Another fire/police battle...

[JM15 386]

I didn't notice that line before either definitely changes my feelings toward this case.... If I was the officer in charge I would never put my people in harms way on a highway without protective blocking. Didn't the command of the State Police work hard to get the new "move over" law passed? didn't they praise the adoption of it? How is trying to prosecute a fire chief for keeping ALL of the emergency responders on the scene safe following the good intent of that law?

By the way.... thanks for the movie

Edit: Can't get the video to embed for some reason.

Edited January 30, 2011 by efdcapt115

[Monty 35]

I hadn't noticed this before. Now that I have, I'm not happy. Maybe things got a bit out of hand on the scene, maybe people were having a bad day, maybe the cop made a bad call. It happens.

But this is different. This has now gone way up the chain of command, and State Police have evidently decided to make an example of this Chief. Not good. Not going to help anyone.

My first thoughts were the same. But I've also seen on the 'net multiple different versions of the story - some including that it was after patient treatment had concluded, and the vehicle was hooked up to a tow truck. I'm sure all involved will be using radio time stamps, dash cams (if available) etc.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out ....

[helicopper 1,050]

I by no means meant it as a "challenge" to see who could/would be the IC, I meant it more to the fact that NYS seems to be, as I said, very ambiguous, and, it would be to everyone's benefit to come right out and say who is, as some other States have.

BUT, on the other hand, how many things do you have to have spelled out? In this case, yes, it would be nice, but every time an issue comes up, it cannot be expected to take an act of the State Legislature to definitely solve.

Everyone needs to learn to play nice in the sandbox, and these things need to be discussed and worked out AHEAD OF TIME. Have the FD officership approach the LE Agencies they deal with (or vice versa if you are a LEO), and explain the need/desire to never run into this issue in the first place, and that no one is looking to play "mine's bigger than yours", but work on a common ground.

It wouldn't be to everyone's benefit to "name the IC" because things are always different and rarely the same twice. There are so many variables that influence who should be represented in unified command - if we just did away the notion that a single person should be the sole person managing an incident we'd be much better off - that it is in our best interest to leave the law ambiguous but improve the training, support, and understanding of the process.

The fire to conceal a crime scene, the accident that becomes a haz-mat, the clandedstine drug lab, the search for a suspect in multiple jurisdictions, etc.etc.etc. How do you just boil this down and say any one person is or should be in charge.

The implementation of ICS needs to mature and people need to get beyond that first page in the book. There are some places that do this quite well and others, well that still thump their chest and proclaim themselves to be the supreme high mystic exalted ruler.

Training and Exercises are two simple ways to resolve this. Every incoming fire officer and every new police supervisor should be trained and exercised on their roles and responsibilities and how to interact with one another - TOGETHER - not in two different training centers 100 yards apart with a 14 foot fence separating them (for example).

As so many others have said, nothing is gained by lapsing into a pissing match on a scene.

[Alpinerunner 61]

Issues like this should be resolved by arguing some logic. If the patient is being removed or treated in the car, it should be easy for the FD to explain to the PD why the lane has to be blocked. On the other hand, if nothing is going on and units are waiting for the wrecker, it should be easy for the PD to explain to the FD why the lane should be open. No need for someone to be "in charge"

[antiquefirelt 994]

The fire to conceal a crime scene, the accident that becomes a haz-mat, the clandedstine drug lab, the search for a suspect in multiple jurisdictions, etc.etc.etc. How do you just boil this down and say any one person is or should be in charge.

I find it difficult to disagree with anything you've said on the subject, except to note that regardless of NIMS and unified command, ultimately in most cases one person will have the final say. Generally, the officer(fire/EMS/LE)with the most resources in the incident and the highest responsibility at the given moment, will generally have the final word. For example, regardless of Unified command the LE IC is not going to let others mess up a shooter at large call, even when EMS wants to treat patients. Similarly, a fire officer is hardly going to let PD open traffic at an accident if he/she feels it will endanger personnel. As has been noted, a forthright discussion before these incidents take place is the only rational way to handle this. There needs to be understanding amongst all the players as to the thought process behind these issues. I have yet to here from any LEO why keeping traffic flowing has benefits that outweigh the risks. Angry motorists? I also believe in using common sense in re-opening lanes and assessing the true risks vs. perceived. If sign offs can be done on the sidewalk then go there and open traffic. If the crews are in the bus, open traffic, but while personnel must be within 10 feet of a travel lane to do anything but watch the traffic? The lane should be closed.

