Jury Awards Woman 825g in Crash with Firefighter

[BFD1054 1,552]

Hi Mikey,

A lot of inflammatory stuff got deleted earlier Bro.

Ahhh, ok may explain things a bit better lol. Thanks bro.

Chief Flynn, my apology, as i did not see/get to read some of the posts apparently.

[Bnechis 3,961]

In the article, it is hard to tell what kind of vehicle the Chief passed. It says that he passed another member who was en-route to the call. Was this another Chief or a member in a POV?

The other vehicle was a marked FD chiefs car, also traveling with lights & siren. What probably convinced the jury is just before the accident he got on the radio and "harrassed" the other chief for driving too slow.

I am not too familar with Harrison, much less the intersection where the accident took place. The article states that the Chief was traveling around 60mph. This was not a highway, so the speed limit was certainly not 55mph. So, he may have been in a 45mph zone at best, no? To drive 60mph through a congested Town, then blow a red light at those speeds is crazy. Any apparatus operator (or civilian driver for that matter) knows that you dont just blow an intersection, controlled or not.

.

Posted speed is 30 mph

[FDNYDCHI 38]

When I was in the volunteer service I "had" a blue light and was using it. Then After awhile I stoped. The reason being is I felt it is more of a hinderance and causes panic with other drivers on the road.

When The pager goes off The fire will still be there, Getting into an accident you are no help to anyone.

Also with a blue light you have to obey all traffic laws. So as you have your blue light on flashing away siting at a red light waiting it to turn green. What good does it for you??? It draws attention to yourself.

Stay calm and you will get there....

Chris

[ny10570 745]

Hi guys. I had a chance to pop back in here quickly and the responses have just about been what I expected. In response to those who state that my statistics are oversimplified or misleading, I would perhaps agree that stats can be used to mislead and that the stats I posted were not a comprehensive statistical analysis of the problem. However, they were not misleading.

When I post on here about obvious problems like reckless driving in the volunteer fire service, I am not posting to reach those of you whose heads are in the sand, who see this as a career vs. volunteer battle, and who take these things personally. I fully realize that you are not open minded and that you will feel that your best defense is a good offense and you will attack me personally or the career fire service in general. It is what it is.

The people I am trying to reach are the reasonable, open minded members of this forum- career, volunteer, and other. Any member of the fire service who has been paying attention over the course of several years or more would realize that this issue is what it is...there are reckless drivers in both the career and volunteer fire service. However, this is a minor issue on the career side, and a rampant one on the volunteer side.

Those who will dispute this, make excuses, or attack career Firefighters to deflect from the issue at hand, rather than make some attempt to solve this serious problem, do a disservice to those whom they are sworn to protect.

Absolutely, the stats were in no way misleading. Your conclusion from those stats however was completely biased and unsupported.

You claim reckless driving is an "obvious problem" in the volunteer service. I'm not saying that it is not a problem. I just don't see any evidence of the problem. With every member driving and on average a younger and less experienced membership; there are piles of research demonstrating that if the fire service posts numbers correlating to those found in the general population the volunteer fire service should have a substantially worse driving record. I have not seen this in my extremely limited and cursory searches. This may be because the most common factors in young driver deaths; drugs, alcohol, reckless activities, and inattentiveness are rarely factors when volunteers are responding to alarms. Maybe its just poor judgement and it affects both sides equally.

I cannot speak for the posters stooping to snide remarks and cartoons, but I only look for accuracy in any side of a debate. Losing credibility in one facet casts a poor shadow on any other points. I am not attacking any departments, referencing isolated incidents, or defending anyone. I'm just trying to take an unbiased look at the facts. Want to say that the average Westchester VFD on the average day is providing an understaffed, undertrained, and slow response to calls for help? I completely agree. But to say that volunteers are obviously driving recklessly just doesn't stand up to scrutiny as far as I can tell. If you have the research, I'd actually like to dig through it. Post a link, send a message, anything.

Edited April 18, 2012 by ny10570

[50-65 205]

As someone already said, "figures lie, liars figure". This in no way calling anyone a liar. Only to point out the fact that anyone can make any statistic valid to their point of view.

