicted with many PD's who feel that keeping traffic moving is the most important issue. The next problem started when some Fire Chief decided to get a law introduced to mandate fire depts have traffic safety training and special equipment to block traffic or otherwise direct traffic. On the surface this seemed smart, but now we have a mandate as to what must be done, what must be deployed and what we must wear if we are controlling traffic in any manner. The police have no requirements! We have to wear vets put out cones determined by the posted speed limit and carry large pink signs, the PD? Nothing, stand in traffic with dark blues and nothing else if thats what they want to do.

Our dept. decided we won't direct traffic at all. THis means no one waves anyone through or turns them around. We just block off the lane or road and go to work, immediately requesting PD control the traffic. For the most part, the PD understands and agrees, having themselves had numerous close calls and can read how many officers are hit each year (many more than FFers). Once in a while this rsult in some ruffled feathers but we have yet to have anyone arrested or even threatened with arrest, and we do maintain our safety zones until we leave.

While I can understand an officer's need to control traffic safely, I would refuse to move any blocking vehicle while any of my personnel or civilians were still in the roadway or needed to go into the roadway (retrieve stuff from the bus or truck).

[CTFF 65]

can even see where a trooper is coming from. Once, while dispatching, there was a VERY minor MVA on the Saw Mill, with a car into the guardrail. The PD requested an ambulance, and as per FD policy, the FD responded as well. Understandable. But now, you have the ambulance, the paramedic flycar, three fire chiefs, a rescue truck, an engine, a support vehicle, and VAC members personal vehicles, along with the HELP truck and Tow truck ALL on scene of this minor, one patient MVA on a very narrow roadway during rush hour. Then, to top it all off, one of the responding VAC members responded in their personal vehicle, and LEFT IT ON THE LEFT LANE while the VAC transported.  If I was a trooper, I'd be pretty pissed off too.

So, what can be done to immprove our working relationships? Could training and both sides working together so we understand each others roles help to minimize tensions on the scene and keep us all safe, and more importantly, keep us all happy and working together?

←

First on the minor accident on the saw mill. Are that many units needed? The answer is clearly NO. The officers in charge of each Dept (Fire and Ambulance) need to notify dispatch that members not on scene already are not needed and should report for station coverage or something to that effect. Once the scene is controlled.

Yes, training is needed between agencies so situations like this do not occur. all Police Officers need to understand the benefits of blocking a scene with a fire engine. The safety of emergency workers should never be compromised for "the flow of traffic".

Everyone should check out www.firefighterclosecalls.com

Under the section "Close Calls- Apparatus/Vehicle/Highway" There are plenty of good photos of proper placement of Apparatus on scene and a few photo's of cop cars taking the brunt of secondary accidents.

Edited December 1, 2006 by CTFF

[Guest alsfirefighter]

1. Who honestly cares if the PD has or doesn't have standards for when they are taking care of traffic? I for one don't. The agencies I deal with require their officers to wear vests. One department I'm with requires nothing, the other does in regard to vest. One only fire police every wear them...if they have them on them. How many standards do they follow or policies their department has that most FD's do not that would make sense for us to do similiar or follow because they are law/standards. I have a municipality that the police officers get fit tested every year and get a physical to wear both gas masks and SCBA's. And the FD DOESN'T! Meanwhile who spends more time in it? The FD.

2. While the chief has responsibility for overall public safety, that does not make the scene "my scene" or the "fire departmetns" scene. PD is still responsible for the investigation and documentation.

3. The comes down to common sense and many still do not get it. Its not about you, its about the people we serve. ALL OF THEM, the ones on the road that didn't have a problem as well. There is no reason to put all that equipment on the road. Yet, you need 3 chiefs to a minor MVA...for what? When the majority of the time I witness poor blocking and positioning of such vehicles. Then add in as Seth stated, the often blue and green light parade and its a mess. We want our cake and want to eat it too. Well that's not always right.

What is an MVA for the FD....9 times out of 10 you are doing an EMS assist. Facilitating the removal of patients for EMS and mitigating any hazards to them and the person involved. Lets not lose focus.

[antiquefirelt 994]

1. Who honestly cares if the PD has or doesn't have standards for when they are taking care of traffic? I for one don't.

Nor do I , my point is that we don't have any reason to do any traffic control, why would we when we have more important duties and if we did would be held to a higher standard.

2. While the chief has responsibility for overall public safety, that does not make the scene "my scene" or the "fire departmetns" scene. PD is still responsible for the investigation and documentation.