My FD shuts down traffic at almost every MVA. This is done until we know who is where and that we can safely manage the scene. Then and only then do we free up lanes of traffic. For the most part our PD goes along with this and understands. Though it often causes some minor tense moments when the PD officer thinks the no PI means we should just forget our safety. We takes some shots from PD about shutting down the road every call, but in general it's harmless banter. At a recent accident in a private parking lot, we left just enough room (unintentionally) for a car to squeeze between an ambulance and parked cars. Nest thing a Jeep pulls through very slowly (thankfully) and literally pushes an engine Capt into the stretcher he was assisting in loading! Needless to say I was free to slam my fist on the hood of the Jeep, startling the driver into reality and forcing him to back out. Luckily his slow speed and the position of the Capt. resulted in nothing more than dirty shorts. he PD Sgt. on scene noted that he'd slammed his maglite on a few hoods when this had happened and relayed a few stories of being struck! Duh, and they give us crap about blocking the road? Our hope is that the Sgt. who is also their shop steward will relay the story to his men and kill the mockery as he realized our point afterward.

Edited January 28, 2011 by antiquefirelt

[helicopper 1,050]

I find it difficult to disagree with anything you've said on the subject, except to note that regardless of NIMS and unified command, ultimately in most cases one person will have the final say. Generally, the officer(fire/EMS/LE)with the most resources in the incident and the highest responsibility at the given moment, will generally have the final word. For example, regardless of Unified command the LE IC is not going to let others mess up a shooter at large call, even when EMS wants to treat patients. Similarly, a fire officer is hardly going to let PD open traffic at an accident if he/she feels it will endanger personnel. As has been noted, a forthright discussion before these incidents take place is the only rational way to handle this. There needs to be understanding amongst all the players as to the thought process behind these issues. I have yet to here from any LEO why keeping traffic flowing has benefits that outweigh the risks. Angry motorists? I also believe in using common sense in re-opening lanes and assessing the true risks vs. perceived. If sign offs can be done on the sidewalk then go there and open traffic. If the crews are in the bus, open traffic, but while personnel must be within 10 feet of a travel lane to do anything but watch the traffic? The lane should be closed.

This is another one of the fundamental misunderstandings about unified command. There is no one person with final say. Each representative in unified command agrees to the objectives, agrees to the plan, and oversees their resources (99% of the time there is no Operations Section Chief but if appointed, he/she would be the conductor of the emergency service symphony.

The EMS UC wouldn't be "messing up" a shooter at large call - he/she would convey his/her priorities to the other UC's and they would come up with a strategy to meet them. Perhaps LE would have to provide some security officers to accompany EMS or secure a corridor for EMS to quickly extract the victims to an area that is more secure. This is why the UC's need to communicate and have an understanding of this process.

Likewise, at a clandestine drug lab, the PD may suit up appropriately trained responders to secure the building for HMRT responders to enter for air monitoring / hazard assessment. Then crime scene processing may occur, evidence secured by PD and hazardous substances (not deemed evidence) secured by HMRT for disposal. I don't see how anyone can argue that this isn't a PD operation and a haz-mat operation concurrently and it isn't because of who has the most resources on scene (if that were the case some people would simply call more so they could assert their authority over everyone else ). At an arson job, you'd have a hard time convincing me that there aren't concurrent responsibilities for PD and FD, and the list goes on.

On highway jobs the FD/EMS piece is just one small facet of the overall response and PD has many responsibilities before and after the FD/EMS clear the scene.

FD manages FD, PD manages PD, EMS manages EMS, and so on. There is rarely an instance where FD manages PD or vice versa so we operate in a unified command more often then we don't but because most are still not comfortable with the process it gets lost in translation.

I think we do ourselves a great disservice when we only recognize the authority of the IC from our own agency/discipline too. If I'm the first poor soul at the scene of an incident, I am - by definition - the IC. As others arrive, that may change but the notion that the only IC is the FD IC is fundamentally flawed.

Angry motorists are one issue with lane closures. These can lead to road rage and confrontations between drivers. Cascading events are another. When people start making illegal u-turns across a divided highway they create a substantial risk of another accident/incident. Driving the wrong way on a divided highway or exiting via entrance ramps, etc. are likewise major hazards. The longer you keep the road closed, the more problems and larger area is affected. Studies have been done by the transportation industry and they describe these problems in great detail.

