# Ultimate Rescue Rick POV



## bstone (Sep 1, 2011)

Came across this on youtube.  I think this wins the Ultimate Rescue Rick prize.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-1O_3rl1rU&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## firetender (Sep 1, 2011)

If I see something like that in my rear view mirror (especially if I'm blinded by it!) I ain't gonna budge; let the SOB fly over me if it wants!


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Sep 1, 2011)

How did they get a video of my truck?! :rofl:

When I get more money I am probably going to buy stone lights for my truck. HOWEVER they will not be used for responses or anything of the sort. More of a show feature for when I go dirtbike riding.


----------



## NYBLS (Sep 1, 2011)

firetender said:


> If I see something like that in my rear view mirror (especially if I'm blinded by it!) I ain't gonna budge; let the SOB fly over me if it wants!



I will never understand this. You'll pull over for this individual while he is in the ambulance or fire truck he is going to get, but not while he is on the way there? Why delay him?


----------



## Handsome Robb (Sep 1, 2011)

I'm not a huge fan of POV responses, but if the county/state laws support it get out of their way, especially coming from an EMS background. Stupid drivers not yielding are just as dangerous as ricky rescue running hot. Well maybe not JUST as dangerous but still dangerous. Do us all a favor and make his job/volly job easier and pull to the right.

FWIW personally thats a sick light setup, would I ever drop the coin on one for myself no, but still.


----------



## DrParasite (Sep 1, 2011)

I believe I have the Ultimate POV: http://www.projectresponder.com/


----------



## the_negro_puppy (Sep 1, 2011)




----------



## firetender (Sep 1, 2011)

NYBLS said:


> I will never understand this. You'll pull over for this individual while he is in the ambulance or fire truck he is going to get, but not while he is on the way there? Why delay him?


 
Until he or she is IN that official ambulance, fire truck or police car, he/she is just driving one huge, ostentatiously lit, *dangerous* distraction and *is subject to the same road laws as I.* Every move I make to give this fool free passage has the potential to endanger me or the other people around me. 

The rig SCREAMS urgency! when all it's doing is getting some hack to an emergency vehicle so he/she can respond to a non-emergent call that, if the driver is professional at all won't be driven to with one-fifth of the intensity of those lights.

Unmarked cop cars get all the respect they need from me because they use a simple, revolving light designed to get my attention not stun me into a fight or flight response.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Sep 1, 2011)

firetender said:


> Unmarked cop cars get all the respect they need from me because they use a simple, revolving light designed to get my attention not stun me into a fight or flight response.



unmarked cop cars, SUVs, and trucks are set up alot differently here. They are all set up with lights exactly like in the video (in the grill, headlights, taillights, etc.) so if it has lights and sirens then I am pulling over. 

The only place I have seen the simple revolving light is in the movies.


----------



## DrParasite (Sep 1, 2011)

firetender said:


> Unmarked cop cars get all the respect they need from me because they use a simple, revolving light designed to get my attention not stun me into a fight or flight response.


I must admit, the only time I have seen an unmarked car with a simple revolving light is on Police Squad, Law & Order, and Homicide.  

Every other unmarked car has a dash light, grill lights, and wigwags/headlight strobes, as well as a siren.  not only that, but they also have strobes in the brake lights and reverse lights, and often on the rear deck.

If I were to hazard a guess, any cop that was only using a simple revolving light is probably in their personal car, with a cigarette plug so it can be removed easily and is only used on the rare times it's actually used.   

Also, I can't speak for all states, but where I work, by state law it's either all or nothing.  that means all lights on with an audible warning device, or none at all.  there isn't any reduced intensity emergent  response that you are talking about

Further, if you refuse to yield, that is your choice, but if they were going to help your family member in need, would you be the first person to be screaming that they took forever to get to the scene?  I think it's grossly hypocritical for you to refuse to yield to a volunteer responder who is responding to a call (whether you agree with responses from home is irrelevant, as that is what the system uses), yet you will have them respond with lights and sirens in the ambulance to a call, and then judge them based on their response time.


----------



## Chimpie (Sep 1, 2011)

firetender said:


> Until he or she is IN that official ambulance, fire truck or police car, he/she is just driving one huge, ostentatiously lit, *dangerous* distraction and *is subject to the same road laws as I.* Every move I make to give this fool free passage has the potential to endanger me or the other people around me.
> 
> The rig SCREAMS urgency! when all it's doing is getting some hack to an emergency vehicle so he/she can respond to a non-emergent call that, if the driver is professional at all won't be driven to with one-fifth of the intensity of those lights.
> 
> Unmarked cop cars get all the respect they need from me because they use a simple, revolving light designed to get my attention not stun me into a fight or flight response.



Seems as if he responds to emergency calls too.

*Fair warning, he drops a cuss word at the end.*

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zxq_EN0xPE[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## firetender (Sep 1, 2011)

DrParasite said:


> I think it's grossly hypocritical for you to refuse to yield to a volunteer responder who is responding to a call (whether you agree with responses from home is irrelevant, as that is what the system uses), yet you will have them respond with lights and sirens in the ambulance to a call, and then judge them based on their response time.


 
I thought we already established that the seconds you shave off of response time by potentially endangering other people is not quite worth it. If that is the truth with marked, Official vehicles, then is it any less true with Yahoos such as whoever drives the truck in question? Who are you kidding? That's over-the-top and doesn't convey a professional behind the wheel; it's someone who wants to get noticed, not just get there.

...and where did I say I "judge them based on their response time"? I want responders to get there safely without harassing and endangering the rest of us.


----------



## BEorP (Sep 1, 2011)

DrParasite said:


> Also, I can't speak for all states, but where I work, by state law it's either all or nothing.  that means all lights on with an audible warning device, or none at all.



I was quite curious about that as well. It also seems worth nothing that although the lights on the front seem to me more than enough, it doesn't look like there is anything on the side specifically and since he didn't show off the back we might assume that there are none there. That will sure do a lot of good for visibility when he stops at an MVC.