As a VOLUNTEER firefighter, I have been passed by other emergency vehicles from ALL services, PD, EMS, and other fire, as well as every day citizens while responding in the apparatus. While responding in my POV, I yield to emergency vehicles but have also been escorted through traffic by PD. As a CAREER(PAID) EMS worker, I have been passed many times by POV's, PD, and FIRE.

As a driver with a CDL, I am subject to higher standards and penalties regardless of the vehicle I am driving. My license is my income.

I get paid by the hour, not by the call or number of patients I transport. Just because YOU called 911, does not make it MY emergency.

The point is, CAREER or VOLUNTEER, on duty, or off, it is an INDIVIDUAL's responsibilty to drive safely, with due regard, at ALL times.

[ex-commish 490]

The point is, CAREER or VOLUNTEER, on duty, or off, it is an INDIVIDUAL's responsibilty to drive safely, with due regard, at ALL times.

I believe this sums up any debate on this issue...

[rayrider 94]

How is it possible that the majority of ffs killed in the line of duty from mv accidents are volunteers in their personal vehicles when they are supposed to obey all traffic laws? Wouldnt that make them safer as opposed to an emergency vehicle that has less stringent laws to follow?

[ny10570 745]

How is it possible that the majority of ffs killed in the line of duty from mv accidents are volunteers in their personal vehicles when they are supposed to obey all traffic laws? Wouldnt that make them safer as opposed to an emergency vehicle that has less stringent laws to follow?

Have you seen a breakdown of apparatus vs personal vehicles? Is there a differentiation between personal vehicles allowed to operate in emergency mode and personal vehicles with only courtesy lights? In the end its the driver not the rules regulating drivers that are responsible for the accidents. Speed and intersection control negatively impact paid and volunteer drivers. What no one can accurately demonstrate is the actual rate of these incidents.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

This particular incident should be studied and made part of a mandatory personal vehicle/department authorized personal vehicle EVOC geared toward volunteers, as an aside program to apparatus operation instruction..

All the things that were done wrong here should be elevated to a level of mass distribution (Edit: for education), certainly within the county, if even the people with this forum take it forward and develop a program from it, geared toward their individual department.

:-)

[BFD1054 1,552]

The other vehicle was a marked FD chiefs car, also traveling with lights & siren. What probably convinced the jury is just before the accident he got on the radio and "harrassed" the other chief for driving too slow.

.

Posted speed is 30 mph

Thank you Captain. I did read that the offender had harassed another member on the radio, which im sure was the nail in the coffin for him and rightfully so. I just wasnt sure what kind of vehicle the other member was in. The fact that it was a marked FD vehicle, also travling L&S to the SAME incident and the offender chose to pass him is just plain negligent.

The fact that he was traveling 60mph (approx) in a 30mph zone is also quite concerning as that in itself is negligent.

Maybe INIT915 or another LEO member can help me out here; i thought NYS VTL stated that an emegency vehicle can only travel 10mph over the posted limit while en-route to an emergency?

This particular incident should be studied and made part of a mandatory personal vehicle/department authorized personal vehicle EVOC geared toward volunteers, as an aside program to apparatus operation instruction..

All the things that were done wrong here should be elevated to a level of mass distribution (Edit: for education), certainly within the county, if even the people with this forum take it forward and develop a program from it, geared toward their individual department.

:-)

Capt, are you out of your mind? Is that Southern Florida sun getting to your brain? Youd like to take an incident and actually make an example of it so that others could benefit from a learning stand-point? (insert sarcasim)

[50-65 205]

Maybe INIT915 or another LEO member can help me out here; i thought NYS VTL stated that an emegency vehicle can only travel 10mph over the posted limit while en-route to an emergency?

I don't know if it's NYS law, but on the EMS side, there is DOH policy.http://www.health.ny.gov/nysdoh/ems/policy/00-13.htm

I believe that only the "due regard" clause applies to LE.

[JJB531 652]

NYS VTL states an authorized emergency vehicle (encompasses PD, FD, and EMS) may exceed maximum speed limits so long as he does not endanger life or property. VTL 1104 C (3)

There is no defined speed above the speed limit.

[EMT-7035 4]

Maybe INIT915 or another LEO member can help me out here; i thought NYS VTL stated that an emegency vehicle can only travel 10mph over the posted limit while en-route to an emergency?