Here, once the FD is called and arrives the safety of the public is the responsibility of the FD. Of course the PD doesn't forget this is also their responsibility, but they are not equipped to help other than traffic control. (No ESU in our state) Investigation and documentation are not priorities while traffic is buzzing past personnel and civilians at the scene.

3. The comes down to common sense and many still do not get it. Its not about you, its about the people we serve. ALL OF THEM, the ones on the road that didn't have a problem as well.

Ah, the cops arguement to keep traffic flowing. Well I'll bet that most of the people sitting in traffic are not having as bad a day as those involved in the accident. In 20 years in this business, I've been bumped by cars passing through scenes, I've seen a drunk pass three cruisers, a fire truck and an ambulance then stop when an officer yelled at him, we've had cars take mirrors off ambulances awhen they were watching the scene and not the road and the number of other close calls is ridiculous. So I really don't care how long people have to wait for the road to open if our patients or personnel are in the roadway.

What is an MVA for the FD....9 times out of 10 you are doing an EMS assist. Facilitating the removal of patients for EMS and mitigating any hazards to them and the person involved. Lets not lose focus.

Again, in our little piece of America, the FD runs EMS. The engine is an essential peice of apparatus at an accident scene as a large blocking barrier. Of course it would be rare to see more than one engine and maybe a squad if the Jaws were required, so some of the overkill is not an issue for us. But, are we assisting EMS or is EMS assisting us by transporting our patients? As you previously stated the end goal is providing the fastest most professional service to those in need.

Edited December 1, 2006 by antiquefirelt

[x635 4,066]

Let's face a fact here. Many of us have sat in traffic, sometimes for a BS accident, and complained about sitting stopped in traffic for a minor accident. Or even a construction site where no one is working. Now when you put yourselves on the other end of the spectrum, it's fine.

The officer has a job to keep traffic moving...and I've seen supervisors scream at...even write up....their patrolmen for shutting down a road or closing a lane. We all know the nightmare this creates, and of course our safety always comes first, but this area is a traffic nightmare, and we also should be cognisant of that as well.

Yes, I feel more comforable with an apparatus blocking the scene, especially on a high speed roadway, but sometimes, as my example above, we need to realize we aren't always right, and sometimes we need to learn to work together better.

I also feel placing an apparatus 100 feet from the scene to warn drivers ahead of time, or placing a sign, is a smart move.

[EMTbravo 312]

In regards to this thread http://emtbravo.net/index.php?showtopic=14953

and the hate mail I got:

C'mon, where are all the people that gave us heat for locking the topic bashing the NH State Trooper for arresting the fire chief?????

If this was such an important issue, aren't you guys going to add your views and insight into this constructive thread? Or was thread locking just an excuse more EMTBravo-hater ammo, and an excuse to make up more unfounded rumors and falsehoods about the operations of this site???/?

Let's see some constructive discussion on how we can better our working relationshops with police on the highways.

[antiquefirelt 994]

I agree there are times when everyone can just go to the sidewalk and make our the paperwork and open the lane. That makes sense to me other than teh PD guys who are now walking around taking pictures out in the roadway with no barrier. But this is their issue not ours.

Just recently we were at a scene to check that a car wasn't on fire after an airbag deployed (cop thought the wheel was hot?). No injuries, no EMS. We block the lane and investigate the car, no fire, time to clear. Meanwwhile the PD is interviewing the witnesses and occupants on the yellow dividing line at night in the drizzle!! So as you can see common sense ain't so common.

[antiquefirelt 994]

C'mon, where are all the people that gave us heat for locking the topic bashing the N State Trooper for arresting the fire chief?????

If this was such an important issue, aren't you going to add your views and insight into this constructive thread? Or was thread locking just an excuse more EMTBravo-hater ammo?

Let's see some constructive discussion on how we can better our working relationshops with police on the highways.

←

How about meeting with PD supervisors and explaining why we block the raod? Show them that not only are we safer they are too as well as the public. This is what worked for us. Our meeting turned in to a bunch of PD guys talking about the numerous close calls and clips they had at accidents and traffic stops. Ask them why the traffic has to get moving? What is the major outcome? They need more help to redirect or control the scene? Tell them to bring this up next contract time, let us speak on your behalf. We support your need to better control the traffic and the need for more cars on the street.