----------



## mcdonl (Sep 1, 2011)

firefite said:


> The only place I have seen the simple revolving light is in the movies.



I have a Code-3 simple revolving light. Were you just referring to unmarked PD?

As far as response... My roads at 45MPH, I can safely in good weather go 50 or so... I have either a 7 minute or 8 minute ride to the station... depends on if I am going the speed limit, or 5 over.

Where the light is helpful is when Poland Springs water trucks are on the road. The do pull over when it is safe to do so.

But, we are perdiem 7 days a week 6a-6p so my typical reponse from home is only when I do my volly shifts. And I live so far away I encourage my driver and basic who is closer to the station to get the rig on the road and I go straight to the scene so that I can avoid the stress of rushing to the station. I prefer to think about the call and my safety.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Sep 1, 2011)

mcdonl said:


> I have a Code-3 simple revolving light. Were you just referring to unmarked PD?



Our area doesn't allow for anyone to respond code in POVs so I have not seen them on POVs. And I have not seen any of them on unmarked cop cars. The only place I have seen them is on movies and TV shows. 

And now the arguement about "saving time" when going code 3 vs normal driving. I have no clue what the conditions are that you guys may face but for us going code saves minutes sometimes 10+ minutes.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Sep 1, 2011)

> Until he or she is IN that official ambulance, fire truck or police car, he/she is just driving one huge, ostentatiously lit, dangerous distraction and is subject to the same road laws as I.


 
Precisely.



> The rig SCREAMS urgency!


 
No, I believe it screams: (images on page removed).



> I think it's grossly hypocritical for you to refuse to yield to a volunteer responder who is responding to a call (whether you agree with responses from home is irrelevant, as that is what the system uses


 
A quick way to put an end to it that I have used in the past is to give the license plate number to the local dispatch agency: "Yeah, some jerkoff just blew past me at 20 over the posted speed limit on the wrong side of the double yellow on a curve. He's got emergency lights on his vehicle but he's driving like he's drunk". Nothing says "Back it off a few notches there Ricky" like a ticket with a hefty fine or license suspension for reckless driving. Most cops have zero tolerance for this sort of BS. Neither do fire chiefs who will no doubt not appreciate the negative impact on their department's reputation.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Sep 1, 2011)

Chimpie said:


> Seems as if he responds to emergency calls too.
> 
> *Fair warning, he drops a cuss word at the end.*
> 
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zxq_EN0xPE[/YOUTUBE]



LOL Nothing like providing the local LEOs with evidence of you speeding.  The only better thing than their dashcam footage of it is your own.


----------



## mcdonl (Sep 1, 2011)

firefite said:


> Our area doesn't allow for anyone to respond code in POVs so I have not seen them on POVs. And I have not seen any of them on unmarked cop cars. The only place I have seen them is on movies and TV shows.
> 
> And now the arguement about "saving time" when going code 3 vs normal driving. I have no clue what the conditions are that you guys may face but for us going code saves minutes sometimes 10+ minutes.



Firefite... not arguing the going code 3 at all... I have the longest response to the station in my town... 8 minutes going speed limit... MAYBE if I am hauling butt in the middle of the night I can save 1.5 minutes off that... maybe... or I could hit a deer, sandy patch, moose, etc....

But... from the end of town furthest from the nearest Trauma center we have almost 45 minutes, 3 Towns and 2 cities to go through. Running code 3 when needed does save us time transporting.


----------



## mcdonl (Sep 1, 2011)

LOL... all that equipment and some smoke got him that worked up. What an idiot. In Maine, ONLY the Chief can run a siren and any external lights. Everyone else is allowed one light inside the car. Most people just use visor LED's but I cannot afford one, as my crack habit takes all of my spare money. I do stick my head out the window and go "woo woo" from time to time though... when I know PD is already on scene.


----------



## ArcticKat (Sep 1, 2011)

firetender said:


> Until he or she is IN that official ambulance, fire truck or police car, he/she is just driving one huge, ostentatiously lit, *dangerous* distraction and *is subject to the same road laws as I.*



Depends on where you're located.  In some areas a POV can be registered as a legitimate emergency vehicle for the purpose of responding to a scene or to get the applicable emergency vehicle.  As such it is exempt from many of the laws applicable to your personal vehicle while it is responding to an emergency.

Making assumptions that this is just some whacker overcompensating for some unknown deficiency and that you don't have to afford his position the respect you would if he were driving that ambulance, fire truck, or police car is what puts people in danger.  Not him/her.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Sep 1, 2011)

> are that you guys may face but for us going code saves minutes sometimes 10+ minutes.



Prove it.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Sep 1, 2011)

> Running code 3 when needed does save us time transporting.



Once again, prove it.  The burden of proof is on the person making the claim not otherwise backed up by evidence.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Sep 1, 2011)

usafmedic45 said:


> Prove it.



No way to prove it. We have 8 medic ambulances to cover 2,400 square miles. So response and transport times can be 45+ minutes. 

The only "proof" I have of it is the countless MVC where 2 ambulances leave the scene at the same time (1 going code and 1 not) and arriving at the hospital at totally different times.

.....prove that it doesn't save us minutes on response times and transport times for my area.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Sep 1, 2011)

> No way to prove it.



Then it's not fact.  It's conjecture and speculation.



> The only "proof" I have of it is the countless MVC where 2 ambulances leave the scene at the same time (1 going code and 1 not) and arriving at the hospital at totally different times.



Actually, if you were to go back and pull times, etc and apply a proper statistical analysis to it to account for other factors that is a way to prove it at least marginally so.



> prove that it doesn't save us minutes on response times and transport times for my area.



That's not how it works, but I'm not surprised that EMS personnel don't realize that.  There's existing evidence that says it doesn't save time in a variety of settings (including remote areas) so therefore the l don't have to prove you correct or incorrect.  The logical assumption is that you are simply operating under some form of a selection or confirmation bias.


