# Road Safety SafeForce technology on trucks (aka, the "Black Box")



## jedirye (Jan 21, 2008)

What are your thoughts on this kind of technology involved with emergency vehicles such as ambulances, etc. Do any services here currently utilize it and what are your conclusions? We recently acquried a new Executive Director and he is pretty hard set on getting these on our ambulances. They track what speed you are going, can even govern, audible alarms go off if you take a turn too fast, break too fast, or accelerate too fast and it is marked on your record or whatever. I'd like to make a nonbiased judgement on it but would prefer to hear what those who have it/have had it think. I think the natural tendency for us field mates is to be against it because it's like having "big brother" around all the time, but surely not everyone feels like this and it would undoubtedly _make _you drive safer. Your thoughts?

-rye


----------



## MMiz (Jan 21, 2008)

We got them on all of our units in 2005.  They track who is driving, who is wearing a seatbelt, speed, g force, and a few other variables.  There are also two buttons (one on the top of the pt. compartment, and one on the rear bumper) that must be pushed when backing up (to verify a spotter).  At the end of the shift the info is sent via radio to the main control unit, and medics get print outs with their points every month.

The audio alarms/buzzes were a pain in the butt, but I firmly believe that the units have a place in a safe EMS system.


----------



## Markhk (Jan 22, 2008)

You know, I personally feel that I would love to get impartial feedback on my driving with a system like that.

But at the same time, I think people would be much more willing to adopt a system like that if there were assurances that the data utilized would not be used to penalize the driver. 

This really boils down to whether the administration treats their employees as individuals who can grow and learn from their mistakes, or as untrustworthy individuals waiting to be fired.


----------



## JJR512 (Jan 22, 2008)

MMiz said:


> ...There are also two buttons (one on the top of the pt. compartment, and one on the rear bumper) that must be pushed when backing up (to verify a spotter)...


Is it still possible to back up if the buttons haven't been pushed? I mean, is it a lockout system, or does it just note the fact that you didn't use a spotter and report it to your boss? Because it's not always possible to use a spotter, with a crew of two and one patient.


----------



## jedirye (Jan 22, 2008)

Yeah, it's entirely possible but then it's marked on your "record" or whatever.

Our director already put those huge yellow stickers that say "HOW IS MY DRIVING 1-800... YB753" Meh...

-rye


----------



## KEVD18 (Jan 22, 2008)

as a feedback/quality improvement system i have no complaint. but thats not how its typically used. ive only seen it used to screw the crews.

ive worked for one service with the system your describing and two services with active gos tracking. the gps was worse. ive literally had dispatchers who had area knowledge rivaling that of local pd sitting and watching the gps screen. they know that street a is 35mph and they watch and wait and when you hit 36, they write it down. oh wait, only if your not one of their friends.


----------



## rescuepoppy (Jan 22, 2008)

*Black Boxes*

Look at it this way if the feces hits the air flow device they can also show when you are following your driving protocols


----------



## Grady_emt (Jan 24, 2008)

We have Road Safety here at my employer and it is used for two purposes.  First is proving that RLS were/were not activated in the event of a vehicle contact. 

As for the other settings, they are all activated Speed, Lateral G's, Braking, Seatbelt, RLS, Spotter switch activation.  The G's and braking are VERY liberal in the settings, the speed activates the warning tone at 65 and 75 depending on non emergent, or emergent respectively.  The Spotter switch is not used by most crews, but if you have a vehilce contact while backing, its well warned that its automatic 40hrs susp without a spotter.  And if you have a spotter and have reversing vehicle contact you and your partner had better have corroborating storys.

Our main reason for the system is the court admissable factor in the event of a RLS response Vehicle Contact.  It has already shown our crews to be not at fault of several accidents.  It is not used as a disciplinary tool by our administration which is good I suppose.


