Whats the fastest you ambulance can go?

[JumboBeef]

There is no time in which driving over 90 is acceptable, I'm okay with making a blanket statement on that one. We have posted 75 areas where the road is straight for miles and visibility is excellent. Believe me, there's lots of flatness out here.

It is still inexcusable.

This must be a difference between The UK and The USA. Here (as long as conditions allow), you are pretty much expected to hit 90+ (mph) otherwise you are not making good progress.

Why do you consider 90mph unsafe? (On an open, clear road?)

 

[DesertMedic66]

This must be a difference between The UK and The USA. Here (as long as conditions allow), you are pretty much expected to hit 90+ (mph) otherwise you are not making good progress.

Why do you consider 90mph unsafe? (On an open, clear road?)

If you get a blow out going 90mph that is just asking for you to loose control. If you need to make a quick lane change to avoid something (animal, debris) that can easily result in fish tailing and a crash. A random gust of wind hits the ambulance, other mechanical failures, other vehicles that you maybe passing in either direction. Heck at 90mph with our ambulances if you hit a bump in the road you could easily lose control.

Mix something as top heavy as an ambulance and extreme speed and you are asking for bad things to happen.

 

[Aprz]

Mortality increases exponentially as speed increases. If transporting, the patient in the back may be exposed to unsecure equipment, they themselves may not be restrained, and it doesn't look like the back of the ambulance just isn't safe period in accidents.

I haven't read anything that says higher speeds is associated with increased number of accidents. I guess in theory, you do have to react much quicker if something unexpected happened so I think there would be a higher chance of accident.

Overall, I don't think the risk is worth it, and studies have proven that we do not really save a significant amount of time driving faster, and that most emergencies do not benefit from fast response times.

 

[JumboBeef]

If you get a blow out going 90mph that is just asking for you to loose control. If you need to make a quick lane change to avoid something (animal, debris) that can easily result in fish tailing and a crash. A random gust of wind hits the ambulance, other mechanical failures, other vehicles that you maybe passing in either direction. Heck at 90mph with our ambulances if you hit a bump in the road you could easily lose control.

Mix something as top heavy as an ambulance and extreme speed and you are asking for bad things to happen.

Maybe this is more down to the sort of ambulances in The USA? Would you agree that American motors are....softer sprung.... than European motors? I have driven both, and that is how it feels to me.

Our ambulances are not sports cars, but the ride is firm. Chuck them into a corner, and they will hold the road (relevantly) well for what they are.

I've never heard of an accident here, purely down to high speed.

 

[JumboBeef]

I couldn't add this to my last post, as I needed 5 posts, which I now have.

Typically our ambulances look like this:

Van conversion:

Box:

 

[JumboBeef]

Whoa! Huge! Sorry....

 

[Aprz]

If speeding does not significantly save time and only few emergencies benefit from rapid response, what's the point of speeding? Seems like you are only increasing chance of mortality if you do get into an accident.

 

[MrJones]

Not in Montana, just super rural Colorado.

There is no time in which driving over 90 is acceptable, I'm okay with making a blanket statement on that one. We have posted 75 areas where the road is straight for miles and visibility is excellent. Believe me, there's lots of flatness out here.

It is still inexcusable.

An accident at that speed will be horrific, and might well have been preventable going 15 slower.

We see what happens when mistakes are made at that speed and then often follow that with commenting on how dumb the driver was for driving that fast. I don't think I've ever been to a TA with speed as a contributing factor where I thought "you know his speeding was probably ok."

Yet somehow we are willing to accept it when our own do it? Even when we know that it serves no clinical benefit? When we are operating vehicles that are well known to be deficient in terms of crashworthiness?

We can what if or say it might be acceptable all we want but I don't think anyone can argue that this is the sort of example we should be setting, both for our fellow providers and the general public.

What speed do you believe to be acceptable and/or excusable? And on what do you base that belief?

 

[Tigger]

Appropriate speed is dependent on road conditions, weather, and equipment. However even with smooth roads, perfect weather, and well designed equipment, that appropriate speed should never exceed 90. That is the ceiling. There are no conditions in which is the risks associated with traveling at that speed are outweighed by the patient benefit.

Do we think it's ever appropriate for the general public to do this? And save the whole "it's what the speed of traffic is in my area" crap, even if that's true it doesn't make it anywhere near acceptable or appropriate.