[turk182 37]

1.  Who honestly cares if the PD has or doesn't have standards for when they are taking care of traffic?  I for one don't.  The agencies I deal with require their officers to wear vests.  One department I'm with requires nothing, the other does in regard to vest.  One only fire police every wear them...if they have them on them.  How many standards do they follow or policies their department has that most FD's do not that would make sense for us to do similiar or follow because they are law/standards.  I have a municipality that the police officers get fit tested every year and get a physical to wear both gas masks and SCBA's.  And the FD DOESN'T!  Meanwhile who spends more time in it?  The FD.

2.  While the chief has responsibility for overall public safety, that does not make the scene "my scene" or the "fire departmetns" scene.  PD is still responsible for the investigation and documentation. 

3.  The comes down to common sense and many still do not get it.  Its not about you, its about the people we serve.  ALL OF THEM, the ones on the road that didn't have a problem as well.  There is no reason to put all that equipment on the road.  Yet, you need 3 chiefs to a minor MVA...for what?  When the majority of the time I witness poor blocking and positioning of such vehicles.  Then add in as Seth stated, the often blue and green light parade and its a mess.  We want our cake and want to eat it too.  Well that's not always right.

What is an MVA for the FD....9 times out of 10 you are doing an EMS assist.  Facilitating the removal of patients for EMS and mitigating any hazards to them and the person involved.  Lets not lose focus.

←

Please tell me that I am mis reading #3 "Its not about you, its about the people we serve." While scene safety does protect those who are already involved isn't it really about protecting us. If I am working a job on say I 95 I really could care less about the people stuck in traffic. My first concern is make it safe(as safe as I can). It is too bad that people will be delayed but I did not cause the accident and I would really like to go home to my famliy at the end of the tour.

[Jason762 2]

Please tell me that I am mis reading #3 "Its not about you, its about the people we serve."  While scene safety does protect those who are already involved isn't it really about protecting us. If I am working a job on say I 95 I really could care less about the people stuck in traffic.  My first concern is make it safe(as safe as I can).  It is too bad that people will be delayed but I did not cause the accident and I would really like to go home to my famliy at the end of the tour.

←

You're right Turk...I work up on I-95 all the time and the people that come whipping up that highway could care less about us. We have to slow them down and provide a means of safety for us. That means closing down the lane next to the accident and using fire apparatus as a means of blocking. Granted I don't deal with the parade of vollies cars that show up in other towns (I can see that being a real traffic problem). That should be dealt with by the respective fire cheif.

I've seen members come very close to getting clipped by passing cars on both the highway and the city streets. The highway is probably the single most dangerous place we operate at. If we inconvience someone for a little while, so be it. I don't like sitting in traffic either, nut its a fact of life living in the NYC metro area.

As for the thread I started earlier i did not mean to spark any hate maill sending or bashing of this site. I also must have missed the thread about the NH trooper. Once in a while I actually have to do things other than read these message boards and i may miss a few topics. So if I started an e-mail war I appologize, but I still stand behind the statement that we should be free to discuss controversial topics, unless they are harassing or involve finger pointing.

[EMTbravo 312]

So if I started an e-mail war I appologize, but I still stand behind the statement that we should be free to discuss controversial topics, unless they are harassing or involve finger pointing.

←

We can discuss conterversial topics when done so constructively. In fact, there have been numerous topics on this board that are conterversial and have been discussed constructively.

When people start making posts calling the officer a "pig", "he should get hit by a car" etc, then that thread is done. Especially coupled with the fact people were commenting on the incident, and completly skipped over the fact this wasn't about the blocking of the roadway, this was about the argument and behavior that ensued. We felt it best to lock the thread, and begin a new discussion about the traffic safety aspect of the issue, not the specific, isolated incident of two people who had issues with each other. The thread was left open for people to read, along with additional resources to read about the incident.

It served no purpose to continue to speculate about this incident.

[CPAGE 2]

I would think that the troopers should be putting out flairs and use the car to stop the traffic in the lane near the scene. This would give the fd the room to work the scene as well protect the fd unit that is blocking the lane at the scene. This would also ensure that it is not left up to the fd to shut down the road.

It is also my department ruke that no pov's go on the highway at any time only our trucks and chief's cars.

Well that is my 2 cents.

