Should Teens Be Able To Drive Firetrucks/Ambulances?

[M' Ave 1,466]

SECTMB gets the point across perfectly. Its about the individual, the department's choice, and the department's needs.

You cannot do things on an individual or department by department basis. There's too much grey area there. This is one case where a blanket regulation needs to be created. When you allow for too much "home rule" you create loop holes and exceptions. That's not a good scenario for a F.D.

[tjd1012 5]

correct me if I am wrong,but don't you have to be 21 to even have a cdl license?

[M' Ave 1,466]

correct me if I am wrong,but don't you have to be 21 to even have a cdl license?

Unfortunately you don't need a CDL to drive fire/ems apparatus.

[texastom791 31]

18 to get a class b 21 to get a class a and you can't get your hazmat endorsement or cross state lines.

Edited July 9, 2011 by texastom791

[CFFD117 19]

correct me if I am wrong,but don't you have to be 21 to even have a cdl license?

you don't have to be 21 to have a CDL, You can get one at 18, but you are restricted in what you are able to do. I believe you cannot cross state lines, drive passenger vehicles, and haul double trailers. I know there are other restrictions which i am forgetting.

[antiquefirelt 994]

Comparing the fire service to the military is a bad example. The military is far more structured, disciplined, and supervised. No 18 year old is operating a tank by himself without supervision and repetitive training.

At issue is also your assertion that any of this is a "right". Emergency service organizations can absolutely pick and choose their drivers and there is no right being infringed.

Others have said it well. It depends on the individual and their department.

I'm not really thinking of this as a fire service issue. I'm looking at the basic fundamental flaw that we in the U.S. state that 18 years of age is old enough to train, arm and send a person to war, yet withhold other privileges or eligibility requirements based on the perception of "maturity level". My choice to use the word "right" was unintentionally inappropriate. Our legal system also holds those attaining the age of 18 fully accountable for their criminal actions based on what we expect they know or should know. And to be clear, I agree with the 18 yoa being acceptable for military service and the death penalty, so it's the perception that it can not be used to as part or a list of eligibility factors for driving emergency apparatus that I feel is wrong.

I agree that it is individual specific and the FD needs to have a system in place that ensures it's drivers (of any age) are qualified to a standard to strives for safe operation.Your driver training program and policies should reveal the true issue of maturity.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

I disagree with what you are saying.

I can see where the problems with a teen driving a rig, However lets say I am 18 and just joined.

You are saying because I do not have enough experience driving, I should not operate the rig, instead I should man a hoseline?

What if I am just fresh out of my probie period, and not seen too many real fires? What if I have not taken Fire School?

I believe every member should be able to drive, operate hoses, other equipment with the proper training.

If you just joined you shouldn't be driving anyway so I fail to see how that is relevant. Additionally, there are at least a dozen activities I can think on the fire ground that do not require an interior certification, throwing ground ladders, rehab, running the kinks out of the line, traffic duty, etc etc that all need to be completed on a fire scene that do not require you to have even attended probie school let alone complete it. If you are fresh out of your probie period, someone with more bugles on their uniform than you decided believed that you had the brains, balls and knowledge required to be an interior qualified firefighter. With that in mind, you better be fighting for that nozzle otherwise you are no use. Even if you have nto seen one fire, you are still expected to do the job you were trained to do. You must crawl before you walk and learning how to be a firefighter is crawling to the driving a firefighter to a fire (the walking).

As I said above, you maybe the most mature individual on the fire scene, but that does not mean I want you driving me code 3 to the scene and pumping my handline. I would much rather take the 75 year old 50 year vet in the department who still has smoke in his lungs from the war years and has been pumping since my father was getting his drivers license operating that engine or aerial. Unless you have ever experienced an pump operator failure inside a burning building or had to try to stick a line in the back of an ambulance, anyone under 21 has no idea what is like to have a driver fail you and your crew. How many fires has a 18 year old actually pumped at, how many time has an 18 year old had to fly the aerial to rescue a person from the middle of a 6th floor inferno, how many times has an 18 year old had drive code 3 in winding back country roads while CPR is being performed in the back of the rig? Not nearly enough for me to justify allowing them to drive for me.