Unless I am reading this wrong, according to www.health.ny.gov/nysdoh/ems/pdf/srgvat.pdf section 1104.c.3 states that "the driver of an emergency vehicle may ... exceed the maximum speed limit so long as he does not endanger life or property.

So reading this, I do not think there is a legal maximum speed limit though all of my departments have SOPs that limit speeding to 10mph over (and some do not allow any exceeding at all).

But that point is moot as he did not meed the condition of endangering life and property.

Sorry JJB531, I didn't realize you had already posted.

Edited April 19, 2012 by EMT-7035

[JFLYNN 681]

Please explain

[JJB531 652]

No problem, you're right on....

[helicopper 1,050]

Maybe INIT915 or another LEO member can help me out here; i thought NYS VTL stated that an emegency vehicle can only travel 10mph over the posted limit while en-route to an emergency?

I don't know if it's NYS law, but on the EMS side, there is DOH policy.http://www.health.ny.gov/nysdoh/ems/policy/00-13.htm

I believe that only the "due regard" clause applies to LE.

The law quoted in that policy statement apply to all emergency vehicles. The policy statement applies only to EMS and within the EMS community it carries the weight of law as it is issued pursuant to the public health law.

[helicopper 1,050]

Unless I am reading this wrong, according to www.health.ny.gov/nysdoh/ems/pdf/srgvat.pdf section 1104.c.3 states that "the driver of an emergency vehicle may ... exceed the maximum speed limit so long as he does not endanger life or property.

So reading this, I do not think there is a legal maximum speed limit though all of my departments have SOGs that limit speeding to 10mph over (and some do not allow any exceeding at all).

But that point is moot as he did not meed the condition of endangering life and property.

Sorry JJB531, I didn't realize you had already posted.

Not sure what you mean with your moot point reference.

The law doesn't specify a maximum speed. If your SOP does, that is the standard your agency holds you to.

Keep in mind that due regard is not strictly limited to speed. If you are driving 25 in a 30 but the conditions aren't safe to do so and you have an accident you failed to operate with due regard. Everyone seems to be hung up on numbers but they're only one potential part of the puzzle.

I think the comments made by radio also helped convince the jury that there was an issue in this particular case.

[EMT-7035 4]

Not sure what you mean with your moot point reference.

My moot point reference was in regard to the idea that while we are allowed to speed to whatever degree we feel is safe, it doesn't protect the incident in question as he was not proceeding with due regard and he clearly presented a danger.

The law doesn't specify a maximum speed. If your SOP does, that is the standard your agency holds you to.

Keep in mind that due regard is not strictly limited to speed. If you are driving 25 in a 30 but the conditions aren't safe to do so and you have an accident you failed to operate with due regard. Everyone seems to be hung up on numbers but they're only one potential part of the puzzle.

I agree, but again this comes to the point of cautious discretion, not the law. But on the topic of safe conditions, though I do not have the numbers to back this up, I have heard in many trainings that most accidents occur on bright sunny days and other days that are deemed "not particularly hazardous" because there is a false sense of security. We (most) know that in general we must be more careful in snow, sleet, fog, rain and whatnot, but, we need to proceed carefully.

In agreement with you, you're right, it's not just about the numbers, but that does seem to be what the media is hooked on.

Edited April 19, 2012 by EMT-7035

[FD36 4]

This guy is an embarrassment to the fire service. He put his own agenda ahead of public safety. Maybe he should have followed the actions of the chief in front of him and not like some careless idiot. It was an abuse of the towns vehicle and the privilege of driving an emergency vehicle. I think the major difference here being that he is a volunteer, is that had he been a career chief he would probably have been fired. In this case he carries on with his life, while this woman had to suffer because of his recklessness. Hopefully this has taught him a valuable lesson. None of us are exempt from negligence when it comes to driving to an emergency. Slow and steady wins the race.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

Slow and steady wins the race.

I think you mean slow and steady arrive alive.

[grumpyff 1,159]

30+ mph over the speed limit for a regular driver is considered reckless, and an automatic suspension based on points issued after conviction.