[JCESU 20]

Over the years the FD down here has been extended many liberties. Twice in my career I have had the task of being backed into a situation whereas I had no choice but to make an arrest, bunker gear and all because of a FF being disorderly and abusive. In NJ the PD's have control of accident scenes, as it is a Police investigation. EMS has control of the patient, as they are responsible for patient care. Both of these agencies get along just fine and most of the time we are doing the cutting for them, because of our rapport and experience we are able to work hand in hand with them (if its a pin otherwise we do whatever we can to help or treat the PT until they arrive) with our safety and the PT's health being paramount. All MVA's are to be treated as a crime scene until mitigating factors determine otherwise (obviously more than a fender bender). That means don't throw kitty litter all over the place etc. or cut the battery cable... in other words it must be kept in pristine condition until the AI guy does his thing or the Officer collects his information.

Up until recently the FD would be called for fluid spills/cleanups etc. but it had become so out of control in that they made the scene considerably more dangerous and harder to manage. I have seen as many as (6) six pieces of apparatus arrive on scene to throw kitty litter on anti-freeze. And they come from different directions and park for convenience not scene safety. Now we carry speedy dry on the E.S.U. Wagons and there is no need to call the FD for anything and there is one truck with two Officers that are trained in crime scene preservation. It doesn't happen in all cases but most. Please don't take any of my rambling as anti-FF.

The consideration for placement of Fire Equipment is not the concern for shutting down traffic. I have absolutely no problem with shutting down traffic if it makes my work site safer. Its when Emergency vehicles are parked where they increase the chances of causing a secondary accident or making traffic patterns more confusing and unsafe that the PD must intervene and have the trucks moved. It’s not to be debated. If I ask someone to move and they refuse I'll generally speak to their supervisor first and then I will let them escalate it from there...usually they just comply. Why? Because that is the PD's job-Traffic Enforcement-among many other things. I understand the numbers game at the end of the year. Each response adds up I am certainly pro-labor/job security. But the whole big picture must be taken into account when dealing with these scenes. And by getting nasty or chesty with an Officer that is simply doing his job, well, obviously we have read how that story ends. Conversely if you have a problem with the Officer.....comply with his directions but then take it up with his Supervisor.

I look forward to any constructive criticism and comments.

[antiquefirelt 994]

JCESU: here goes: I couldn't agree more ont he misuse of fire apparatus. We have some depts. around us that roll the same to a MVA as a structure fire and createe a huge traffic issue needlessly. It takes a decent set of SOG's , quality leadership and well defined missions to work together well.

But, how do you safely extricate people from new cars without cutting the battery? Can't you properly document this by asking the crew who did the extrication?

Our AI officers usually don't get near the vehicles until the patients are gone, as they use the extrication time to secure the scene, and find uninjured witnesses. Of course we don't have many officers available so a few are quite busy, and our EMS units only have one hospital to transport to unless the victim is flown out from the scene.

No need for the FD at some scenes but when cutting? So you have no or very limited extinguishing capabilitites at the scene? While we don't stretch a line every time the jaws operate we always have personnel available and ready to if need be.

What kicks in the need for the FD?

As for police having scene control because it is an investigation: this makes no sense to me. Isn't ensure the safety of the victims the first priority. I think the public would not be happy to know that the legal system is more concerned with finding who's at fault then providing the best care for victims. Of course I'd love it if the PD said they were in charge of accidents here, we could take up much sooner. Anytime someone else wants to take the responsibilty for everyone's safety at a scene, they can have it. I'll just take care of my crew and myself!

But I certainly can see some validity in your issues and given the ESU, EMS and FD system you folks run with, it makes ours looks pretty simple.

[firemoose827 324]

). That means don't throw kitty litter all over the place etc. or cut the battery cable... in other words it must be kept in pristine condition until the AI guy does his thing or the Officer collects his information.

Wow, I have never heard of this. Is this just in NJ or is it true for all law enforcement agencies?

The reason I ask is because we always cut the battery and take all precautions for safety at every MVA, and no one has ever said anything to us, so I want to make sure we aren't doing anything to make the PD's job harder.

As far as highway response, we usually only send our eng. 5023. It has a TNT tool, cribbing, and hand tools for basic extrication and cuts down on the response of the rescue. We only have the rescue respond to serious MVA's where the heavy equipment is needed. Usually only ONE chief goes to the scene, and NO POV"S are to respond to the scene. So if everything goes well we have one Eng., one chief, an amb. and the PD. Our eng. parks in a buffer position untill the scene is deemed safe than moved to the side.

Our relationship with the PD is generally a great one, they help us with scene security and pt care, and we help them with scene re-creations.