I know a lot of the younger people here will not agree with me, in fact I was one of you guys years ago. But then I had the privilege of experiencing what a young driver can have the potential to screw up, and that changed my mind. Driving is a promotion (or should be) in every department I have ever heard of. I don't know of one department that allows someone who didn't deserve it to drive. If you at 18 feel that you are mature enough to drive, I commend you, but wait another 3 years, actually learn what it takes to drive, learn what responsibilities you have and the dangers you are exposing yourself and your crew to, if that doesn't change your mind, then you will never drive for me, period.

[gamewell45 258]

I think you may be using the wrong term. The act of turning 21 doesn't suddenly make one "qualified" to drive fire apparatus, it merely makes one "eligible" to drive fire apparatus (after proper training of course).

Agreed. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

[Bnechis 3,961]

While I completely understand the issue, I have a hard time sending 18 year olds off to war but withholding any other right for a more mature age. You can be trusted with all sorts of weaponry, but cannot be trusted to drink alcohol or drive big trucks? Now, should all FD"s be required to have a comprehensive driving program that ensures drivers of any age are mature enough and possess the proper attitude? Of course.

It's just a basic fundamental flaw in the US's attitude toward men and women of military service age, that I see.

While fundamentally I are 100% correct, 18 y/o military personnel are very well supervised and much more focused than their civilian counterparts. Why do we prevent young adults from legal drinking, because they prove that time after time they can not be trusted. The fact that it is illegal and completly ignorred by teens and adults alike kind of proves the point. Why do insurance companies charge more for males under 25 than any other group, because they have more accidents than any other group.

[antiquefirelt 994]

While fundamentally I are 100% correct , 18 y/o military personnel are very well supervised and much more focused than their civilian counterparts. Why do we prevent young adults from legal drinking, because they prove that time after time they can not be trusted. The fact that it is illegal and completly ignorred by teens and adults alike kind of proves the point. Why do insurance companies charge more for males under 25 than any other group, because they have more accidents than any other group.

I agree with I . If more FD's could same the same of their supervision, motivation and quality training of their personnel this wouldn't even be a topic. The age numbers don't add up to the same answer every time. Why not make FD driver eligibility based on the insurance standard of 25 yoa? What makes 21 the magic number?

We tend to pick some of these numbers out of thin air vs. really looking at what the number does for us. Like other prerequisites in most fields they serve as broad brush qualifiers when the real question here is "are you going to be a safe driver?" We all know plenty of unsafe drivers who are over 25 and some of us know many 18 year olds that have safely driven emergency vehicles.

I am a strong proponent of a quality driver training program that requires every student to take a cognitive course and pass an exam, a pass/fail obstacle course and then road time under direct supervision until the instructor feels you're qualified to operate. This should be followed by annual re-certification.

What I do not believe in is making everyone get a CDL and then thinking they magically are now safer drivers. CDL training is great to help people understand the dynamics of driving larger apparatus better, but merely in the cognitive sense. The road time is far too limited and doesn't account for emergency driving. The fact that drivers with CDL's are statistically safer is based on their total driving experience not their training class. . Add in thousands of new CDL's where the driver's only operate fire apparatus once in awhile and the overall safety statistics will drop. I think CDL's cannot hurt, but I don't think they'll help much more than cut down the number of drivers of apparatus, which may have some moderate effect on overall driver safety.

[M' Ave 1,466]

keep it how it is

And how is "it"? This is an unfortunately typical statement for the fire service. The old, "100 Years of Tradition Unimpeded by Progress" line. I'm all for tradition. I like my smooth bore nozzles and leather helmets, but there are areas, such as fire apparatus operation, where the situation and conditions must be examined and strict rules established.

I'm familiar with your department. It's a very regimented shop with specific and stringent rules and training requirements. Frustrating as it may be, it has allowed that dept. to earn and maintain a reputation as a top shelf operation.