----------



## Flight-LP (Jan 26, 2008)

"ive only seen it used to screw the crews"

"......if there were assurances that the data utilized would not be used to penalize the driver. "

These are sad statements. The purpose of the data is to conclusively identify human elements that are / were preventable in the case of a collision or non -impact vehicle incident. In most cases, there is a human element of fault. Whether it be intentional or not, it is most likely human error. If there is gross violation of established rules, regulations, or SOP's, then yes that particular driver should be held accountable for his actions. I fail to see how this is "screwing" anyone. I really find it hard to believe that there are EMS managers and directors out there who sole purpose in life is to screw their crews. Especially when it comes to vehicle operations. Perhaps they are seeing it from a financial standpoint where they are tired of paying for repairs due to inept employees who can't drive correctly. Or maybe they are tired of the negative publicity that comes with one of their mobile billboards (i.e. ambulance) is wrapped around a tree or other vehicle. Just gandering a guess here, but I be willing to bet it has little to do with you, so stop taking things personally! There is a black box on every Commercial Air Carrier plane in the U.S. You want to talk about scrutiny? How about having a 2 hour flight completely dissected from the time you pushed back from the gate until the time you taxi in at your destination. This is routinely done at the airlines and you know what, the pilots don't complain about it. The passengers appreciate it, and the aviation industry can boast a better safety record than EMS. See any correlation??????

I have been in a major fleet accident. I have two friends that have been in fatal fleet accidents. They are no fun, period! We have to make a better effort to increase our situational awareness, be mindful or the human elements that we can control (i.e. road and weather conditions, emergency transport, facility transported to, etc.), and communicate as a team. Until that happens, well you get the picture....................

"Because it's not always possible to use a spotter, with a crew of two and one patient."

Sorry, that is incorrect. If you have a patient, then your partner can stop what he / she is doing and look out the back window. If you both are up front, he / she needs to get out. There is no excuse for any backing accidents. Where I work, no spotter will get you some time off, possibly a permanent vacation!


----------



## Markhk (Jan 26, 2008)

Flight, while I appreciate your view, my thoughts on a "don't automatically penalize" system comes specifically from the aviation field. As ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization,  notes,  "a good safety culture is founded on a solid no-blame reporting culture" which is the principal reason behind the Aviation Incident Reporting Systems like the program NASA runs in my area. 

I am a firm believer that all EMS providers should look at "near miss" events to educate themselves on how to prevent serious accidents -- transportation related or in actual clinical practice. But no one is going to learn anything if EMS crews are so terrified to report near miss events because they fear repercussions. 

http://www.emsclosecalls.com/

http://www.mepars.com/mt/reported_cases/


----------



## Flight-LP (Jan 26, 2008)

Markhk said:


> Flight, while I appreciate your view, my thoughts on a "don't automatically penalize" system comes specifically from the aviation field. As ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization,  notes,  "a good safety culture is founded on a solid no-blame reporting culture" which is the principal reason behind the Aviation Incident Reporting Systems like the program NASA runs in my area.
> 
> I am a firm believer that all EMS providers should look at "near miss" events to educate themselves on how to prevent serious accidents -- transportation related or in actual clinical practice. But no one is going to learn anything if EMS crews are so terrified to report near miss events because they fear repercussions.
> 
> ...



Near misses are irrelevant to what I was discussing. Reporting others is irrelevant to what was discussing. What I am talking about is Crew Resource Management. Talking directly to your peers. Maintaining a high level of situational awareness. Identifying and immediately correcting hazardous behaviors. Identifying high risk situations by assessments. All of these have been statistically proven to reduce accidents. It has worked in aviation, it is working in hospitals, some fire departments are using it. EMS needs to follow suit. Part of the reason why it has been so successful in aviation is because it is mandatory. After a while it becomes second nature. It would be wonderful for state agencies to mandate these principles, but as it currently stands, they can't even decide on what colors to paint an ambulance or what color lights to put on it. This is why we should police ourselves from within. I see it being successful every day. but we have to wholeheartedly apply it and adhere to it, religiously!

ICAO ideas are nice, but they are a civil organizations international view of safety. The FAA has a mandated program identified by Advisory Circular. This is what has enabled the "culture of safety" that we have in the U.S. and is the culmination of what NASA started back in the 80's. ICAO had nothing to do with it.......................

But they were instrumental in getting everyone in ATC to speak English! 
Makes trips to Mexico a lot easier!


----------



## Jon (Feb 3, 2008)

We have it at work, and I like it. From my understanding, serious, repeated cases of overspeeds and seatbelt violations have resulted in discipline, but our policy manual states that failure for a DRIVER to wear a seatbelt is grounds for immediate termination, and the manual also provides for a maximum speed for any agency vehicle, so I don't have that much of an issue with that.

We also have the backup buttons. Our policy states that if there is a patient in the back, and active medical care doesn't prohibit it, then the provider moves to the rear windows, uses the spotter button, and spots the vehicle from inside.


----------