[Guest]

I'm curious to know what kind of MVAs are you guys responding to on parkways/highways that cars are "zooming by" at 70mph. It’s been my experience with highway incidents that people always tend to slow down and "rubberneck" at the sight of an accident or emergency vehicles. I can't remember one incident where I've been on a highway working a scene and have had cars "zoom" by me.

Usually it’s us fighting traffic to get there. Sometimes we have to enter the parkway and drive in the wrong direction due to the fact that traffic leading up to the accident is at a standstill.

There are times when an incident can be managed from the shoulder or by shutting down a couple of lanes. In the latter you create such a bottle neck that traffic automatically slows to a crawl. As a law enforcement officer I could care less about the flow of traffic. The safety of my partners, other emergency workers and victims comes first. At the same time if I can open up a lane and move people along in a safe manner then I will do so.

As for the comments someone made about it being FD policy to respond to all MVAs, if you have a competent Police Officer who is primary on scene calling you off, why still respond? Many times FD shows up with such a large number of apparatus that you make a mountain of what was once a mole hill. Instead of helping the problem you've now become part of it.

There are times of course when you have multiple pins, a car has rolled over into the woods or a patient with severe trauma. In those cases the more the merrier. Shut everything down in both directions, set up the LZ and lets all get to work. Yet when it’s a minor "neck and back pain", you're called off and still feel the need to respond lights and sirens you become a danger. Not only to pedestrians and other motorists but also yourselves. At the end of the day I understand that it’s all about a numbers game and justification.

For any FF who thinks that a motor vehicle accident is his/her scene or that FD is "in charge" at such an incident, you're mistaken. If FD wants MVAs then they should start writing up 104s and doing the investigations after they've conducted the rescue. Until that happens I think that PD should have the final say at car wrecks and FD is a welcome agency in support of PD.

By the way, I have a buddy who works FD in the Bronx. He's always telling me stories on how the monitor NYPD SOD radio in order to race ESU to a job that has not been assigned to them. He says that when they get there first, they position the rig in a way as to block access for ESU. Go figure.

[Jason762 2]

I'm curious to know what kind of MVAs are you guys responding to on parkways/highways that cars are "zooming by" at 70mph.  It’s been my experience with highway incidents that people always tend to slow down and "rubberneck" at the sight of an accident or emergency vehicles.  I can't remember one incident where I've been on a highway working a scene and have had cars "zoom" by me.

These are the minor accidents, where the vehicles have already pulled over to the shoulder, but the occupants are still complaining of injuries. This situation still warrants an FD response due to the injuries but because all travel lanes are open vehicles are flying by at 70+ mph. At at incident like this the FD needs to shut down a lane for the safety of its members, EMS, and PD. Typically traffic is like you explained, bumper to bumper, but even here the drivers are so distracted looking at the crash they pay no attention to the individuals working around the scene and can cause injuries that way. Yet anbother reason to close down a lane.

As for the comments someone made about it being FD policy to respond to all MVAs, if you have a competent Police Officer who is primary on scene calling you off, why still respond? 

Who is to say what PO's are competant and what PO's are not. Where I work we are the first responders, not the PD so who are they to call me off? As an EMT why would I let a PO with little to no EMS training or experience cancel me?

For any FF who thinks that a motor vehicle accident is his/her scene or that FD is "in charge" at such an incident, you're mistaken.  If FD wants MVAs then they should start writing up 104s and doing the investigations after they've conducted the rescue.  Until that happens I think that PD should have the final say at car wrecks and FD is a welcome agency in support of PD.

Perhaps you're talking about NY only, but in CT the fire officer is in charge. Refer back to X152's post, where he states the CT statute number.

[x152 179]

J762- The Statute in CT was mentioned under a different topic. For those who are interested in learning more, they can refer to Connecticut General Statutes 7-313e (Authority of a Fire Chief or Fire Officer at the scene of an emergency).

The law clearly gives the authority to control and maintain the scene to the Fire Chief or Fire Officer within the jurisdiction that the emergency occurs. (Ex: Accident occurring on I-84 in Newtown (the Newtown/Sandy Hook units would be in charge and not the CSP.)

Although the law in Connecticut for many years, this is not to say that local or State Police officials have not always followed the law. I can remember an incident similar to the recent "Jersey" arrest occurring on I-95 in the town of Westbrook (CT) about 15 years ago.

In our area of the State (Southwestern CT), we are fortunate to have a fairly well-run troop (G) that has a decent relationship with fire and this type of situation is usually avoided by mutual understanding of each other's responsibilities.