Without order there is chaos. Sadly, we seem to find a lot more chaos in our chosen profession.

[Mark Z 18]

You cannot do things on an individual or department by department basis. There's too much grey area there. This is one case where a blanket regulation needs to be created. When you allow for too much "home rule" you create loop holes and exceptions. That's not a good scenario for a F.D.

There is also a huge amount of difference in things like dept location, size, district and other factors to not allow a "grey area" such as this. Many rural areas need much more flexibility in allowing younger (or older) members to do things that would and never should be allowed in other places. We cannot regulate everything to the point that nothing is allowed to happen! I am sorry but the only way to avoid all accidents from happening is to park the apparatus shut the doors and tell everyone that we might get hurt so we aren't going to respond anymore. I am not saying that training or safety awareness isn't needed but accidents can and will happen and age may or may not have been a factor, but anyone who has ever driven any kind of emergency vehicle has made a mistake that could have caused a serious accident and didn't, if only by the grace of God. This kid had an accident and so have many older drivers so lets not jump on his or her age as the only factor that was involved. In my mind it needs to be left up to the chief of the dept and their training to decide and if that means 18 for a particular dept then so be it! I know WAY TOO MANY older drivers that scare the daylights out of me that I will not ride an apparatus with than I do 18 year old's that I don't trust with an ambulance.

[aviator70 16]

One word, NOPE!

[M' Ave 1,466]

All this talk of, "well, you have to examine things on a case by case basis" stuff is getting a little out of hand. No one here has said that an 18 year old can't be a good driver and that drivers in their 20's, 30's, 40's ect, are perfect. Of course that's not the case. However, in many places, including the NY metro area, you can get a permit until you're 16. You can't get a full drivers license until you've turned 17 (18 without drivers ed.). So....we're going to be okay with someone with a WHOPPING 1 year of driving experience operating an emergency vehicle?

We're starting to beat a dead horse here, but the facts just don't lend themselves to supporting drivers in their teens. The insurance industry tracks driving accidents and finds that men under 25 are the highest risk category across the board. At 18 you've barely had enough time to take FF1, FF2 and EVOC, ect. how can you be driving? How many responses have you actually been on? If you're 18, you just became legally able to fight fires. How many could you possibly been to? 2? Be real, how many times in your brief career have you been in a serious fire. These are all things that you need to train and learn about. Driving is a whole 'nother batch of things to worry about and plan for. You need to understand a lot about what's important at fires, ect to know what to do. How can you effectively do that when you know nothing. (At 18 you know nothing). I've been in the fire service for 11 years, not quite 5 in NYC and guess what.....I know just the SLIGHTEST bit more than nothing, which is effectively still nothing!

The idea that a teenager can be trusted behind the wheel of a large fire apparatus or ambulance is ludicrous. There simply hasn't been the time to accumulate enough experience at any aspect of the fire service. Odds are, in fact, that a person who is 18 has never taken the first line down a charged hallway. They simply have too much to learn at that age and thinking of putting them behind the wheel and adding a whole slew of additional responsibilities is stupid and irresponsible of someone in a position of authority.

[MELILLO719 30]

I disagree I myself am a driver on both the Tower Ladder & Aerial Ladder and have driven to numerous calls nd plenty of working fires. It dosent have to do with age it has to do with drivers training nd knowledge of the trucks that you drive I think any 19 year old can doo it but thats just my opinion

[helicopper 1,050]

Are there any actual statistics on apparatus accidents and the age of the driver to provide substantive information to this debate? Someone already made the point that a 30 year old isn't necessarily a good driver just based on their age so... what do the facts say?

[M' Ave 1,466]

Are there any actual statistics on apparatus accidents and the age of the driver to provide substantive information to this debate? Someone already made the point that a 30 year old isn't necessarily a good driver just based on their age so... what do the facts say?

