akflightmedic
Forum Deputy Chief
- 3,903
- 2,591
- 113
Tsk, Tsk! You have gone only "Ludicrous"? There are times where I have gone plaid...
Is hitting 90 mph transporting L&S on interstate acceptable?
Tsk, Tsk! You have gone only "Ludicrous"? There are times where I have gone plaid...
medichopeful
Flight RN/Paramedic
- 1,863
- 255
- 83
Self-righteous condemnations aside, I suppose it actually depends on where you are when you want to do 90 on the Interstate. In parts of rural Texas I'd go for it; New York, not so much.
source
Hitting another car or a tree at 90mph in New York will have the same results as hitting a car or tree in Texas at the same speed.
There's no cars or trees in rural West Texas to hit. Seriously, if you run off the road the only thing that will stop you is deep sand, a windmill or a cow.
medichopeful
Flight RN/Paramedic
- 1,863
- 255
- 83
Hmm, fair point. Hitting a windmill or a cow (or similar) at 90 miles an hour would still be pretty devastating though. 90 just seems too fast in an ambulance. Sports car? Totally different!
Old Tracker
Forum Asst. Chief
- 504
- 260
- 63
Hitting a full grown bull/cow at 90 will ruin your day. Also, I can think of several place out here in West Texas where it is a long, long way to the bottom if you leave the road especially at 90 mph.
TransportJockey
Forum Chief
- 8,623
- 1,675
- 113
Most of those roads with a long drop don't have the higher speed limits.
I'm aware...but you would've seen the cow from a long way away....
Old Tracker
Forum Asst. Chief
- 504
- 260
- 63
Mostly serious question here. What kind of a situation would warrant driving an ambulance at 90 mph from Ft. Stockton to El Paso other than just the tedium of the distance? Any patient who requires being transported that far, at that speed, would probably be better of flown out of Ft. Stockton. Otherwise, just count 18 wheelers to pass the time. The Pilot in Van Horn usually has great coffee.
TransportJockey
Forum Chief
- 8,623
- 1,675
- 113
Ive done it more on twenty from pecos to odessa with either no air support or the patient wouldn't fit into a plane.
From KELP to actually Balmorhea was more the last half of my commute to work.
And I'll take the Monahans Stripes over tje Pilot lol
From KELP to actually Balmorhea was more the last half of my commute to work.
And I'll take the Monahans Stripes over tje Pilot lol
Old Tracker
Forum Asst. Chief
- 504
- 260
- 63
Stripes + heartburn and gas. LOL. I can see that run to the hospitals in Midland/Odessa, but the other one is slightly exaggerated. Hadn't thought about too big for the plane, good point.
dumbenoughtostay
Forum Ride Along
- 9
- 14
- 3
Remember the original Jurassic Park movie? Jeff Goldblum's character had a great line that contained a principal that applies to this discussion. Referring to whether it was a good idea to recreate dinosaurs, here was the line: Dr. Ian Malcolm: "Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."
Including information about speed limits in various states should have no bearing on this subject. Ambulances are not designed to be driven at the speeds that many have written about within this thread. Just because the law says you can take a vehicle up to a certain speed doesn't mean you should (Goldblum's character had it right.) Again, ambulances cannot be safely driven at high rates of speed. It doesn't matter how far ahead one thinks they can see, how familiar one is with the roads, or how well one is able to drive. One wrong move at high speed and the ambulance will become uncontrollable.
Take it a step further- the crash. OK- up front, in the cab, we might be OK, but at highway speeds not likely. What about the people in the patient compartment? We all know how safe it is back there. The truth is, if any other passenger vehicle on the road today offered the same chance of survival during a crash that we have in the back of an ambulance, the public would be clamoring for action. Here is something to keep in mind- the chassis that holds the patient compartment was designed by an automotive engineer. The patient compartment was probably designed by a cabinet maker.
For those of you who wrote about risk vs benefit, you are right on. That is what it always comes down to. In the end, is risking my crew's lives, my patients' lives and the public's lives worth driving at a speed that is unsafe? Notice I didn't write fast. Unsafe is the key. This could mean unsafe for road conditions, time of day, weather conditions, personal condition (think being tired because of working for twelve, sixteen, or twenty-four hours), vehicle condition and vehicle design constraints. In the final analysis of risk vs benefit, it is never worth driving in an unsafe manner. None of us have the moral authority to risk other people's lives in order to "save" our patient. Save is in quotes because driving fast or in an unsafe manner saves very few if any people.
By the way, check this out- (go to the CDC's website and search for 20024178). The information is a little old, but notice these words: "Ambulance drivers experience the majority of less-severe injuries (coded "Possible" and "Non-Incapacitating Evident"), while patient compartment occupants (EMS providers and civilians) are most likely to suffer "Incapacitating" and "Fatal" injuries." That's right, the person putting everyone at risk is the one who is less likely to die.
EMS is dangerous enough already, and the healthcare industry already kills enough people with bad practices and avoidable errors. My hope is that the OP was just looking to spark a healthy discussion of this matter in order to help people to recognize that driving an ambulance in an unsafe manner is something we should all avoid.