762 - Your other points about proper apparatus placement are noteworthy and valid, you must have been trained by a decent EVOC instructor.

[Guest TOYBUFF911]

To clear up some things JCESU said. I think he is referring more towards the everyday accidents that are not a pin, that guys over respond too. Many times both agencies do not recieve the proper updates from the units on scene or roll up on things. ESU knows what FD's role is at an accident and 90% of the time we give a detailed update to our communications division if it is a pin or not and what is needed at the scene, so they advise FD and the chief can scale back their response or roll additional resources. Most FD chiefs are great and will take our word for it and others will keep rolling everything and that kinda puts a wrinkle in things especially when it is nothing. It also puts a very bad legal liability on the municipality if one department gives an update of a cancellation or something minor and that is not followed through and an accident occurs (god forbid a fatality). That opens up the door for severe lawsuits and unhappy unions if a police or firefighter is injured unnecassarily. If it is a crime scene or a police involved incident resulting in an accident, ESU requests sole control of the scene, as long as patient care is not comprimised. For a really bad PIN, when there is work for everyone ESU and FD work very well together. It is the smaller accidents that tend to cause problems, when guys are looking for work cutting battery cables when patients are already out of the car or when it is so minor that we need some of the FD units to clear the scene so traffic can flow and tow trucks and others, who are necessary can get to the scene while insuring rescuer safety. Ultimately on highway calls we go the extra step and try and assist further by removing vehicles from the roadway to get traffic flowing. I know it is hard for some of us to swallow, but the guy writing the accident report is conducting a police investigation and is in charge...

I read this incident and the facts and as I read, were that PD and Ems were on scene on the shoulder safely, with no pin and no rescuer safety concerns and that the chief arrived and did not speak to the officer or Ems and assess if he and his department were needed, which they were not. Sounds like the chief needs some common sense training because these incidents are not common and there are not many problems between agencies. If it looks like Bull, then use common sense and send one engine to the scene hold them on the rig on scene, until needed and have the rest of your equipment stage at the entrance ramp closest to the scene unitl needed. It takes one glance upon arrival by the chief to tell if it is real or Bull####.

[Guest]

Who is to say what PO's are competant and what PO's are not. Where I work we are the first responders, not the PD so who are they to call me off? As an EMT why would I let a PO with little to no EMS training or experience cancel me?

Don't know where you work or what level of training you have. Here in NY (which is the only place that I can speak of being that I work in NY) there are cops who far surpass your EMT level training. Some guys are medics and there are a few in NYPD ESU who are actually doctors. At the least every member in ESU is trained to be an EMT. So suffice to say I think that they are competent enough to call off some FF/CFR/EMT. Where I work FD is only trained to the CFR-D level, for the most part they want nothing to have to do with an MVA unless it involves some sort of pin or technical recsue. Yet they show up anyway with about 8 rigs to a minor neck and back after being called off just to boost their numbers, all the while placing innocent people at risk by means of their response.

Like toybuff stated, if it's a heavy job then everything seems to run smoothly without any hitches for the most part. It's the minor ones that are becoming a problem. Too bad for FD because here in NY things run a bit differently then in CT.

[x635 4,066]

Well, even if those cops are paramedics or doctors (I know in FDNY and YFD there are also doctors and paramedics), what level are they supposed to be operating at with their agency? Also, what roles does EMS play in this, and is PD cancelling FD because they are responding for EMS reasons, or MVA reasons? If EMS wants the FD and PD does not, who wins?

I think personalities also have a lot to play in this. If we could all somehow get along better, maybe then we could learn to respect one another and trust the other agencies decisions. No one should have to be "in control", we should all learn to work together, cut down on all the BS, and decide what best for the victims of these accidents and our safety.....not whats best for our egos. We all want to work, but it disgusts me that in some places people actually fight over it. Everyone has a role, and the only thing that bothers me is when services and equipment is duplicated uneccasarily, which wastes taxpayers money that could be put to better use.

As far as MVA's with cars going slowly by you, yeah, sometimes, but I've been at a lot of MVAs- on Central Ave, I-95 in CT and NJ, I-290 in MA, I87 in NY, and a variety of other local roadways and highways, and there are cars that could care less and fly by the scene. I've almost been hit several times, and cars come dangerously close to EMS people operating because the FD is not there to assist with traffic control. In a lot of these places, only a single officer responds...and he's nothing compared to the density of traffic he has to deal with.