With regard to AI jobs, these are an incredibly small percentage of the total highway responses (I'd guess less than 1-2% at most) and when a road is closed for a protracted period, detours are established and every effort is made to communicate the closure to the public to avoid some of the above problems.

On another note - why do we have HELP trucks? To help facilitate traffic movement. The goal is to reduce/limit delays caused by disabled vehicles and accidents. Why does the State (and others) spend so much money on this program if keeping traffic flowing isn't a priority? I'm not suggesting that our safety isn't a priority but I've seen the good the bad and the ugly at highway jobs.

Interstate highways are directly connected to the economy and the cascade effect can be regional - again there are studies/reports out there on the subject.

The bottom line is line is we can do better and avoid most of these problems with communications, training, and exercises.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Training and Exercises are two simple ways to resolve this. Every incoming fire officer and every new police supervisor should be trained and exercised on their roles and responsibilities and how to interact with one another - TOGETHER - not in two different training centers 100 yards apart with a 14 foot fence separating them (for example).

It appears that most of the PD - FD highway incidents involve Troopers, and they are trained far away from the situation you list above. I have witnessed a couple of incidents over the past 25 years and we have been able to resolve them (in one case by leaving the trooper to fight the car fire) or after the incident by advising the NYS Thruway Authority to never call us again as we will not respond on their road if the Troopers (that they contract & pay for) are going to put our personnel in grave danger. When we have done this the response has always been we please continue, we will take care of it. And that tends to last for the next 5-10 years.

The longer you keep the road closed, the more problems and larger area is affected. Studies have been done by the transportation industry and they describe these problems in great detail.

With regard to AI jobs, these are an incredibly small percentage of the total highway responses (I'd guess less than 1-2% at most) and when a road is closed for a protracted period, detours are established and every effort is made to communicate the closure to the public to avoid some of the above problems.

The # of incidents that we respond to on the highways is very small and of those, many do not require total closing of the road and most of the we clear in under to minutes. The # of AI's will dramatically increase if we dont properly safe guard our personnel.

This week I was at the FDSOA conference (Fire Dept. Safety Officers Association) and this topic was discused at length. What was interesting is that NIOSH investigators showed us federal documents that responders, including L.E. have died failing to block traffic. Then a a lawyer who is nationally well know for municipal liability cases shoed us how he would go after the FD Officer, the FD & the municipality who failed to follow these safety concepts and the LEO and his/her agency. He also said to please contact him if this happens as its a slam dunk (and he needs a new pool).

On another note - why do we have HELP trucks? To help facilitate traffic movement. The goal is to reduce/limit delays caused by disabled vehicles and accidents. Why does the State (and others) spend so much money on this program if keeping traffic flowing isn't a priority? I'm not suggesting that our safety isn't a priority but I've seen the good the bad and the ugly at highway jobs.

The reason its funded (along with the HV transportaion center) is failing to keep traffic moving increases air polution and the state will lose billions in federal aid if they fail to deal with it.

Interstate highways are directly connected to the economy and the cascade effect can be regional - again there are studies/reports out there on the subject.

This is very true. Now lets look at this on a local issue. The I-95 toll at New Rochelle collects $45,000 per hour (average as of a few years ago). We have suggested a number of fire safety upgrades including water supplies to the tool plaza. The costs would have been covered with just a few hours of tools, but since we asked the tolls have been closed for 2-3x that time because of truck fires that we did not have enough water to deal with. It would have been paid for in a few years, but would last for 50+ years. What would the cost to the NYS-TA be if a fire damages the road (particularly a bridge)?

[helicopper 1,050]

The # of incidents that we respond to on the highways is very small and of those, many do not require total closing of the road and most of the we clear in under to minutes. The # of AI's will dramatically increase if we dont properly safe guard our personnel.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm all for making necessary closures. When I was on the road, I frequently stopped all lanes so I could safely set up a flare pattern and let traffic back-up a little so it would have to slow down before passing the scene.

Safety always comes first; I just think sometimes we do things because we can not because it's necessary.