----------



## epipusher (Sep 1, 2011)

Whether it saves time or not, is it worth the added risk to transport at a presumably higher rate of speed?


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Sep 1, 2011)

usafmedic45 said:


> Then it's not fact.  It's conjecture and speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am operating off of personal experience. You are also not able to prove me correct or incorrect on saving time. Yes there maybe a study from a "variety" of areas. But it's not from my area directly. 

I can go back and pull all the times from different calls but I know nothing about statistical analysis. Yes the ambulance not going code may have had heavier traffic or had to stop at more red lights. However the ambulance going code gets around these factors due to code 3. We hardly ever have to go thru a red light due to the opticom system. 

How long does sitting at a normal red light take? 30 seconds if not alot more. Now imagine having no red lights to wait at. 

Sitting in stopped traffic on the freeway vs going 15 mph on the shoulder of the freeway. I can keep giving more examples of tons of time saved during code 3 then normal driving. 

If there are studies that show code 3 doesn't save time, then why are ambulances, fire engines, police still going code 3?


----------



## ArcticKat (Sep 1, 2011)

*82MPH in a 55 Zone*

In case anyone was curious, I deduced the speed of this particular Whacker by counting the dotted lines between 3:36 and 3:56 and came up with 60.  Based on the requirements that dotted lines be 40 feet apart, (center to center) he travelled 2400 feet in 20 seconds.  That equates to 82 MPH, give or take.

I'm really on the fence to be honest.  I don't have a light for my POV but I used to have a supervisor SUV with light bar and markings that I would use to respond to scenes or to go get the ambulance when we have a call.

Sometimes the lights came in handy, sometimes they were best left turned off.  The problem is, we don't get any dispatch information when the tones go off, we only get that when we get into the ambulance.  We respond from home not knowing if the 911 call was for a cardiac arrest or for a stubbed toe.

I guess it's kinda like owning a firearm.  I don't own one, I don't use one, but I will defend your right to have one if you are a responsible firearm owner.  If you abuse the weapon or commit a crime with it, you should never be allowed to hold one again.  Same with lights on a POV, if it's legal and you use them responsibly, then by all means.  If you're a whacker....get a life.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Sep 1, 2011)

> Yes there maybe a study from a "variety" of areas. But it's not from my area directly.



Yes, but then again you rely on medical research that wasn't done on the specific patient you are working on, correct?  



> I am operating off of personal experience.



...and in science, anecdotal evidence ("personal experience") is a very low quality data source to base something upon.  As the saying goes "n=1 equals nothing". 



> You are also not able to prove me correct or incorrect on saving time.



I don't have to nor do I feel compelled to.  The burden is with the person making the "unreasonable claim" (not my choice of words...it comes from another scientist's statement on this subject) that is not in line with prior data.  I'll use the example of the existence of aliens.  It's not the non-believers to disprove that we are being visited by alien lifeforms, since it's an _a priori _logical error to assume that they exist without evidence to that fact in the first place.  The burden is with the redneck who is claiming he was "probed" and the nutjobs on that UFO Hunters show to bring forth evidence that the counterpoint to current scientific opinion is, as a point of fact, correct.

I am simply you not make extrapolations based upon shaky data that may or may not be correct due to biases, either intentional or unintentional.  



> We hardly ever have to go thru a red light due to the opticom system.


Ah, that's the kicker there!  It's not your lights and siren that are giving you a speed advantage.  It's the Opticom system which I don't believe most rednecks and whackers have access to.  



> In case anyone was curious, I deduced the speed of this particular Whacker by counting the dotted lines between 3:36 and 3:56 and came up with 60. Based on the requirements that dotted lines be 40 feet apart, (center to center) he travelled 2400 feet in 20 seconds. That equates to 82 MPH, give or take.



I had it estimated at around 70 mph just from an educated guess.

Anyone know where this crackpot (the driver, not ArticKat) is from?  I think his local LE agency should know about this. 



> If there are studies that show code 3 doesn't save time, then why are ambulances, fire engines, police still going code 3?



Because people are :censored::censored::censored::censored:ing stupid and resistant to change, especially if you take away things they feel make them feel more important than they actually are or showcase to others how important they think they are.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Sep 1, 2011)

usafmedic45 said:


> Ah, that's the kicker there!  It's not your lights and siren that are giving you a speed advantage.  It's the Opticom system which I don't believe most rednecks and whackers have access to.



The opticom system is integrated into the code 3 lights (company got mad at people turning it on at red lights for no reason). And as a red neck myself I just need a couple hundred dollars and I could be a wacker with an opticom :rofl:


----------



## epipusher (Sep 1, 2011)

Most ambulances probably are running hot, code3 etc., to the hospital due to the fear or lack of confidence from the attendant in the back regarding their patient.


----------



## EMTSTUDENT25 (Sep 1, 2011)

I'm wondering if these POV's are mainly in a certain area of the US because I've NEVER witnessed one of these vehicles go flying by.


----------



## ArcticKat (Sep 1, 2011)

ArcticKat said:


> In case anyone was curious, I deduced the speed of this particular Whacker by counting the dotted lines between 3:36 and 3:56 and came up with 60.  Based on the requirements that dotted lines be 40 feet apart, (center to center) he travelled 2400 feet in 20 seconds.  That equates to 82 MPH, give or take.



Whoops, sorry, I screwed up.  The time frame was 3:38 to 3:56, thus 18 seconds to drive 2400 feet.

ie, 90+ MPH in a 55MPH zone.

Yikes.



epipusher said:


> Most ambulances probably are running hot, code3 etc., to the hospital due to the fear or lack of confidence from the attendant in the back regarding their patient.



That is exactly why ambulances use lights and sirens to the hospital...the paramedic in the back is incompetent of providing the treatments that this particular patient requires and has to get them to someone who is competent in a timely manner.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Sep 1, 2011)

> And as a red neck myself I just need a couple hundred dollars and I could be a wacker with an opticom



In a lot of states, that's illegal.