I agree with the amount of apparatus (and in some cases, departments) responding to MVA's in some jurisdictions.........sometimes, this ties up apparatus that have to commit to a highway and go miles out of their district......all in the while, leaving their district with less then adequate fire protection.

Also, don't get me wrong, big fire truck should block scenes, along with flares, signage and other methods when EMS is working at any MVA scene. I've almost been hit several times. At least, an engine company should respond on minor MVAs, at the very least to assist PD with traffic control, to they too can not tie up too many of their resources.

Edited December 4, 2006 by x635

[ajsbear 11]

Kingsixx as for FD always resonding to MVA's whan was the last time PD pulled speedy dry from their trunk? The tow trucks will sweep off the pieces of the car but they don't carry speedy dry either. OK, lets leave the anti freeze, oil, and other fluids on the road to cause the next MVA which may be more serious and require extracation. An ounce of prevention brother.

[Guest]

Did you read my post? If not needed on scene I will call off FD. That means that there isn't any reason for you guys to be there, including the spreading of speedy dry. If there are fluids in the roadway rest assured that you'll be getting call.

I see your ounce of prevention and I raise you half a pound of common sense.

[ajsbear 11]

Did you read my post?  If not needed on scene I will call off FD.  That means that there isn't any reason for you guys to be there, including the spreading of speedy dry.  If there are fluids in the roadway rest assured that you'll be getting call.

I see your ounce of prevention and I raise you half a pound of common sense.

←

I've responded on calls where PD called us off, I won't mention what agency. Not only was there fluids, PD said no injury yet EMS transpoted 2. Not everyone is an EMT/Paramedic and even then one car with one officer trying to control everything. Once FD is toned out we are as far as I know required to respond unles a FD officer tells us not to. We can tone down the response to 1 rig. Also I have seen it where a car is removed on a tow truck and catches fire due to an electrical short caused by the accident. Need to disconect the battery. Not every PD has ESU or enough officers to send 2 or 3 to an MVA.

[Guest]

I've responded on calls where PD called us off, I won't mention what agency. Not only was there fluids, PD said no injury yet EMS transpoted 2.

Maybe you were called off due to the fact that EMS was already on scene and your services were not required. Perhaps the "victims" changed their tunes and all of a sudden developed back pain. As far as fluids most tow trucks carry speedy dry and can handle that. Except in Yonkers where someone in a certain agency made a big stink about tow trucks carrying speedy dry.

Like I said I know the numbers game and if you need to justify your job due to the fact that there are not enough fires then by all means respond to all MVAs but be careful getting there.

[EMTbravo 312]

Here's the deal.

This thread is to discuss how to improve working relationships, and not to bash or rant about another agency and specific situations.

Please keep this thread on topic, positive, and constructive so it can remain open. Thanks.

[Remember585 815]

If we (Fire/EMS) are dispatched to an MVA with injuries / possible injuries, why would we cancel our response? From the two sides of the radio, as a dispatcher and as a responder I have been involved in COUNTLESS INCIDENTS where PD cancels FD and/or EMS only to have to call them back. Once incident I recall was an MVA where the PD got there and said no injuries, no need for FD or EMS. The responding Chief said "All units going 10-8 per the PD." Was he right? Or was he wrong? 10 Minutes later the PD called back asking for FD for a fluid spill. Five minutes after that they asked for EMS. A few minutes after that, the Engine Company requested additional units because the vehicle was leaking gasoline into a storm drain.

Here's my questions.

1. Are we in any kind of a jam for cancelling our response to an MVA?

2. Are PD agencies trained / qualified to mitigate or even RECOGNIZE a hazardous situation?

3. Does PD have the right to cancel us? I know from my position at work we won't cancel ourselves under that recommendation, we live it up to the OIC.

4. What, legally speaking, is our responsibility when a request for us is cancelled? I think, and again this is just me, if the REQUESTOR withdraws the request we should be able to cancel - but if the PD did not request us and we get from another source, we should continue in. Period.

What is the responsibilities, per the letter of the law, not personal or Departmental preference, of PD at the scene of an MVA? I notice that SP will NEVER step in and try to tell FD or EMS what to do, it seems to be more of a local jurisdictional issue.

Who made the comment about FDs boosting their numbers? Give me a break. I know several Police Departments that generate an incident number for FD and EMS responses they DON'T EVEN RESPOND TO!!!! Some of these are Mutual Aid requests!