[LFD34 12]

I believe that this just points out the need to formalize the training needed, before operating emergency vehicles. I bleieve that more than EVOC is needed. New York is one of the few states that still don't require CDLs for vehicles that would require them if not in use by the Fire service. I would go a step further and mandate an Emergency Vehicle Operator endorsement for any operator of any emergency vehicle that would formalize the training such as provided by EVOC

[INIT915 1,119]

30+ mph over the speed limit for a regular driver is considered reckless, and an automatic suspension based on points issued after conviction.

Just a technical point, but it's 40 mph, which is 11 points, which would trigger an automatic suspension.

[AJU 39]

This whole situation is disturbing from several angles:

First, and most obviously, the fact that someone in a position of authority would show such disregard for the lives and property he's sworn to protect. This really says something about human nature and what happens when people are granted role power - something to be very aware of in our lives as we move through them. Nobody is immune to this, though their judgment may prevent something as egregious as this incident from occurring.

Second, the fact that the volunteer side of the service, by nature, is potentially (e.g., has the capacity to be - NOT saying that it might be) more permissive of, and acts as less of a deterrent for, this behavior. That coupled with the fact that there are vastly more volunteers than career members makes the likelihood of the bad apples being on the volunteer side higher. But the thing that really disturbs me here is that some people take this opportunity to makes this a volunteer vs. career issue and paint it all with a broad brush that completely ignores the fact that people, especially firefighters (type A personalities), often take the path of least resistance by using shortcuts (usually very creative, efficient and effective on the fireground) to get the job done. Human nature.

My last point is that we still, as a community, seem to adhere to the idea that punitive measures will correct issues like this and training will prevent it. Did this individual know what he was doing was wrong? I'd be shocked if someone could prove otherwise. He just thought he could get away with it. How many people change lanes without signaling?

Is that allowed? Nope, but nobody cares because they can get away with it. Turn signals prevent accidents, save lives, etc. Yet people ignore them, refuse to use them. I'd bet some of the same people that come down on this guy for his recklessness don't use them - whether they earn a living in the fire service or not.

We should all hold ourselves to a higher standard, regardless of the legal consequences. The human consequences of life safety are much more significant and should be our first concern and highest priority responsibility.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

This whole situation is disturbing from several angles:

First, and most obviously, the fact that someone in a position of authority would show such disregard for the lives and property he's sworn to protect. This really says something about human nature and what happens when people are granted role power - something to be very aware of in our lives as we move through them. Nobody is immune to this, though their judgment may prevent something as egregious as this incident from occurring.

Second, the fact that the volunteer side of the service, by nature, is potentially (e.g., has the capacity to be - NOT saying that it might be) more permissive of, and acts as less of a deterrent for, this behavior. That coupled with the fact that there are vastly more volunteers than career members makes the likelihood of the bad apples being on the volunteer side higher. But the thing that really disturbs me here is that some people take this opportunity to makes this a volunteer vs. career issue and paint it all with a broad brush that completely ignores the fact that people, especially firefighters (type A personalities), often take the path of least resistance by using shortcuts (usually very creative, efficient and effective on the fireground) to get the job done. Human nature.

My last point is that we still, as a community, seem to adhere to the idea that punitive measures will correct issues like this and training will prevent it. Did this individual know what he was doing was wrong? I'd be shocked if someone could prove otherwise. He just thought he could get away with it. How many people change lanes without signaling?

Is that allowed? Nope, but nobody cares because they can get away with it. Turn signals prevent accidents, save lives, etc. Yet people ignore them, refuse to use them. I'd bet some of the same people that come down on this guy for his recklessness don't use them - whether they earn a living in the fire service or not.

We should all hold ourselves to a higher standard, regardless of the legal consequences. The human consequences of life safety are much more significant and should be our first concern and highest priority responsibility.

You had me until you got to the turn signal equation. But you're spot on with regard to human behavior when given ANY sort of power. From the soup nazi to the parking enforcement officer looking down over his Aviators at expired meters.

The privilege of "power" in real terms gives the individual great leeway with regard to personal conduct. The initial impression any new officer is going to make upon the rank and file is of paramount importance for personnel to gauge whether you have the real deal, or the throw-his-weight-around on your hands.

There are countless examples of persons who have fallen from positions of power because of the abuse of said. Many many factors figure in to the equation of what makes a person be able to handle power over others with grace and dignity.