 

[MrJones]

Appropriate speed is dependent on road conditions, weather, and equipment. However even with smooth roads, perfect weather, and well designed equipment, that appropriate speed should never exceed 90. That is the ceiling. There are no conditions in which is the risks associated with traveling at that speed are outweighed by the patient benefit.

Do we think it's ever appropriate for the general public to do this? And save the whole "it's what the speed of traffic is in my area" crap, even if that's true it doesn't make it anywhere near acceptable or appropriate.

OK, that's the first half of the question. Now, what do you base this on? Empirical studies? Relevant traffic laws? Your gut? And why 90? Why not, say, 85 or, better yet, 80 (being 10 MPH over the usual interstate speed limit)?

 

[patzyboi]

http://youtu.be/-Z_mqjyndXE?t=1m38s
I think this one beat you OP :rofl: (headphone users may want to turn it down a bit).
Edit: Also agreed about the supervisor should be informed.

Nice. Where can i get one of those

 

[FiremanMike]

It is highly dependent upon the region and type of road you are on if the speeds are safe or not.

Blanket statements by either side of the argument are equally wrong.

Sorry bud, not this time.

93mph in an ambulance on a public roadway is NEVER appropriate. This is a blanket statement that is frankly not debatable.

 

[FiremanMike]

Reading further in the thread I noticed someone from the UK who chimed in that this was the norm there. I'd be curious to know if ambulances are geared differently and handle differently, because if they are built like trucks as they are in the US, I'd still maintain they are making a mistake driving that fast.

 

[Amberlamps916]

Sorry bud, not this time.

93mph in an ambulance on a public roadway is NEVER appropriate. This is a blanket statement that is frankly not debatable.

Quoted for truth.

 

[ffemt8978]

Sorry bud, not this time.

93mph in an ambulance on a public roadway is NEVER appropriate. This is a blanket statement that is frankly not debatable.

And where do you derive the number 93MPH as being inappropriate from? What maximum speed is appropriate in your opinion, and what references do you base your opinion on? Simply saying it's not appropriate in your opinion does not make it non-debatable...prove it, or at least provide some references to support your claim.

Reading furthery in the thread I noticed someone from the UK who chimed in that this was the norm there. I'd be curious to know if ambulances are geared differently and handle differently, because if they are built like trucks as they are in the US, I'd still maintain they are making a mistake driving that fast.

That's quite different than your comment of your blanket statement not being debatable.

According to this link, there are parts of the U.S where the speed limit is 85MPH, and others where the limit is 80MPH. Are you saying that ambulances in those areas should be driving below the speed limit because it's not debatable in your opinion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States

 

[FiremanMike]

And where do you derive the number 93MPH as being inappropriate from? What maximum speed is appropriate in your opinion, and what references do you base your opinion on? Simply saying it's not appropriate in your opinion does not make it non-debatable...prove it, or at least provide some references to support your claim.



That's quite different than your comment of your blanket statement not being debatable.

According to this link, there are parts of the U.S where the speed limit is 85MPH, and others where the limit is 80MPH. Are you saying that ambulances in those areas should be driving below the speed limit because it's not debatable in your opinion?

The point of lights and sirens is not to go faster than the flow of traffic, it is to get the ambulance around slower moving traffic or a traffic jam. If the flow of traffic is 85mph, then there's really nothing impeding the ambulance from getting through. At your insistence of traveling at 5-10mph above those speeds "because we can" you are saving a negligible amount of time in transit and it should become a question of "is this really worth pushing this truck beyond it's limits". Honestly, I find it horribly irritating when ambulances have their lights and sirens on on the freeway when not in heavy, slow moving traffic. Not only are they driving too fast, saving almost no time off their transit, but they are generally confusing the crap out of other drivers.

Ambulances in America (at least the brands I am aware of) are trucks first and ambulances second. They are top heavy, geared like trucks, have suspension and shock systems like trucks, and generally have the overloaded breaking systems to begin with. These vehicles are not designed to operate at such speeds. If ambulances in Europe are designed as high performance vehicles, then I suppose this would be the only debatable point. As I have no first hand knowledge of ambulances in Europe, I left that caveat open in the event I was mistaken.