[antiquefirelt 994]

This is another one of the fundamental misunderstandings about unified command. There is no one person with final say. Each representative in unified command agrees to the objectives, agrees to the plan, and oversees their resources (99% of the time there is no Operations Section Chief but if appointed, he/she would be the conductor of the emergency service symphony.

That's what the "Government" tells us. NIMS and the Presidential Directive be damned, but no one can change human nature. In reality, not everyone agrees. In fact, the proof is in the fact that this thread exists. Would the trooper have agreed to let the highway be closed if he was in the UCP? I doubt it. The Utopian theory that because we call it Unified Command everyone will agree and is equally responsible for the decision, is false. It doesn't happen. I've taken and taught many ICS 300 and 400 level programs and those who actually work in the command structure or in UCP's at always admit, that in the end, certain players have far more say than others. It's the reality of human nature, don't bother trying to change it. Now can a UCP work? Of course, and it takes planning and meeting long before the incident and knowing each others roles and limitations. But, show me a democratic command post and I'll show you an incident that has moved beyond true emergency to recovery.

[Just a guy 493]

I have to disagree where im from 95% of the time the cop cars are in the way we had a problum once where there was 4 cop cars blocking the rd of a mva with a person traped and noone could find the cops they were down the road stopping cars from comeing down with out there cars and so we moved the car with are rescue and yes we tryed the doors they were lock so we moved it i really think the cops should put there cars out of the way and let us do are job ever sinces this happend now there cars are off the side of the road and let us do whatever myunder standing is like it was said the fire chief is the ic of everytrhing the cops just do the report and stay out the way we had a cop car one other time block a drive way of a house fire and i ask the cop yo you got water and hose on that car if not get it out of here he dident like that to much but he moved found out was his 2ed day on the job some cops not all like to flex that they have a badge and dont know where to draw the line

I've read this stupidity 3 or 4 times trying to understand it and I think i am now ready to reply to it.

You say that once you had an MVA with entrapment and there were 4 radio cars blocking the road with the officers not near the cars because they were down the street stopping cars ... so not one cop was tending to the person that was trapped in the vehicle ? I don't think so just like the fact that you are alledging that you pushed 4 radio cars out of the way with a rescue truck ... I don't think so and if you did then i'm thinking the cops on the scene would have taken issue with you later on.

Let's move on to you're saying to a cop " Yo you got water and a hose on that car, if not get it out of here." Again i seriously doubt it but if you did say it then it was highly unprofessional.

It sounds to me like you have some personal issues with cops because you come across with a strong anti cop sentiment.

[helicopper 1,050]

That's what the "Government" tells us. NIMS and the Presidential Directive be damned, but no one can change human nature. In reality, not everyone agrees. In fact, the proof is in the fact that this thread exists. Would the trooper have agreed to let the highway be closed if he was in the UCP? I doubt it. The Utopian theory that because we call it Unified Command everyone will agree and is equally responsible for the decision, is false. It doesn't happen. I've taken and taught many ICS 300 and 400 level programs and those who actually work in the command structure or in UCP's at always admit, that in the end, certain players have far more say than others. It's the reality of human nature, don't bother trying to change it. Now can a UCP work? Of course, and it takes planning and meeting long before the incident and knowing each others roles and limitations. But, show me a democratic command post and I'll show you an incident that has moved beyond true emergency to recovery.

Unified command existed and worked long before NIMS or HSPD-5. Herein lies another problem with the whole NIMS training plan. We're ramming a career's worth of incident management training (100-400 plus 700 and sometimes 800 courses) down people's throats in just a couple of years. We have people that have never been on an incident where a written IAP was needed going to 400 courses and learning about how to further expand the system. This is flawed logic. There are people out there who think, as a result of taking a 300 or 400 class that they're now "qualfied" to be an IC or fill another command or general staff position. At the end of a training class you're not qualified to do anything more than take the next higher level of that series. You need experience and proficiency to be qualfied and if people were learning how to use ICS as the tool that it is, we wouldn't be having this conversation so often.

None of this is even 300 or 400 level stuff. It's really 200 level stuff and we're not doing it well.

You don't have to agree for unified command to work, you have to know your job and your (and your agency) responsibilities. I've seen unified command work exceptionally well (I've also seen it fail miserably) and the reason for this was almost always inadequate training and not understanding how this process is supposed to help us do our jobs more effectively and efficiently. Having more to say doesn't change the municipal charter or laws that define your agency. You can be the DPW (to pick a neutral player) boss and run at the mouth incessantly, it doesn't give you any authority over police, fire, EMS or other municipal services.

