Why the European Siren is Scientifically Proven to be Better

[MMiz]

Is it time for a change?

 

[NPO]

I follow him on Youtube and typically very much like his content. The one factor he didn't consider is the Human Factor.

It's pretty much the same argument as "yellow fire engines are safer." Yeah, in tests. But in the real world, people look for a red truck, not a yellow one (until they're conditioned).

Same thing applies here.

FWIW, many California sheriff's and police departments have been adding Hi-Lo sirens to their cars to use as a mass evacuation warning system. That pretty much rules out any use of the Hi-Lo for any other use in California. I've also been told previously it was not a "legal" siren in CA, but I have nothing to substantiate that.

 

[DrParasite]

Maybe it's just me, but the youtuber seems to be incorrect on a few things

1) few sirens (outside of a manual Q) only use the "wail" siren sound. there is also yelp, phaser, dual, high low, and the old fashioned electric airhorn. Further, each sound has different purposes, different reaches, and different uses. dual siren (wait and yelp is my personal fav), but you can't forget to change siren tones at dangerous areas / intersections, or when you want to get someone's attention (such as the drive that just doesn't hear you. So while I agree that simply using wail isn't effective, he doesn't include any of the other types in his technical comparison.

2) the whole 80 db for hearing damage to 180 db that the siren uses sounds questionable.... while I have no doubt that extended exposure can cause damage, IIRC, OSHA has permissible exposure limit (as per https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/noisehearingconservation/loud.html) which says you can be exposed to so much noise over a certain period of time. With noise, OSHA's permissible exposure limit (PEL) is 90 dBA for all workers for an 8 hour day. The OSHA standard uses a 5 dBA exchange rate. This means that when the noise level is increased by 5 dBA, the amount of time a person can be exposed to a certain noise level to receive the same dose is cut in half. So if you are exposed to 180db for 6 seconds..... it's not the same. further, you also need to penetrate vehicles to alert other motorists and pedestrians who have earbuds in.

FWIW, most laws don't specify what constitutes a "legal siren"; the laws require an audible device to be sounded, but that's it. So if you are ringing a bell, it likely can satisfy the law.

 

[CCCSD]

I follow him on Youtube and typically very much like his content. The one factor he didn't consider is the Human Factor.

It's pretty much the same argument as "yellow fire engines are safer." Yeah, in tests. But in the real world, people look for a red truck, not a yellow one (until they're conditioned).

Same thing applies here.

FWIW, many California sheriff's and police departments have been adding Hi-Lo sirens to their cars to use as a mass evacuation warning system. That pretty much rules out any use of the Hi-Lo for any other use in California. I've also been told previously it was not a "legal" siren in CA, but I have nothing to substantiate that.

You are correct. It’s not approved by the State. Wail and Yelp are the only two authorized and covered.

 

[ffemt8978]

You are correct. It’s not approved by the State. Wail and Yelp are the only two authorized and covered.

Only wail and yelp, along with the steady burn red to front...almost as if California hasn't updated the regs since Car 54 was on patrol.

 

[DrParasite]

You are correct. It’s not approved by the State. Wail and Yelp are the only two authorized and covered.

Well I'll be.... they actually codified it that way.... https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Do...ntextData=(sc.Default)&transitionType=Default

I did not expect the legislative branch to micromanage something like the qualifications of ambulance sirens...

 

[ffemt8978]

Well I'll be.... they actually codified it that way.... https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I0EC464A0D46911DE8879F88E8B0DAAAE?contextData=(sc.Default)&transitionType=Default

I did not expect the legislative branch to micromanage something like the qualifications of ambulance sirens...

That's California for you.

 

[E tank]

That's California for you.

whoa, whoa, whoa...let's not get political here....

 

[ffemt8978]

whoa, whoa, whoa...let's not get political here....

I was getting geographical, not political.

 

[DrParasite]

While I considered saying it, I just completed human resources sensitivity training, so I'm working on being the kinder, gentler DrParasite

 

[E tank]

I was getting geographical, not political.

Right, exactly...like when I say Newsome, Breed, Schaaf and Pelosi ought to be set adrift on an ice floe in the Bering Sea...I"m just getting...geographical...

 

[CCCSD]

Well I'll be.... they actually codified it that way.... https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I0EC464A0D46911DE8879F88E8B0DAAAE?contextData=(sc.Default)&transitionType=Default

I did not expect the legislative branch to micromanage something like the qualifications of ambulance sirens...

It’s for standardization, liability, and makes perfect sense.

 

[CCCSD]

Only wail and yelp, along with the steady burn red to front...almost as if California hasn't updated the regs since Car 54 was on patrol.

Again, standardization, liabilit’s, enforcement. Nothing in the CVC precludes the use of red, amber, blue lights for those qualified and codified agencies.

Whats the issue?

 

[NPO]

Again, standardization, liabilit’s, enforcement. Nothing in the CVC precludes the use of red, amber, blue lights for those qualified and codified agencies.

Whats the issue?

You're using some clever qualifiers there. Blue lights are only permitted on law enforcement vehicles, even though it's pretty well known that blue lights are more visible at night and stand out against brake lights.

Also, the only requirement for forward lighting is a steady burning red lamp. That does nothing to "standardize" emergency vehicles. It's an out dated regulation from the days of gumdrop lamps that rotated slowly. Back then it makes sense, these days, it's just leftovers.

 

[CCCSD]

If you don’t understand the reasoning, don’t try and apply your argument.

 

[Tigger]

It’s for standardization, liability, and makes perfect sense.

Could you explain what the benefit of standardization is here and what sort of liability it reduces?

 

[CCCSD]

Normally, I would. However, I’ve found that trying to explain complex constructs on here isn’t worth my time.

Suffice to say: it works, makes perfect sense, is in line with standing laws, and the input of a bunch of EMTs wasn’t used to decide it.

 

[DrParasite]

Normally, I would. However, I’ve found that trying to explain complex constructs on here isn’t worth my time.

Suffice to say: it works, makes perfect sense, is in line with standing laws, and the input of a bunch of EMTs wasn’t used to decide it.

Translation: I got called on my BS, and when someone asked me to explain it, I made an excuse not to, because you dumb ambulance drivers are too dumb to understand my brilliant explanation.

We will just ignore the fact that everything you said was BS, as there is no benefit to standardization when improvements are made, nor does it reduce any liability (which is also known as the big boogyman in EMS).

I mean, it's not like California would ever micromanage anything into legislation, making it much harder to change when technological updates or scientific studies were done...

 

[Carlos Danger]

Normally, I would. However, I’ve found that trying to explain complex constructs on here isn’t worth my time.

Suffice to say: it works, makes perfect sense, is in line with standing laws, and the input of a bunch of EMTs wasn’t used to decide it.

i Em sO mUcH smErtEr thaN aLl u e-eMteeZz

 

[ffemt8978]