> I'm wondering if these POV's are mainly in a certain area of the US because I've NEVER witnessed one of these vehicles go flying by.



A lot of states don't allow it at all. Mostly you see it in the same areas where having a gun rack in your truck is both legal and considered something of a status symbol.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Sep 1, 2011)

ArcticKat said:


> Whoops, sorry, I screwed up.  The time frame was 3:38 to 3:56, thus 18 seconds to drive 2400 feet.
> 
> ie, 90+ MPH in a 55MPH zone.
> 
> Yikes.



Seriously, any idea where this idiot is from?

EDIT: Based on some of the stuff in the background of his videos, he's in Hammond, LA.


----------



## ArcticKat (Sep 1, 2011)

*Louisiana*

According to one of his other vids....he was even kind enough to include his plate number on the vid.  Any interested Police Officers, see the attachment. 

I think this one is the worst though.

Seizure anyone?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l62dUX4e8E


----------



## CheifBud (Sep 1, 2011)

ArcticKat said:


> According to one of his other vids....he was even kind enough to include his plate number on the vid.  Any interested Police Officers, see the attachment.
> 
> I think this one is the worst though.
> 
> ...



At what point after the first few lights are you compensating for something?  You already have the biggest truck with the biggest tires but now you need the biggest display of "look at meeeee" glaring in everyone's face.  I mean did you see how many people quickly responded to him being right behind them? If you missed it the answer is about 1 and a half people if you count the guy that waves him by @ 55mph.  Point being unless its a GIANT red truck (your muddin truck doesn't count), a BIG moving box with lights and sirens or more importantly  something that will potentially give you a ticket, a large amount of people won't even take them seriously. 

I wouldn't even think this was an emergency vehicle it really looks like a show truck with for poops n' giggles lights on it.... probably flip him off since I'm now wearing my shades at 1 in the morning


----------



## usalsfyre (Sep 1, 2011)

epipusher said:


> Most ambulances probably are running hot, code3 etc., to the hospital due to the fear or lack of confidence from the attendant in the back regarding their patient.


+1000

I found the more experience and confidence I gained as a medic, the less I transported emergently


----------



## triemal04 (Sep 1, 2011)

usafmedic45 said:


> Then it's not fact.  It's conjecture and speculation.
> 
> Actually, if you were to go back and pull times, etc and apply a proper statistical analysis to it to account for other factors that is a way to prove it at least marginally so.
> 
> That's not how it works, but I'm not surprised that EMS personnel don't realize that.  There's existing evidence that says it doesn't save time in a variety of settings (including remote areas) so therefore the l don't have to prove you correct or incorrect.  The logical assumption is that you are simply operating under some form of a selection or confirmation bias.


Good lord.  Aside from the fact that, in this situation you *are* wrong (*long* transports from remote areas are really the only time that increased speeds will save time) your whole premise in refusing to answer is asinine.  Allow me to paraphrase; "I'm right, you're wrong, but I won't prove that I'm right because I'm right."  Come on...do you really think that's going to work, especially for this, where simple basic math that any highschooler can do would prove this?

Lets see...driving 55mph vs 70mph (random numbers, insert whatever you want).  55mph=4840ft/min, 70mph=6160ft/min.  So every 10 minutes you travel 61600ft at 70mph, or 2.5 miles further than you would have at 55.  Which works out to be 2 minutes 45sec (roughly, actually 2.72min)  saved for evert 10 minutes of travel time at 70 vs 55mph.  So, for a 45 mile transport you'd save about 10.5 minutes.

Now, all that discounts the fact that the average speed that you travelled would be lower, and that it isn't always safe to drive the average ambulance at that high a speed, but the principle still remains the same; higher rates of speed will save time if the total distance travelled is increased.  Of course, this doesn't mean that it's worth it to drive like that just to save some time, but it does mean that...you are wrong.


----------



## mcdonl (Sep 2, 2011)

epipusher said:


> Most ambulances probably are running hot, code3 etc., to the hospital due to the fear or lack of confidence from the attendant in the back regarding their patient.



Why would you say that?

We run code 3 when we have a code, or when myself or a basic have called for a EMT-P intercept and we stay code 3 until we get a medic onboard or we get to the hospital.

And, as I stated in my post I go through several 3 towns and two cities to get to the hospital, all of them with main roads and traffic lights. It is not so much about the speed, it is about being able to get cars to yield so we can go without stopping in traffic.

As far as proving it try this... the next time you are in traffic... put on your lights and sirens and see if the cars in front of you yield, pull over or otherwise let you by. I suspect that you will find that they do. If not, than your community is significantly different than mine. Around here, people pull over to the side when they see emergency vehicles with lights and sirens. Again, not about speed as much as getting through rural, main street traffic.


----------



## fast65 (Sep 2, 2011)

mcdonl said:


> As far as proving it try this... the next time you are in traffic... put on your lights and sirens and see if the cars in front of you yield, pull over or otherwise let you by. I suspect that you will find that they do. If not, than your community is significantly different than mine. Around here, people pull over to the side when they see emergency vehicles with lights and sirens. Again, not about speed as much as getting through rural, main street traffic.



Right...around here we get about 4/10 cars that actually yield to us, and I'm in a rural system. Our company policy requires we run code 3 to all calls, but I can count on one hand the number of code 3 returns I've done in the past 3 months.

Sent from my mobile command center


----------



## EMTSTUDENT25 (Sep 2, 2011)

You tubing this subject a minute ago, there are some intense displays of what people consider necessary.  I mean wow, some of those cars have more lights then 2 rescue trucks combined!  These volunteers must have some great day jobs!


----------



## usafmedic45 (Sep 2, 2011)

> We run code 3 when we have a code



During transport?  Why?



> Right...around here we get about 4/10 cars that actually yield to us, and I'm in a rural system



That's about my experience as well.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Sep 2, 2011)

> These volunteers must have some great day jobs!