It isn't Utopian to think that if people are properly trained and experienced they can do the job right.

It's the reality of human nature, don't bother trying to change it. Now can a UCP work? Of course, and it takes planning and meeting long before the incident and knowing each others roles and limitations. But, show me a democratic command post and I'll show you an incident that has moved beyond true emergency to recovery.

On this point we agree. When you can't separate your ego from your actual responsibilities this process is on thin ice. Planning and meeting and training/exercising is exactly what I've been advocating. Nothing says that a unified command post has to be democratic to function, it has to be well-trained and experienced. I've seen some contentious discussions in unified command because of different objectives and priorities and you know what, it still worked because they knew their jobs.

It's not just what the "government tells us". ICS has been working for nearly 40 years now all over the world. There must be something to it.

[khas143 13]

I've read this stupidity 3 or 4 times trying to understand it and I think i am now ready to reply to it.

You say that once you had an MVA with entrapment and there were 4 radio cars blocking the road with the officers not near the cars because they were down the street stopping cars ... so not one cop was tending to the person that was trapped in the vehicle ? I don't think so just like the fact that you are alledging that you pushed 4 radio cars out of the way with a rescue truck ... I don't think so and if you did then i'm thinking the cops on the scene would have taken issue with you later on.

Let's move on to you're saying to a cop " Yo you got water and a hose on that car, if not get it out of here." Again i seriously doubt it but if you did say it then it was highly unprofessional.

It sounds to me like you have some personal issues with cops because you come across with a strong anti cop sentiment.

Thank you for breaking that down for me. After reading the original post 3 or 4 times I am sure that my IQ dropped a good 20 points.

[antiquefirelt 994]

Unified command existed and worked long before NIMS or HSPD-5. Herein lies another problem with the whole NIMS training plan. We're ramming a career's worth of incident management training (100-400 plus 700 and sometimes 800 courses) down people's throats in just a couple of years. We have people that have never been on an incident where a written IAP was needed going to 400 courses and learning about how to further expand the system. This is flawed logic. There are people out there who think, as a result of taking a 300 or 400 class that they're now "qualfied" to be an IC or fill another command or general staff position. At the end of a training class you're not qualified to do anything more than take the next higher level of that series. You need experience and proficiency to be qualfied and if people were learning how to use ICS as the tool that it is, we wouldn't be having this conversation so often.

None of this is even 300 or 400 level stuff. It's really 200 level stuff and we're not doing it well.

I cannot disagree with anything here. Having been part of the NIMS instructor staff for our region, I still find it merely check box filling for most of those attendees. As you noted 95% of attendees just take each class in succession and even then do poorly on the pre-test for the next level, which explains why 400 classes still have much review over 100/200 concepts.

You don't have to agree for unified command to work, you have to know your job and your (and your agency) responsibilities. I've seen unified command work exceptionally well (I've also seen it fail miserably) and the reason for this was almost always inadequate training and not understanding how this process is supposed to help us do our jobs more effectively and efficiently. Having more to say doesn't change the municipal charter or laws that define your agency. You can be the DPW (to pick a neutral player) boss and run at the mouth incessantly, it doesn't give you any authority over police, fire, EMS or other municipal services.

It isn't Utopian to think that if people are properly trained and experienced they can do the job right.

While the Unified Command concept will work even with disagreement, this is only where disagreements are minor. And while I've not experienced a true head-butting in a UCP situation, I have often seen UCP IC's take a back seat to the IC with the most at stake. Again, when it's a bomb scare, it's the PD that most everything defers to, with good reason. When it's an MVA with multiple victims, the Fire/EMS IC tends to be the sparkplug until all critical patients are transported. In neither case does it mean that the secondary players stop functioning, but as the professionals they are they realize with whom the current responsibility truly lies.

On this point we agree. When you can't separate your ego from your actual responsibilities this process is on thin ice. Planning and meeting and training/exercising is exactly what I've been advocating. Nothing says that a unified command post has to be democratic to function, it has to be well-trained and experienced. I've seen some contentious discussions in unified command because of different objectives and priorities and you know what, it still worked because they knew their jobs.

Agreed.

It's not just what the "government tells us". ICS has been working for nearly 40 years now all over the world. There must be something to it.