I don't even think we should get this far. At 18-20 something, you don't even have enough experience to be a good firefighter. All you can hope to be is a good student, trainee, probie or whatever you want to call it. Apparatus operations is another step. Why don't we learn to skate before we learn to play hockey. In NYC the earliest you MIGHT hope to drive is about 26. Probably not at night and hopefully with the help of a more seasoned Chauffeur riding the backstep. Regular chauffeurs tend to be, at the very least, in their thirties. Now, age really doesn't have anything to do with this debate. It's about experience and in your teens and early 20's you simply don't have the time to have the experience. If someone that age can say they've been to "plenty of jobs", than that in itself demonstrates a complete lack of experience.

Someone at any age might be able to drive the vehicle backwards forwards and sidways, but that doesn't mean that you've encountered enough real life situations to know about to react.

Edited July 11, 2011 by M' Ave

[voltage1256 42]

Why is this even still a conversation? Everyone has their own opinion... some say No others say NOPE! and some say yes and OF COURSE! let's leave it at what it is as of now... YOUR departments choice and when and if the state decides to bring this up, then we should re-visit it.

[JJB531 652]

Why is this even still a conversation? Everyone has their own opinion... some say No others say NOPE! and some say yes and OF COURSE! let's leave it at what it is as of now... YOUR departments choice and when and if the state decides to bring this up, then we should re-visit it.

It's still a conversation because people want to express their own opinions, which I thought was the whole point of a discussion board... to discuss things.

[x129K 1,393]

M'ave....and other large career departments, does a fireman HAVE to learn to be a driver or chauffer? I mean - can someone go a whole career without ever driving?

[MELILLO719 30]

M'ave not for nothing but I do think teens can do a great job driving. You also need to remember that many departments dont have older members that come out and get the truck out at 3am just for an automatic alarm, so dont think just bc someone is who is a teen cant do a good job driving do tgey have the experience probably not but u can only gain experience by doing it....

[Danger 160]

There's no need to argue, parents just don't understand

[helicopper 1,050]

M'ave not for nothing but I do think teens can do a great job driving. You also need to remember that many departments dont have older members that come out and get the truck out at 3am just for an automatic alarm, so dont think just bc someone is who is a teen cant do a good job driving do tgey have the experience probably not but u can only gain experience by doing it....

Departments shouldn't adopt their standards for driving based on who's available at 3 AM or 3 PM. They should have comprehensive screening processes, training (both formal classroom like EVOC and in-formal on the road training), and evaluations before being allowed to drive for an AFA or mutiple alarm fire.

[MELILLO719 30]

I never said they base it on that. All Im saying is no one has the right to say that a teen cant drive. If your officers think you can get the job done than thats all that matters of course evoc is a neccesary thing to have but the experience no one is gunna have experience driving until you actually start driving to calls or jobs etc

[M' Ave 1,466]

I never said they base it on that. All Im saying is no one has the right to say that a teen cant drive.

Wrong. You know who has the right to say a teen can't drive? A non-teen who is in a position of authority, or in a position to make an experience influenced determination. Lets all say this together, "driving isn't a right". it may seem silly now, but I assure you that you'll look back in ten years and see that you don't really have the qualifications at 18....or a bit older for that matter.

If you lack experienced drivers, then you have other problems and they can't be solved by letting unqualified people operate.

To answer another poster above, yes you could conceivably go your entire career without being a chauffeur. You could certainly be promoted before you become chauffeur qualified. I don't think this is the best case scenario, but it's not terrible. If you have a good chauffeur, an officer shouldn't need to concern themselves with driving or rig placement.

[ny10570 745]

Notice how all older members are saying Teens usually do not have the experience or maturity to operate a large emergency vehicle?? Its because we all were at one time the young guys chomping at the bit to get in there and were absolutely convinced that we were ready. Its only later when you realize how unprepared you really were. I am a huge advocate for Juinor Corps and young member involvement, but there are some things you just need to be around for a while before you're ready for them. Its a fact that teens are involved in proportionally more serious accidents than anyone else and almost as many accidents as the elderly. You can cite examples of this guy in XYZ FD or the military but one is a unique case and often a result of desperation rather than choice and the other is someone that is intensively trained and molded into a mature experienced person beyond their years.