If his chief sees those videos of the driving he posted, the guy who was the subject of the original videos posted on here will probably have more time to spend at that day job. LOL


----------



## mcdonl (Sep 2, 2011)

usafmedic45 said:


> During transport?  Why?



Well, unlike the Internet we have SOP's that are determined by others. I do not make the rules, I just follow them.

And, there are some facts written somewhere about cardiac patients getting advanced care faster. And, even though where you live and in your service your lights and sirens do not do YOU any good, there is a whole world out there that is NOT YOU and others experiences, although inferior to YOURS may vary.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Sep 2, 2011)

mcdonl said:


> usafmedic45 said:
> 
> 
> > During transport?  Why?
> ...


----------



## epipusher (Sep 2, 2011)

Driving hot to the hospital was and still is one of Dr. Bledsoe's many myths of EMS. http://www.emsworld.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=1&id=2027


----------



## mcdonl (Sep 2, 2011)

usafmedic45 said:


> [Your SOPs need to be updated so you can stop risking your necks transporting corpses.



Your still hung up on the speed aspect of things. Sure, lights and sirens can cause some people to panic, and potentially cause an accident, but where we live L&S used as a means to alter the traffic flow works. It may not work for you, but it works for us. So, we do it. And, our SOP's give us certain times (Codes, Intercept Requests, etc.....) when we MUST go Code 3, but we rarely would ever need to alter our speed, the speed limit is already 45-55 for all of the transport except where we hit towns and cities, in which case getting through traffic is important.

Maybe it is because we live in a place where we get snow, so our roads are wider... maybe it is because we live in an area with a lot of land so there is not much parking on the roads... for whatever reason, in my short three years driving rescue I have NEVER had a vehicle fail to yield to me.


----------



## mcdonl (Sep 2, 2011)

epipusher said:


> Driving hot to the hospital was and still is one of Dr. Bledsoe's many myths of EMS. http://www.emsworld.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=1&id=2027



Who cares? Pick a topic, and you will find differences in opinion. I am not saying that anyone on here is doing anything wrong by not going Code 3 to the hospital, but it seems like the crowd who has drank the Bledsoe Koolaid seems to think that those of us who DO get benefit from it are wrong.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Sep 2, 2011)

> Your still hung up on the speed aspect of things.



No, I'm "hung up" on the increased risks associated with code 3 operations.  It's well documented and not just my opinion.  I'm also "hung up" on the multiple studies that show effectively no difference between paramedic treatment on scene and then pronouncement versus field treatment and then transport to the hospital.  



> It may not work for you, but it works for us.



Does it?  Who is it benefiting?



> Maybe it is because we live in a place where we get snow, so our roads are wider... maybe it is because we live in an area with a lot of land so there is not much parking on the roads... for whatever reason, in my short three years driving rescue I have NEVER had a vehicle fail to yield to me.



n=1 

I know you don't like me, but I'm just trying to get you to think beyond "Well, our protocols say....".  There's nothing wrong with that.  If you want to be a robot, fine, but don't get on my case when I question the approaches that you take because they deviate significantly from how the progressive side of EMS operates and thinks.


----------



## epipusher (Sep 2, 2011)

:beerchug:
I'm Mr. Protocol's, so lucky for me ours are medic discretion


----------



## usafmedic45 (Sep 2, 2011)

> Who cares? Pick a topic, and you will find differences in opinion. I am not saying that anyone on here is doing anything wrong by not going Code 3 to the hospital, but it seems like the crowd who has drank the Bledsoe Koolaid seems to think that those of us who DO get benefit from it are wrong.



LOL Then you need to show us the data.  Welcome to medicine as a branch of science and not a form of mystical voodoo.

If you don't want to believe Bledsoe, how about taking a look at:
CODE 3 Responses


Merlin MA, Baldino KT, Lehrfeld DP, Linger M, Lustiger E, Cascio A, Ohman-Strickland P, Dossantos F. Use of a limited lights and siren protocol in the prehospital setting vs standard usage. Am J Emerg Med. 2011 May 11.


Transport of Cardiac Arrest

Millin MG, Khandker SR, Malki A.  Termination of Resuscitation of Nontraumatic Cardiopulmonary Arrest: Resource Document for the National Association of EMS Physicians Position Statement. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2011 Oct-Dec;15(4):547-54. Epub 2011 Aug 15.

...or any of the other multiple studies on the subjects at hand


----------



## looker (Sep 2, 2011)

If a vehicle is equipped with proper emergency lights i will get out of its way. Otherwise he/she can sit behind me till they can safely pass me.


----------



## mcdonl (Sep 2, 2011)

usafmedic45 said:


> LOL Then you need to show us the data.  Welcome to medicine as a branch of science and not a form of mystical voodoo.
> 
> If you don't want to believe Bledsoe, how about taking a look at:
> CODE 3 Responses
> ...



Not talking about medicine, talking about vehicle operations. But, you clearly have displayed that you have no ability to see anyone elses opinion.

I on the other hand see your side of the argument, and get it. I just also know that in some environments vehicle operations differ and there are pro's and con's and the con's do not always out weigh the pro's. No since arguing with someone like you, it is pointless and no fun. This got boring.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Sep 2, 2011)

> Not talking about medicine, talking about vehicle operations.



When you're talking about using a vehicle to effect patient care, you are talking about medicine.  It's just like how the debate on whether to go by air or ground is based largely on the demonstrated lack of benefit to aeromedical transport in most areas (Maine actually being one of the exceptions for the most part). 



> Not talking about medicine, talking about vehicle operations. But, you clearly have displayed that you have no ability to see anyone elses opinion.



No, if I didn't see that you have a point, I would have simply called you an sincerely ignorant fool and been done with it.  However, I am trying to have an intellectual discussion with you and yet you can't come up with a better response than:


> No since arguing with someone like you, it is pointless and no fun. This got boring.