I lost my "balls to the wall" speed on runs about 10 years ago, but to be honest I lost my "responding lights and sirens to the hospital" last year after starting a part time job on a MICU. When I was smacked in the face with sick ICU patients for 2+ hours and going with the flow of traffic, nothing on the EMS side seemed that bad anymore. I began to realize that going lights and sirens generally saved little time and just created an increased risk of minor and major auto accidents.

 

[ffemt8978]

Where did I even remotely say "At your insistence of traveling at 5-10mph above those speeds "because we can"? What I said was 90mph COULD be appropriate, depending upon a variety of factors.

For reference, here is my post in question with the relevant part highlighted...

Ever driven through Montana? :rofl:

I didn't specify a speed, nor did I say it was appropriate. What I said was it is highly dependent upon the region and type of road you are on.

Is 90 mph appropriate on every road or interstate? Nope. Could it be appropriate in an area where the posted speed limit is 75-80mph? Maybe.

I simply asked you to provide a basis and some support for your claims, which you have yet to do.

And this is not a discussion about the use of lights/sirens, since there are a plethora of those around here.

 

[FiremanMike]

Where did I even remotely say "At your insistence of traveling at 5-10mph above those speeds "because we can"? What I said was 90mph COULD be appropriate, depending upon a variety of factors.

For reference, here is my post in question with the relevant part highlighted...



I simply asked you to provide a basis and some support for your claims, which you have yet to do.

And this is not a discussion about the use of lights/sirens, since there are a plethora of those around here.

I responded to your isolated statement that blanket statements could not be made. In my opinion this is a blanket statement that could be made. Perhaps I read a bit far and got other posts confused with yours, seeing as we are talking about a speed of 93 and the maximum speed limit you posted was 85, I naturally surmised that you're philosophy of 5-10 over is OK. Generally I would agree with this, until we start reaching these breakneck speeds. Of course, in order to go 5-10 over the speed limit (legally), most state laws state you need to have your lights and sirens activated, which is why we brought the lights and sirens into this conversation.

Find me a place in america where the speed limit is 90-95 and the ambulances that travel those roads are engineered to travel at those speeds and have the support systems in place (breaks, shocks, etc), and then maybe I'll concede. Until that time, it is inappropriate and creates an appreciable increase in risk with no appreciable benefit.

I'm not sure what exactly you'd like me to provide as proof. 93 is just too fast to drive these trucks. Perhaps you should provide proof of a scenario where driving 93 miles per hour created little to no increase in risk and can be correlated to improved patient outcome?

 

[CFal]

Reading further in the thread I noticed someone from the UK who chimed in that this was the norm there. I'd be curious to know if ambulances are geared differently and handle differently, because if they are built like trucks as they are in the US, I'd still maintain they are making a mistake driving that fast.

Metric system, Kilometers.

 

[CFal]

The point of lights and sirens is not to go faster than the flow of traffic, it is to get the ambulance around slower moving traffic or a traffic jam. If the flow of traffic is 85mph, then there's really nothing impeding the ambulance from getting through. At your insistence of traveling at 5-10mph above those speeds "because we can" you are saving a negligible amount of time in transit and it should become a question of "is this really worth pushing this truck beyond it's limits". Honestly, I find it horribly irritating when ambulances have their lights and sirens on on the freeway when not in heavy, slow moving traffic. Not only are they driving too fast, saving almost no time off their transit, but they are generally confusing the crap out of other drivers.

Ambulances in America (at least the brands I am aware of) are trucks first and ambulances second. They are top heavy, geared like trucks, have suspension and shock systems like trucks, and generally have the overloaded breaking systems to begin with. These vehicles are not designed to operate at such speeds. If ambulances in Europe are designed as high performance vehicles, then I suppose this would be the only debatable point. As I have no first hand knowledge of ambulances in Europe, I left that caveat open in the event I was mistaken.

I lost my "balls to the wall" speed on runs about 10 years ago, but to be honest I lost my "responding lights and sirens to the hospital" last year after starting a part time job on a MICU. When I was smacked in the face with sick ICU patients for 2+ hours and going with the flow of traffic, nothing on the EMS side seemed that bad anymore. I began to realize that going lights and sirens generally saved little time and just created an increased risk of minor and major auto accidents.

In most places the flow of traffic speed is greater than the speed limit by 5-10 MPH at least.