Remember to stop and think, just because I can do something doesn't mean I should. Be safe everyone.
Including information about speed limits in various states should have no bearing on this subject. Ambulances are not designed to be driven at the speeds that many have written about within this thread. Just because the law says you can take a vehicle up to a certain speed doesn't mean you should (Goldblum's character had it right.) Again, ambulances cannot be safely driven at high rates of speed. It doesn't matter how far ahead one thinks they can see, how familiar one is with the roads, or how well one is able to drive. One wrong move at high speed and the ambulance will become uncontrollable.
Take it a step further- the crash. OK- up front, in the cab, we might be OK, but at highway speeds not likely. What about the people in the patient compartment? We all know how safe it is back there. The truth is, if any other passenger vehicle on the road today offered the same chance of survival during a crash that we have in the back of an ambulance, the public would be clamoring for action. Here is something to keep in mind- the chassis that holds the patient compartment was designed by an automotive engineer. The patient compartment was probably designed by a cabinet maker.
For those of you who wrote about risk vs benefit, you are right on. That is what it always comes down to. In the end, is risking my crew's lives, my patients' lives and the public's lives worth driving at a speed that is unsafe? Notice I didn't write fast. Unsafe is the key. This could mean unsafe for road conditions, time of day, weather conditions, personal condition (think being tired because of working for twelve, sixteen, or twenty-four hours), vehicle condition and vehicle design constraints. In the final analysis of risk vs benefit, it is never worth driving in an unsafe manner. None of us have the moral authority to risk other people's lives in order to "save" our patient. Save is in quotes because driving fast or in an unsafe manner saves very few if any people.
By the way, check this out- (go to the CDC's website and search for 20024178). The information is a little old, but notice these words: "Ambulance drivers experience the majority of less-severe injuries (coded "Possible" and "Non-Incapacitating Evident"), while patient compartment occupants (EMS providers and civilians) are most likely to suffer "Incapacitating" and "Fatal" injuries." That's right, the person putting everyone at risk is the one who is less likely to die.
EMS is dangerous enough already, and the healthcare industry already kills enough people with bad practices and avoidable errors. My hope is that the OP was just looking to spark a healthy discussion of this matter in order to help people to recognize that driving an ambulance in an unsafe manner is something we should all avoid.
Remember to stop and think, just because I can do something doesn't mean I should. Be safe everyone.
akflightmedic
Forum Deputy Chief
- 3,903
- 2,591
- 113
That post right there needs to be captured for repeated future use.....
- 7,877
- 2,832
- 113
If you're alert and properly rested, which for some is a struggle. And in a vehicle that's actually safe to do that in, which again can be a struggle.
Since this was seemingly directed at me....
1. I'm pro-safety to the point of unpopularity. We do A LOT of stupid stuff that's killing us all the time. I work in a subset of EMS that kills people ENTIRELY too often. Lecturing me on safety is like lecturing Jack Stout on posting
2. Have you DRIVEN a late model vehicle faster than 70? Vehicles made in the last couple of years are more stable at 90 than the ambulances I started with were at 60. A lot has changed in the last decade regarding vehicle design. I'm not advocating doing this in a 10 year old reserve.
The biggest issue with ambulance deaths is usually the fact that the attendant and patient aren't adequately restrained, not the compartment coming apart. To discuss your point however, where's the limit? Any accident over 50mph will likely result in the box being an issue, should I limit driving on interstate highways to that speed?
"Moral authority"? Do you ever fly patients when it's anything other than clear blue and 22? Guess what, you just risked three people's lives to "save" your patient. Your point about unsafe is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Arbitrary number mean nothing. It's about what is safe for the conditions. Yet you seem to want to put an arbitrary number on safety in conditions it's extremely unlikely you're familiar with.
See my above comment about being restrained. Do you wear your seatbelt in the back? If not you're endangering your AND the patient's life. Do you have the "moral authority" to do so?
Safety is much more all encompassing than throwing out a couple of numbers and policies and declaring that "this is unsafe". Absolutism is the enemy of effective safety practices as it often leads to dangerous workarounds or treating safety like it's a check box item. It's not. I've lost friends and colleagues to mistakes. What you're espousing doesn't keep people safe, it simple leads to write-ups. Real safety is teaching people to evaluate the whole of the situation and how to make it safe or find a suitable alternative. Not a blanket saying "this is unsafe, never do it". The results of your policy are someone tired going 89 in the rain on a side road at night because "the policy said 90 is unsafe".
/RANT
Mufasa556
Forum Captain
- 465
- 272
- 63
Haha I was just hustling over here to post that article.
azbrewcrew
Forum Crew Member
- 78
- 17
- 8
Slow and steady wins the race
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not only is it dangerous, but you should be fired on the spot for reckless driving. You're driving a vehicle which was never designed to be driven at that speed. Yes i understand that your speedometer might say 110 but that is just idiotic to be driving at that speed.