ICS has been around far longer than the 40 years the Wildland folks from out west would have you believe. ICS has never been in question to me, Unified Command itself has. ICS is really no more than the use of a rank structure to task out responsibilities, much like militaries and monarchies have used for centuries. Unified Command is a concept that can only been seen as someone's "fair" solution to who is in charge of what. I'll still have little trust in the concept given human nature. Very often the two or three IC's running the 2 or 3 different command posts at the same incident are where the actors cannot agree on a good day, nevermind in the field. I'm all for having one command post where the different entities are represented by personnel with decision making power, as it can only serve to form a more efficient response. But I'll always defer to the member with the most at stake. I know better than to waste everyone's time throwing my two cents in where I have no practical experience (LE, DPW, specialized medicine).

[JetPhoto 626]

Here is a story from a few years ago and well you'll see how that ended....

It should have never had to go this far or even happen in the first place.

[JM15 386]

Hooray to Captain wilson......

[Bnechis 3,961]

Hooray to Captain wilson......

Thumbs Up: He stood up for the safety of the members, the patient and the officers.

Thumbs Down: Poor leadership in the moving apparatus dismount. would the extra 3 seconds hurt patient care, vs. the risk of providing EMS to the captain instead of the patient.

The cop was lucky that the patient didnt sue him for delaying care and endangering him/her. Even if it did not, I think a jury would have been happy to hand over a large check.

[wraftery 1,275]

"Why can't we all just get along?"

-Rodney King

[JM15 386]

From Firefighterclosecalls.com

HORRIFIC IRONY-POLICE OFFICER STRUCK AND KILLED JUST MILES FROM WHERE ANOTHER POLICE OFFICER CITED A FIRE CHIEF FOR ATTEMPTING TO PROTECT HIGHWAY RESPONDERS

In a horrific twist of irony, a Nassau County (Long Island, NY) Police Department Highway Patrol Officer was killed in the Line of Duty yesterday when his car was struck by another vehicle just miles from where a NY State Police Trooper threatened to arrest the North Merrick (Nassau County, Long Island) Fire Chief for his attempt to protect those operating on the roadway. Chief Allen said the trooper did not want him to close the right lane of the parkway, insisting that he allow both the right and left lanes to handle the flow of traffic after the accident and responders operate in the middle. When Chief Allen disagreed, the officer threatened to have him arrested, but instead, ended with the trooper issuing the citation. "As of January 1, there is a new law in effect that says that all cars have to move over or slow down when they see warning lights," Allen said. "Now, in this case, no one could move over because the accident was in the center lane, but I had to make the scene secure."

The Nassau County Police Officer was killed yesterday in the horrific car crash that left his cruiser crushed beneath a flatbed truck on the Long Island Expressway. Officer Michael Califano, 44, was pronounced dead at the hospital around 12:30 a.m. Fire & Police Emergency personnel needed 30 minutes to free the veteran cop from the twisted wreckage after John Kaley, 25, of New Britain, Conn., smashed into the car from behind with the flatbed. Kaley was charged with one count of criminally negligent homicide. He's also accused of violating a new state law that requires drivers to move away from stopped emergency vehicles.

The Officer was sitting in his cruiser with lights flashing during a traffic stop on the Long Island Expressway.

Officer Califano had pulled a vehicle over near exit 39 in Old Westbury for having insufficient lights and was sitting in his car when it was struck from behind shortly before 2300 Hours Friday. The impact propelled the cruiser under a stopped box truck, while the flatbed mounted the police vehicle's roof. Califano was 44 and a member of the NCPD Highway Patrol Unit. He had been on the force for 12 years. 3 other people suffered less serious injuries in the wreck, which closed part of the expressway for hours overnight. The injured included two people who were in the box truck and a female passenger in the flatbed truck. All were being treated at a hospital. Our condolences to the NCPD and the family of Officer Califano.

ANOTHER REMINDER OF THE DANGERS TO POLICE, FIREFIGHTERS & OTHER OPERATING ON THE ROADWAYS.

RAW VIDEO FROM THE ABOVE CRASH SCENE:

(Note: The police car is hardly recognizable in the above video, you will see the camera zoom in-that is the car)

[Fireman488 57]

I have been on both sides of this issue.

It boils down to cooperation, working together and using common sense.

Tall orders for some!!!