Let's face it; we've all known our share of jerks who have a bar, two bars, crossing bugles, flying eagles, or twinkling stars across their collars. Usually, the person who displays the lack of understanding of the application of power, and the restraint thereof as appropriate, will be the bonehead yelling on the radio to "go faster" or the same guy yelling on the fireground thirty four different conflicting orders all at once.

Watch out for that guy. Because he just might come flying past you, in an intersection, frustrated, and over-anxious to get on the fireground and start barking his conflicting orders, and smash into the innocent victim who by ALL MEANS should rightfully hold that municipality responsible because THEY allowed this bonehead to reach a position of power where he was able to inflict carnage upon the citizen he was supposed to be looking out for, with care. But the blinders were on Bro; from the municipality that allowed him, to the "responsible officer" given the sacred right to protect life, limb and property.

[grumpyff 1,159]

Just a technical point, but it's 40 mph, which is 11 points, which would trigger an automatic suspension.

Yes you are correct. Not sure why I put 30 over, I just took a defensive driving class as well.

[helicopper 1,050]

Just a technical point, but it's 40 mph, which is 11 points, which would trigger an automatic suspension.

And the Westchester DA's Office will not prosecute reckless driving solely on the basis of a speeding offense. There have to be other violations that support a charge of reckless driving.

Reference: VTL 1180, VTL 1212

[helicopper 1,050]

This whole situation is disturbing from several angles:

First, and most obviously, the fact that someone in a position of authority would show such disregard for the lives and property he's sworn to protect. This really says something about human nature and what happens when people are granted role power - something to be very aware of in our lives as we move through them. Nobody is immune to this, though their judgment may prevent something as egregious as this incident from occurring.

Second, the fact that the volunteer side of the service, by nature, is potentially (e.g., has the capacity to be - NOT saying that it might be) more permissive of, and acts as less of a deterrent for, this behavior. That coupled with the fact that there are vastly more volunteers than career members makes the likelihood of the bad apples being on the volunteer side higher. But the thing that really disturbs me here is that some people take this opportunity to makes this a volunteer vs. career issue and paint it all with a broad brush that completely ignores the fact that people, especially firefighters (type A personalities), often take the path of least resistance by using shortcuts (usually very creative, efficient and effective on the fireground) to get the job done. Human nature.

My last point is that we still, as a community, seem to adhere to the idea that punitive measures will correct issues like this and training will prevent it. Did this individual know what he was doing was wrong? I'd be shocked if someone could prove otherwise. He just thought he could get away with it. How many people change lanes without signaling?

Is that allowed? Nope, but nobody cares because they can get away with it. Turn signals prevent accidents, save lives, etc. Yet people ignore them, refuse to use them. I'd bet some of the same people that come down on this guy for his recklessness don't use them - whether they earn a living in the fire service or not.

We should all hold ourselves to a higher standard, regardless of the legal consequences. The human consequences of life safety are much more significant and should be our first concern and highest priority responsibility.

We should all hold ourselves to a higher standard, regardless of the legal consequences. The human consequences of life safety are much more significant and should be our first concern and highest priority responsibility.

Well said!!!

I think corrective (not necessarily punitive which has the connotation of punishment) measures and training do reduce the problems we're talking about. Discipline also starts with the individual. If you're going to flagrantly violate rules, laws, common sense, and the actions of the member in front of you, you're on a slippery slope.

As for the lane change reference, I think I understand your point but it's apples and oranges. Passing in a no-passing zone, speeding (double the limit no less), and blowing a red light are vastly different than changes lanes without signalling. Doesn't make it right but I think it is a poor comparison.

[INIT915 1,119]

And the Westchester DA's Office will not prosecute reckless driving solely on the basis of a speeding offense. There have to be other violations that support a charge of reckless driving.

Reference: VTL 1180, VTL 1212

In addition to Westchester, most of the DA's offices in the region share that policy.

[SECTMB 612]

I'm not surprised that accidents involving volunteers greatly outnumber paid.

Volunteer firefighters greatly outnumber paid so of course the incidences would be correspondingly higher.

This was just another lame attempt to create animosity between the the vols and paid. Poor judgement behind the wheel is a reflection of the

individual regardless of compensation.