Ambulance vs Fire Truck collisions

V

VentMedic

Forum Chief
Messages
5,923
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Two news articles this past week:

Pennsylvania Ambulance, Fire Truck Collide
http://www.emsresponder.com/web/online/Top-EMS-News/Pennsylvania-Ambulance--Fire-Truck-Collide/1$6808

Story by wpxi.com

BUTLER COUNTY, Pa. --

An ambulance and fire truck collided Thursday afternoon on Route 68, east of Route 422 in Butler County.

State Police said the accident began when the fire truck stopped at an intersection to let a school bus pass. The ambulance, which was transporting a patient (non-emergency), rear-ended the fire truck.

http://www.emsresponder.com/web/online/Top-EMS-News/Pennsylvania-Ambulance--Fire-Truck-Collide/1$6808

Fire Truck, Ambulance Collide in Minneapolis
http://www.emsresponder.com/web/online/Top-EMS-News/Fire-Truck--Ambulance-Collide-in-Minneapolis/1$6830

JUSTIN PIEHOWSKI
Courtesy of KSTP-TV

There was an emergency for two emergency vehicles early Thursday in south Minneapolis.

An ambulance flipped onto its side after colliding with a fire truck at E. 31st St. and Portland Ave. S. just after 5 a.m.
http://www.emsresponder.com/web/online/Top-EMS-News/Fire-Truck--Ambulance-Collide-in-Minneapolis/1$6830
 
hmm...I was always told that the driver of the emergency vehicle is at fault...so who is at fault in those situations? :huh:

Anyways on a more serious note...all I have to say in this situation is that you should PAY MORE ATTENTION!! while driving...hell..while doing anything actually
 
emtwacker710 said:
hmm...I was always told that the driver of the emergency vehicle is at fault...so who is at fault in those situations? :huh:
Click to expand...
..."The ambulance, which was transporting a patient (non-emergency), rear-ended the fire truck"......

I think that answers the question in itself.

R/r 911
 
Maybe the fire truck backed up into the ambulance?
 
First question the insurance adjuster or the atty is going to ask... "Was this a 'true' emergency?"
 
BossyCow said:
First question the insurance adjuster or the atty is going to ask... "Was this a 'true' emergency?"
Click to expand...

Does it even matter if the crew was transporting non-emergent?
 
Ridryder911 said:
..."The ambulance, which was transporting a patient (non-emergency), rear-ended the fire truck"......

I think that answers the question in itself.

R/r 911
Click to expand...


I was just trying to get some humor out of the situation..and put my more serious thought below it
 
JPINFV said:
Does it even matter if the crew was transporting non-emergent?
Click to expand...


Yep it does. Legally, if you are running code to a 'non-emergent' incident, you are in the wrong. Its not enough to have the lights on, you have to need the lights on.
 
The impression that I was getting from the article, though, was that they were transporting the patient non-emergent. Hence, according to the paper, there were no emergency signal systems in operations nor was the crew utilizing the privilages granted to them under the law to be exempt from most traffic laws. Hence, if a crew was transporting non-emergent at the time of the accident, what does it matter if it is a true emergency or not?

Furthermore, how in God's name is anyone supposed to know if a call is a "true emergency" based off of caller information? I've had patients that were about to crash with a dispatched complaint of something minor and I've had the reverse also. To paraphrase Dr. Gregory House, "Callers lie."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JPINFV said:
The impression that I was getting from the article, though, was that they were transporting the patient non-emergent. Hence, according to the paper, there were no emergency signal systems in operations nor was the crew utilizing the privilages granted to them under the law to be exempt from most traffic laws. Hence, if a crew was transporting non-emergent at the time of the accident, what does it matter if it is a true emergency or not?

Furthermore, how in God's name is anyone supposed to know if a call is a "true emergency" based off of caller information? I've had patients that were about to crash with a dispatched complaint of something minor and I've had the reverse also. To paraphrase Dr. Gregory House, "Callers lie."
Click to expand...

The term is one that has been used in several legal decisions regarding accidents with emergency vehicles while running code. My post was to clarify the difference between 'emergent' and 'true emergency' which is the gray area in which the lawyers and insurance adjusters live.

It is not enough to be running code at least not under the EVAP criteria we train with. You have to be responding to a 'true emergency'. It obviously can only be based on the information you are given at the time. If you are responding to what you believe to be a life or death 'true emergency' then running code can be justified, but it's not carte blanche to drive like an idiot any more. There is a responsibility to turn on our brains before we turn on the ignition.
 
Look out and look around!

BossyCow;If you are responding to what you believe to be a life or death 'true emergency' then running code can be justified said:
Boy have you got that right, we as ems need to look out for the public and each other.

Click to expand...
 
BossyCow said:
The term is one that has been used in several legal decisions regarding accidents with emergency vehicles while running code. My post was to clarify the difference between 'emergent' and 'true emergency' which is the gray area in which the lawyers and insurance adjusters live.

It is not enough to be running code at least not under the EVAP criteria we train with. You have to be responding to a 'true emergency'. It obviously can only be based on the information you are given at the time. If you are responding to what you believe to be a life or death 'true emergency' then running code can be justified, but it's not carte blanche to drive like an idiot any more. There is a responsibility to turn on our brains before we turn on the ignition.
Click to expand...

None of that changes this:

The ambulance, which was transporting a patient (non-emergency), rear-ended the fire truck.
Click to expand...

The crew, according to the article, was transporting, not responding to a call. Furthermore they were not using any emergency warning equipment at the time. So, I ask again, considering that they were not using their lights and siren at the time, why does any distinction between emergency and a "real emergency" matter in this case? Once you answer that question [why the distinction between true and non-emergency matters when the crew was not transporting emergently when the incident occured], then we might be in the same chapter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow, get excited easily?

Since this accident occured while not running code, you are correct, the difference does not apply.

But I still feel it was a valid point to bring up in this discussion. It is a new wrinkle in the EVAP policy and we all may not be aware of it. My intent was to bring up some new information I heard regarding emergency vehicle operations. My intent was not to anger, argue or annoy.

So have a nice cup of herbal tea, take some deep cleansing breathes to lower your anxiety level, let go of the anger and learn how to play nice or chimpie's going to post his little sheriff icon at us!
 
We had a similar accident about a year ago here in SA. An ambulance and a primary response vehicle from the SAME private company crashed into each other at an intersection.

Word has it that both of them skipped the stop street at the same time. How true and what actually happened I dont know.

The worst of all was that the accident of the ambulance and the PRV occurred about 500 meters from the accident they were responding to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top