[MELILLO719 30]

I still disagree I dont think wat your saying is right and i have my reasons but im not gunna argue with you cause at the end of the day it comes down to getting the truck out the door and getting your crew thier safe and as a young driver i havent had a problem yet. I think as long as you have ur evoc or certifications or your officers who have had 25 + years in the company approve you your good. Maybe u dont think us "young guys" have the experience to drive fire apparatus but I disagree

[JJB531 652]

I still disagree I dont think wat your saying is right and i have my reasons but im not gunna argue with you cause at the end of the day it comes down to getting the truck out the door and getting your crew thier safe and as a young driver i havent had a problem yet. I think as long as you have ur evoc or certifications or your officers who have had 25 + years in the company approve you your good. Maybe u dont think us "young guys" have the experience to drive fire apparatus but I disagree

I don't mean any disrepsect whatsoever, but if you want to be taken seriously when addressing older members of this forum, as well as convincing them to consider your competency, qualifications, and abilities, stay away from using phrases like "wat", "gunna", "ur", or "u". It shows your age, and unfortunately will keep anyone from taking you seriously.

On a second note, I don't think that anyone will argue that with age comes experience, and with experience comes ability and knowledge. I think every one of us at a young age thought that we were ready for anything; it's only as you get older, a little more experienced, and a little wiser does your attitude change about the "younger crowd", whether it be at work or in your personal life.. I know growing up, I used to cringe every time my parents would say to me, "One day you'll understand", and as depressing as it may be, now that I'm older, I do understand.

Edited July 12, 2011 by JJB531

[MELILLO719 30]

The way I type from a phone should not have anything to do with it no disrespect..... On the second note I agree with you 100 % but when it comes to picking on the "younger crowd" it starts to get frusturating because some guys I wont say names seem to think that young guys shouldnt drive because of experience but like I

said experience comes with doing it. And there is young guys all over the place that are driving emergency apparatus and doing excellent jobs. Not trying to piss anyone off just throwing my point out there thats all just because one young guy makes a mistake dosent mean all of the young drivers should be bashed on.

Edited July 12, 2011 by MELILLO719

[JJB531 652]

The way I type from a phone should not have anything to do with it no disrespect..... On the second note I agree with you 100 % but when it comes to picking on the "younger crowd" it starts to get frusturating because some guys I wont say names seem to think that young guys shouldnt drive because of experience but like I

said experience comes with doing it. And there is young guys all over the place that are driving emergency apparatus and doing excellent jobs. Not trying to piss anyone off just throwing my point out there thats all just because one young guy makes a mistake dosent mean all of the young drivers should be bashed on.

Ahhhh, you don't get it. The way you type from a phone, from a computer, in a letter, in an email, or address someone in person has a lot to do with it. It's about presenting yourself to your "fellow professionals" as a professional, not presenting yourself to your "fellow professionals" as if you were text messaging your prom date.

I understand it is frustrating, but not only are the "older guys" entitled to their opinions, but they have earned that right by "coming up through the ranks" and proving themselves to their professional counterparts. Don't use the word bash, because they all make excellent points which are very far from bashing. I don't think anyone is picking on the "younger crowd", and even if everyone on this board disagreed with young drivers, so what? Is it worth getting that frustrated over? You're already certified by your agency to drive, so why get all bent out of shape? Just keep doing what you're doing. I don't blame them for saying that young people shouldn't drive. If you look at the factual data regarding age groups and motor vehicle accidents in general, the facts don't lie. And now you are taking an individual with 2 or 3 years of driving experience and giving them the keys to a million dollar truck that is considerably larger than most vehicles sharing the roadway. When you have 15 or 20 years of driving experience under your belt, you'll probably become one of those "older guys picking on the young guys". I'm 32 years old and I'm not qualified to drive one of the trucks at work. I'm not offended by that, and when my co-workers feel I'm ready, then I'll get quailfied. But I have to earn their respect and trust first, the same way they earned it from the senior men when they were new.