Motor Vehicle Accident: The Appropriate Terminolgy To Dispatch?

[x635 4,066]

In Southern California and other muncipalities across the nation are changing the terminolgy of "Motor Vehicle Accidents"

These incidents are reffered to now as "Traffic Collision" or "Traffic Incident".

From what I've learned via various sources, the change in terminolgy was for a more accurate description of the incident....not all MVA's are MVA's. Take the drunk driver who hits a pole on the way home from the bar at 4AM...is that really an "accident"?

Is the lady who's blood sugar dropped and went into diabetic shock really an accident?

Is a driver who's talking on a cell phone and hits a pedestrian an accident?

I know "accident" means not intending to do harm, but is dispatching an MVA as an MVA giving some tunnel vision? Would dispatching it as a "Traffic Collision" or "Traffic Incident" spark the curiousity in some responders, possibly getting them to the root cause faster?

Also, totally unrelated, from a legal standpoint, is defining a "motor vehicle accident" helpful in some cases?

[dadbo46 50]

"Motor Vehicle Accident, "Property Damage Automobile Accident" and Personal Injury Automobile Accident" works for me.

MVA, PDAA and PIAA don't work on dispatch. Too many letters that can become confusing.

And 10-50 or Signal 4 don't cut it anymore !

[AFS1970 504]

I have been consiously trying to change from saying accident to colision at work, I am not always successful, especially when thinking about the abreviatiuon MVA and not MVC. Several of our Police Officers started doing this and that is what got me started after some explanations.

I have heard from these officers that colision is a statement of fact, in that we know that two objects colided. Accident is a statement of opinion, as we really do not know prior to the investigation what the driver(s) intentions were. This has come up in court cases where a good defense attourney has been able to ask how an officer has been able to find someone at fault for an accidental occurance.

I am not a lawyer so I can't tell you if this is all true or not, but it actually does make sense, which is why I have been trying to make the change personally.

[abaduck 123]

In the UK, RTC - Road Traffic Collision - is in frequent use. Works for me. I don't think what you call it at the dispatch stage has any special importance, so long as we all know we're going to some kind of wreck. The most useful information is the followup description - 'car vs. pole', 'ped. struck', 'rollover with entrapment', whatever. Leave definitions of 'accident' to the lawyers. The lady who goes into diabetic shock - well, that's an EMS call which happens to be on a highway, unless it caused her to wreck her car, in which case it's an MVA/RTC/whatever, and we'll worry about the precise cause later. As for the drunk... the car's still wrecked, they're still pinned/injured/whatever, the intox. is a matter for LE and EMS to bear in mind when they discover it, that's all.

Mike

[Guest MVFD334]

Wow... I mean does it make a difference if the person hit a car, pole or house... I thought our job was to respond and tend care and get the scene cleared, not try to reword an incident based on "proper" vocabulary. That person on the cell, the lady with low blood sugar and even that drunk at 4 in the morning most likely, actually lets make that a 99.9% probabilty that they didnt intend for it to happen.

**Accident-

An accident is a specific, identifiable, unexpected, unusual and unintended external event which occurs in a particular time and place, without apparent or deliberate cause but with marked effects. It implies a generally negative probabilistic outcome which may have been avoided or prevented had circumstances leading up to the accident been recognized, and acted upon, prior to its occurrence.

Narrowly defined, the designation may refer only to the event, while not including the circumstances (facts surrounding) or results of the event; i.e., ‘accident’ is constrained to an immediate incident, the occurrence of which results in an unplanned outcome. **

On the other hand I think any acronym or 10 code is going to be confusing, Especially when not hearing the dispatch in its entirty. I do like how Putnam 911 breaks down there texts.. Traffic/Transportation Accident and usually you'll get what was involved. ex) motorcycle, suv, pedestrian.

[nycemt728 49]

Good points mvfd334. This is nuts!! People are injured and traffic is a problem, both requiring our assistance. If there's more info in the text of the dispatch, or if people want to word their reports (especially LE) to reflect the true cause of an incident, by all means. HOWEVER, how many times have we come upon a call that is not what it is dispatched as??? You can call it whatever you want, but we as professionals are trained to, and should always deal with what we are presented with and not not be lazy and jump to conclusions that are not substantiated b/c we are not yet onscene! Bottom line, classification of anything should not be in our minds until AFTER the call is completed.

Edited April 20, 2008 by nycemt728

[crcocr1 8]

I am a [poor] third year law student studying for the bar exam in july. Although I am NOT a lawyer, the term "Motor Vehicle Collision" would be better from a legal standpoint as it does not denote accident or fault and leaves the determination of fault to a jury, if a case were to get to trial. Of course, any difference in terminology would be subtle as witnesses testify, documents are admitted into evidence, and the like.

Personally, I agree with the comments of my fellow FF/EMTs. In the end, an individual is injured or dead. It is a worrysome event regardless of fault. We bear an ethical duty to assist the injured and protect personal property and should do so on or off-duty.

[99subi 121]

To me no matter the situation they all should be treated as worst case scenarios so calling it in for an mva even if its somthing stupid is ok in my book.