Does anyone have actual law that says what each side's responsibilities are on the scene of an MVA? Some PDs try to get clever and will send EMS ONLY, no FD, for a head injury at a location and "leave out" the "MVA" info. Sad, really sad. There is no reason why we can't have accident scenes where PD does the reports, summonses and investigation, FD controls traffic, lighting and the disentanglement, and EMS performs patient care. Wow, what a concept!!

Edited December 5, 2006 by Remember585

[Guest]

Well said by Remember585!

Here's another issue that plays into this whole game.

Did you know that FD's that respond onto the Thruway get paid? Or at least I'm aware that some do under a contract with the Thruway.

Therefore, the more times they enter the thruway, the more apparatus and manpower they send, and the more time they are there, the more they get paid from what I understand. I feel it's things like this that play into the culture that we are sending almost all our department to some of these MVA calls.

Although our kingsixx friend may come across a little strong, he does have some points. My brother is a police officer, and sometimes expresses his frusteration to me with his responding FD's. His main issue is that some FD ranking officers like to show up, exert their authorituy, and boss him around and give him orders. Obviously, this doesn't make him too happy, as he's more of a team player. Sometimes, he's completly off the road, in a parking lot, and a single passaenger has neck pain. And what does he get...the whole deal, when realistically only an ambulance was need and maybe at most an engine company.

I think too that tows should carry Speedy Dry.

[preemo16 1]

I didn't want to be a part of this thread because I have a lot of friends who are PD ... yeah I know that's unusual for a Jake. As usual though, a topic that involves FD and PD gets out of hand and turns into a bash and a one-upper-fest.

However, bravo reminded us ALL what the thread is SUPPOSED to be about, working together.

This is just my view on the subject, and if you take offense to anything I say, no matter what type of agency you are from, don't waste your time bitting at me. It won't do you, me, the agencies we work for, or those we serve any good.

Let's all work together because, one day, when one of us is having a "bad day", we are going to need the other...

Let's just deal with the hot topic ... an MVC that's is later deemed "minor". I understand that some of this may be open to interpretation, so just indulge me.

A call comes into 911 for an auto accident with unknown type injuries on a parkway / highway / interstate: PD responding, FD and EMS dispatched. Say PD gets there first which is what happens most of the time. Meanwhile, FD and EMS have just called in and are responding. The officer finds no apparent injuries, the vehicle(s) are smoking/steaming, and there are "fluids" leaking onto the roadway. The officer calls back to dispatch, states his findings, and let's say, recommends a "slow down" of FD and EMS?

....Bare in mind now that we all, PD FD and EMS, have our own specific training/abilities when it comes to vehicle crashes, and any one of us could overlook something that another is trained to recognize.....

So, back to the senario. A "slow down" or sometimes known as "proceed in non-emergency mode" is relayed. Why not let EMS continue up to the scene to evaluate the occupant(s). I am sure we have all heard of adrenaline, lol, and sometimes that can deny somebody's ability to sense what is going on with their body. So let EMS get up there, check 'em out and if an RMA is gotten, fine ... up to 10 minutes taken. Even if the bus holds at an on-ramp, or at another staging point, while the flycar medic secures the RMA, at least the bus is close in case transport is needed. Now for FD ... depending on the number and type of FD units responding, why not let first due (chief, rescue, engine ...) proceed to the scene while the other responding units hold, again, at a staging point wherever that may be. Now you have a minimal number of units at the actual scene that are trained in ALL aspects of a vehicle crash, and additional units nearby. If that FD on-scene unit deems it necessary to mitigate a problem then fine, get it done ... call for what you need. If not, they return the other FD units ... use only what is needed.

As I got to this point of my post, I took a look at TOYBUFF911's post from yesterday, and I see we kinda mentioned the same ideas. HOWEVER, seeing as how I have invested the time needed to type this, LOL, I am not going to delete it.

Perhaps the higher-ups of your agencies should sit down and look at each other's protocols regarding MVC's and discuss how to limit the stress that is obviously being caused. If we do not work together, someday someone may die ... wouldn't you like to know you did everything you could and used evey resource at your disposal to prevent it?

A final note ... in my 9+ years on the job, I can count on not quite both hands the number of times there have been "issues" at a crash scene between FD and PD (whether it be town, county, or state) ... and that usually come from a difference in personalities. So, it isn't all bad out there. Now if you'll excuse me, I gotta go hit the shower before I go in to work and sleep. STAY SAFE!