Bring up something to back up your contention other than "in my experience" and it wouldn't be so boring.  You basically sank your own ship on this one by not being able to effectively defend your stance other than by trying to attack my credibility.  That's not an incredibly professional way of handling when a colleague tells you that you might want to think about something.  Thinking about it doesn't simply mean feeding it through the strainer to pick out the bits that fit with your own stance and then claim you were right all along.


----------



## HotelCo (Sep 2, 2011)

Looks like the person with the POV is a member here. The videos are down now.


----------



## usalsfyre (Sep 2, 2011)

usafmedic45 said:


> Bring up something to back up your contention other than "in my experience" and it wouldn't be so boring.  You basically sank your own ship on this one by not being able to effectively defend your stance other than by trying to attack my credibility.  That's not an incredibly professional way of handling when a colleague tells you that you might want to think about something.  Thinking about it doesn't simply mean feeding it through the strainer to pick out the bits that fit with your own stance and then claim you were right all along.


This is another illustration of the battle EMS faces to become part of mainstream medicine. Mcdonl, not trying to pick on you, but the thinking you display (my anecdotal experience trumps all other evidence) is one of the reasons other health professions look at us and laugh.


----------



## Chimpie (Sep 2, 2011)

I really could care less if someone spends a lot of money on lights, but this is crazy:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHkLn4gdzHM[/youtube]


----------



## ArcticKat (Sep 2, 2011)

Chimpie said:


> I really could care less if someone spends a lot of money on lights, but this is crazy:



I think he broke his camera with all that flashing contrast.


----------



## PotatoMedic (Sep 2, 2011)

Chimpie said:


> I really could care less if someone spends a lot of money on lights, but this is crazy:



I wonder what is worth more... the truck or the lights? :wacko:


----------



## Cup of Joe (Sep 2, 2011)

I think NY really needs to rid themselves of the blue light laws.  They should have an outright ban on courtesy lights on personal vehicles while they are moving.  All they do is give some people the idea that they are better than everyone, above the law, and have the "right" to drive unsafely to put the public, and themselves at danger.

However, if they are closer to the emergency in their POV, and are permitted by local protocols, i think volunteers should be allowed blue lights on their POV only to be used when the vehicle is parked on scene to increase scene visibility and safety.


----------



## triemal04 (Sep 2, 2011)

usafmedic45 said:


> LOL Then you need to show us the data.  Welcome to medicine as a branch of science and not a form of mystical voodoo.
> 
> If you don't want to believe Bledsoe, how about taking a look at:
> CODE 3 Responses
> ...


That study was not intended to look at how much time an emergent trip to the hospital saved, but (and actually more importantly, though in this setting not neccasarily applicable) if the patient fared better.  Not suprisingly, there wasn't a lot of difference between the 2 groups.  Of course, the average time saved, since this was based in several urban/suburban systems was not all that much either.

What almost every study that has been done shows, and continuies to show, is that emergent driving WILL save time, though with shorter distances not neccasarily a signifigant enough amount that will affect patient outcomes.  How this affects those than actually can shave off 10+ minutes is debatable and as far as I know hasn't been looked at.  It's also debatable if an emergent responce when the patient needs an intervention unavailable in the field makes a difference; one study does seem to indicate that it matters.

Bottom line:  short trips...speed is less important than avoiding traffic, not having to come to full stops, and using a system like the opticom...long (quite long) trips...an increase in average speed and all of the above will save time, and perhaps a signififgant amount.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735675711000453  The study indicated in the above post.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196064495702679  Time is saved, but again, in an urban system where it isn't much, not worth it.

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10903129908958920  Basically same as above, but slightly more time saved.

http://www.emsphysician1.com/media/files/emsp11.pdf  Ditto, but does indicate that time saving IS important for interventions only found in-hospital.


----------



## DrParasite (Sep 3, 2011)

Chimpie said:


> I really could care less if someone spends a lot of money on lights, but this is crazy:
> 
> [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHkLn4gdzHM[/youtube]


ok, who took a video of my truck and put it up on youtube?  and before you answer, no, I don't have a very small penis.

but in all honesty, I think that L&S are over used, but it's still hypocritical to say they shouldn't be on POV's that are responding to a station to respond on an emergency vehicle using L&S.  

if lights save time, than by all means give them to everyone.

if lights don't save time, than lets stop using them for everyone, and even authorized emergency vehicles (fire trucks, ambulances, police cars (who are by far the worst offenders of speeding and driving like idiot, and have the crash stats to prove it), organ transplant crew, OEM, etc) should no longer respond to emergencies using L&S.  Opticom yes, everything else no.

and i think the studies are based on solid research, but have yet to see PD and the FD changing their operations and response patters.  maybe they know something we don't?


----------



## exodus (Sep 3, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtIHs5q3SKk&feature=related


----------



## PotatoMedic (Sep 3, 2011)

exodus said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtIHs5q3SKk&feature=related



If you listen closely he has the car radio on.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Sep 3, 2011)

FireWA1 said:


> If you listen closely he has the car radio on.



I usually have the radio on while going code. As long as you can hear dispatch that's all my company really cares about. So we just make sure the dispatch radio is up louder then the music.


----------



## DrParasite (Sep 3, 2011)

exodus said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtIHs5q3SKk&feature=related


ummm, and???

he was responding to something, and some idiot on a motorcycle didn't see the truck in front of him had stopped/slowed down and crashed into it.  

I've seen it happen when i was driving the ambulance, the vehicle operator wasn't paying attention, didn't see that the driver in front of him wasn't going, and rear ended him.

the driver wasn't breaking the dbl yellow line, wasn't driving erratically, he didn't pass in a no passing zone, and other than maybe speeding, he was driving in an emergency fasion.

the fault for this lies solely with the motorcycle operator for not paying attention to the other drivers around him, especially the vehicle in front of him who slowed down.


----------



## ArcticKat (Sep 3, 2011)

Ahhh, but, if the POV hadn't been driving "code" then the blue truck wouldn't have had to yield to him and the motorcycle wouldn't have crashed.

I agree, the motorcycle driver is responsible for the accident, but it was the needless POV response that set the chain of events into motion.


----------



## lightsandsirens5 (Sep 3, 2011)

ArcticKat said:


> Ahhh, but, if the POV hadn't been driving "code" then the blue truck wouldn't have had to yield to him and the motorcycle wouldn't have crashed.
> 
> I agree, the motorcycle driver is responsible for the accident, but it was the needless POV response that set the chain of events into motion.



You sure you haven't been to law school?


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Sep 3, 2011)

ArcticKat said:


> Ahhh, but, if the POV hadn't been driving "code" then the blue truck wouldn't have had to yield to him and the motorcycle wouldn't have crashed.
> 
> I agree, the motorcycle driver is responsible for the accident, but it was the needless POV response that set the chain of events into motion.



It wasnt a POV tho. If you look at some of his other videos then you will see that it is an assistant chiefs car, with the fire department paint job on the sides and an actual lightbar.


----------



## ArcticKat (Sep 3, 2011)

firefite said:


> It wasnt a POV tho. If you look at some of his other videos then you will see that it is an assistant chiefs car, with the fire department paint job on the sides and an actual lightbar.



You're right, I was making an incorrect assumption based on the topic of this thread.  Additionally, the driver appeared to be quite competent and driving with appropriate due care and attention.

That still doesn't invalidate my comment though.  If the fire truck wasn't running L/S the accident would likely not have happened.



lightsandsirens5 said:


> You sure you haven't been to law school?



No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express a while back.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Sep 3, 2011)

ArcticKat said:


> You're right, I was making an incorrect assumption based on the topic of this thread.  Additionally, the driver appeared to be quite competent and driving with appropriate due care and attention.
> 
> That still doesn't invalidate my comment though.  If the fire truck wasn't running L/S the accident would likely not have happened.



Yes. But then again if the person on the motorcycle didn't go out that day then the accident would not have happened lol


----------



## ArcticKat (Sep 3, 2011)

firefite said:


> Yes. But then again if the person on the motorcycle didn't go out that day then the accident would not have happened lol



And if no one had decided to be on the road that day the fire truck driver wouldn't have had to turn on his lights and sirens at all.


----------



## exodus (Sep 3, 2011)

That video is to show that we shouldn't respond Code 3 to most calls. The dude was responding to a child lost in the woods behind their house. Call was cancelled a few moments after that accident.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Sep 3, 2011)

ArcticKat said:


> And if no one had decided to be on the road that day the fire truck driver wouldn't have had to turn on his lights and sirens at all.



Depends on policy. We can only downgrade a response if weather conditions get extremely bad.


----------



## the_negro_puppy (Sep 4, 2011)

exodus said:


> That video is to show that we shouldn't respond Code 3 to most calls. The dude was responding to a child lost in the woods behind their house. Call was cancelled a few moments after that accident.



This is exactly why lights and siren response should only be for time critical emergencies. Although the biker was to blame, this video demonstrates the risks running L&S poses on the crew and the public.

I can count on one hand the number of times I have run L&S to hospital in nearly 2 years.


----------



## Melclin (Sep 4, 2011)

I can't believe that there are places the go L&S to all jobs. That is patently absurd. 

I think L&S have their place. Its silly to think of sitting and waiting at a red light for 2 mins on empty streets going to a cardiac arrest. But the way they're used in some places scares me. 

We have a pretty good safety profile. Someone told me once that L&S driving is about jumping cues to avoid unnecessarily long waits, its not about speed. That's pretty much my approach.


----------



## exodus (Sep 4, 2011)

Melclin said:


> I can't believe that there are places the go L&S to all jobs. That is patently absurd.
> 
> I think L&S have their place. Its silly to think of sitting and waiting at a red light for 2 mins on empty streets going to a cardiac arrest. But the way they're used in some places scares me.
> 
> We have a pretty good safety profile. Someone told me once that L&S driving is about jumping cues to avoid unnecessarily long waits, its not about speed. That's pretty much my approach.



That's my thought on it. Honestly. I think they should be only for time sensitive like you said, and to have opticom system setup where it just changes the lights to green in the way they want to go.


----------



## Chimpie (Sep 4, 2011)

Is the light that triggers the opticom infrared? I'm thinking that one version of it was.

Maybe create a system where the opticom is either infrared or wireless, allowing the ambulance or other official vehicle to respond to lower priority calls w/o L&S but still trigger his light green for a _faster_ response.


----------



## exodus (Sep 4, 2011)

Chimpie said:


> Is the light that triggers the opticom infrared? I'm thinking that one version of it was.
> 
> Maybe create a system where the opticom is either infrared or wireless, allowing the ambulance or other official vehicle to respond to lower priority calls w/o L&S but still trigger his light green for a _faster_ response.



Mhmm. It's a white strobe at 70hz.  They also have infared ones as well which what PD usually has.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Sep 4, 2011)

Chimpie said:


> Is the light that triggers the opticom infrared? I'm thinking that one version of it was.
> 
> Maybe create a system where the opticom is either infrared or wireless, allowing the ambulance or other official vehicle to respond to lower priority calls w/o L&S but still trigger his light green for a _faster_ response.



My company used to have it to where you could turn the opticom on by itself. But everyone was using it on every single light even if they wernt on a call. Now it's set up to only be on when the code lights are. And once the ambulance is in park (even with code lights on) it turns the opticom off so a traffic light doesn't stay green forever.


----------



## Tigger (Sep 4, 2011)

Chimpie said:


> Is the light that triggers the opticom infrared? I'm thinking that one version of it was.
> 
> Maybe create a system where the opticom is either infrared or wireless, allowing the ambulance or other official vehicle to respond to lower priority calls w/o L&S but still trigger his light green for a _faster_ response.



This is done in Colorado Springs CO for Fire, Police, and I believe AMR. The system uses GPS, and as long as the driver follows the route provided by the computer in the rig, all of the lights will be green on the way to that call, even if it's just a lift assist or something of that nature. It does have to be dispatched call, however. Some deviation from the planned route is possible I believe, once the truck gets within a certain range of the stoplight based on the GPS map the lights usually change.


----------



## NYBLS (Sep 5, 2011)

ArcticKat said:


> Ahhh, but, if the POV hadn't been driving "code" then the blue truck wouldn't have had to yield to him and the motorcycle wouldn't have crashed.
> 
> I agree, the motorcycle driver is responsible for the accident, but it was the needless POV response that set the chain of events into motion.



And if some people didn't go outside and stayed in bed, they wouldn't die. Should we all stay in bed? No. Then why should a fire chief, EMT, firefighter, etc not be able to use a red response as they deem appropriate just in case theres some idiot on a motorcycle?


----------



## usalsfyre (Sep 5, 2011)

NYBLS said:


> And if some people didn't go outside and stayed in bed, they wouldn't die. Should we all stay in bed? No. Then why should a fire chief, EMT, firefighter, etc not be able to use a red response as they deem appropriate just in case theres some idiot on a motorcycle?



Because the idiot wasn't on the motorcycle?


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Sep 5, 2011)

usalsfyre said:


> Because the idiot wasn't on the motorcycle?



But it seems like the motorcycle rider wasn't paying attention to the truck infront of him....


----------



## Anthony7994 (Sep 5, 2011)

mcdonl said:


> LOL... all that equipment and some smoke got him that worked up. What an idiot. In Maine, ONLY the Chief can run a siren and any external lights. Everyone else is allowed one light inside the car. Most people just use visor LED's but I cannot afford one, as my crack habit takes all of my spare money. I do stick my head out the window and go "woo woo" from time to time though... when I know PD is already on scene.



My life story. :rofl:


----------



## ArcticKat (Sep 5, 2011)

NYBLS said:


> And if some people didn't go outside and stayed in bed, they wouldn't die. Should we all stay in bed? No. Then why should a fire chief, EMT, firefighter, etc not be able to use a red response as they deem appropriate just in case theres some idiot on a motorcycle?



Because the fire truck driver was responding to a child lost in the woods.  Not a child injured, not a child on fire, but a child missing.  Do you think that this missing child, who was found before the fire truck driver arrived, would have suffered greatly for having to wait for this one extra searcher to arrive about one minute later than he would have without L&S?

If this fire truck driver deemed this red response to be appropriate he needs to go back to whacker school.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Sep 5, 2011)

ArcticKat said:


> Because the fire truck driver was responding to a child lost in the woods.  Not a child injured, not a child on fire, but a child missing.  Do you think that this missing child, who was found before the fire truck driver arrived, would have suffered greatly for having to wait for this one extra searcher to arrive about one minute later than he would have without L&S?
> 
> If this fire truck driver deemed this red response to be appropriate he needs to go back to whacker school.



It depends on his service as to if he gets to choose his response mode. We get called out for everything in code 3 (L&S) status (anything from tooth pain to full arrests). We have to respond code 3 status (unless bad weather) or we will get fired. 

Dispatch tells us what mode we will be responding in and we have to follow it.


----------



## NYBLS (Sep 5, 2011)

ArcticKat said:


> Because the fire truck driver was responding to a child lost in the woods.  Not a child injured, not a child on fire, but a child missing.  Do you think that this missing child, who was found before the fire truck driver arrived, would have suffered greatly for having to wait for this one extra searcher to arrive about one minute later than he would have without L&S?
> 
> If this fire truck driver deemed this red response to be appropriate he needs to go back to whacker school.



Some areas are not allowed to choose how they respond, it is placed in a policy that leaves little room for decision making. I will not second guess his decision based on what we are not even certain of. We have no clue as to what environment the child was lost in, the temperatue, the reported status of the child, etc. All we know if he used his lights and sirens, a motorcyclist wasn't paying attention, and crashed. Instead of concentrating on preventing the accident by eliminating lights and sirens, how about we educate the public better what to do when someone with them activated approaches.


----------



## ArcticKat (Sep 5, 2011)

NYBLS said:


> Some areas are not allowed to choose how they respond, it is placed in a policy that leaves little room for decision making.



That is unfortunate.



NYBLS said:


> Instead of concentrating on preventing the accident by eliminating lights and sirens, how about we educate the public better what to do when someone with them activated approaches.



I'll agree to do both, would'nt you?


----------



## exodus (Sep 5, 2011)

ArcticKat said:


> Because the fire truck driver was responding to a child lost in the woods.  Not a child injured, not a child on fire, but a child missing.  Do you think that this missing child, who was found before the fire truck driver arrived, would have suffered greatly for having to wait for this one extra searcher to arrive about one minute later than he would have without L&S?
> 
> If this fire truck driver deemed this red response to be appropriate he needs to go back to whacker school.



Not blaming the driver, blaming the system. We dont get to choose our resonse priority. Dispatch SHOULD do that.


----------



## Bullets (Sep 5, 2011)

exodus said:


> Not blaming the driver, blaming the system. We dont get to choose our resonse priority. Dispatch SHOULD do that.



The only thing worse then policy based repsonse is dispatcher based triage. There isnt a way to determine what a call is from what a caller says it is over the phone. Once people realize that chest pain gets a ambulance quicker then back pain the whole thing goes in a handbag

I went on a pt c/o difficulty breathing and found a guy suffering from kidney stones


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Sep 5, 2011)

Bullets said:


> The only thing worse then policy based repsonse is dispatcher based triage. There isnt a way to determine what a call is from what a caller says it is over the phone. Once people realize that chest pain gets a ambulance quicker then back pain the whole thing goes in a handbag
> 
> I went on a pt c/o difficulty breathing and found a guy suffering from kidney stones


 
That's one of the main reasons that we respond code 3 to all 9-1-1 calls. Never know when that toe pain can turn into a severe bleed :rofl:


----------

