Ambulance fine 115mph in a 50

[Jasandjules]

CoolHands said:

if it was 115 he should be prosecuted. Responding to an 'emergency' does not mean its ok to put everyone else at excessive risk. That's an indefensible speed imo.

I would rather he was willing to risk his to save mine in an emergency.

I trust you would be happy for him to obey all speed limits to get to you? Might mean you die but hey, that is a risk you should be happy to take to stop the risk of "speeding".

[Sump]

So we can assume that as long as someone is dying you can put as many lives as you want as risk?

Just trying to clear up what the rule is here.

[FD3Si]

It's very rare that something I read makes me wish I could reach through the screen, grab someone, and punch them squarely in the chops, but congratulations, this thread, you have achieved it. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that it's 'the usual suspects'.

I hope if any of you pompous morons are ever in the nasty situation where you need medical attention as quick as is if fking possible, then you have a think about the words your fingers smashed into the keyboards on this bit of the internet.

EDIT: To add an example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20798090
Cardiac arrest patients:
'The estimated effect of a 1 min reduction in response time was to improve the odds of survival by 24%'

To any NHS/general emergency staff reading this - keep doing what you're doing, that majority of the populace are eternally grateful, it must be utterly demoralising and craptacular having to deal with the sort of fkwittery scrawled on here on a regular basis. And thank you for saving the lives of several of my friends.

Edited by FD3Si on Friday 24th July 10:07

[evilmiyagi]

mph1977 said:

to the person suggesting that frontline ambulance staff aren;t trained to drive under emergency conditions

Not sure if that's aimed at me or not.. If so, I am absolutely not suggesting that front-line ambulance staff aren't trained to drive in emergency situations, I'm merely pointing out that unless they feel it is safe to do so and have appropriately risk assessed the situation (I can pretty much guarantee they will have done) then I have absolutely no issue with them driving a vehicle at that speed.

[CoolHands]

doogz said:

So, for arguments sake, it made the difference between someone living and dying, and no-one else was hurt, but it still wasn't worth it? Because you sometimes see this one paramedic driving quickly, but never have an accident.

Don't be fking stupid, please.

yes that's right doogz. I think you'll find your argument is void, - hence why millions of people get prosecuted for breaking speeding / mobile phone / not wearing seatbelt etc laws. You aren't saved from prosecution because something bad did not happen (through good fortune) but the law that has been broken (which is supposedly there for a public good). So it is not justifiable that because noone was hurt, it was 'worth' it or should be allowed. I presume you don't like a lot of the way our justice system works, since it's generally run on that principle?

[CoolHands]

FD3Si said:

It's very rare that something I read makes me wish I could reach through the screen, grab someone, and punch them squarely in the chops, but congratulations, this thread, you have achieved it.

I hope if any of you pompous morons are ever in the nasty situation where you need medical attention as quick as is if fking possible, then you have a think about the words your fingers smashed into the keyboards on this bit of the internet.

EDIT: To add an example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20798090
Cardiac arrest patients:
'The estimated effect of a 1 min reduction in response time was to improve the odds of survival by 24%'

To any NHS/general emergency staff reading this - keep doing what you're doing, that majority of the populace are eternally grateful, it must be utterly demoralising and craptacular having to deal with the sort of fkwittery scrawled on here on a regular basis. And thank you for saving the lives of several of my friends.

Edited by FD3Si on Friday 24th July 10:05

you're an idiot. To try & make it simpler for you - is it ok if the driver drives at 200mph through the local highsteet on the way? If not, why not?

By the way, going on your quote - does that mean if they could reduce their response time by 4 or 5 minutes, virtually noone would die of a heart attack? Fascinating.

[evilmiyagi]

CoolHands said:

you're an idiot. To try & make it simpler for you - is it ok if the driver drives at 200mph through the local highsteet on the way? If not, why not?

By the way, going on your quote - does that mean if they could reduce their response time by 4 or 5 minutes, virtually noone would die of a heart attack? Fascinating.

Yes it is! If the conditions allow.

At the end of the day, they are trained to drive in these conditions on a daily basis but then also arrive fresh enough to be able to deal with the hardest situations you could imagine.

You're never going to get an ambulance to 200mph though..

[vtecyo]

scorcher said:

Probably Somerset where we have miles of 40mph buffer zones, 24/7 20mph limits outside of schools and perfectly good A roads that were once NSL but, because speed kills, or there's a house on the side of the road, or a junction , they have all been dropped to lower limits. Luckily a lot of the bouncy single track B roads are still NSL.

There's not one speed camera between my house in Bristol and my mums place in Dorset down the A36 / A350. Fantastic summer 11pm run. The Shepton - Yeovil - Dorchester run is good too.

[DottyMR2]

TwistingMyMelon said:

Seen a trend on here and ttfacebook of some people really knocking ambulance drivers and whingeing about them. Not every poster, just a few arm chair experts having a whinge

When my daughter was near death, turned blue and couldn't breath from choking, holding her in our arms like she was going to die, the ambulance got to us in under 3 minutes, that's bloody brilliant, if it meant someone hit excessive speeds then so be it, any longer and we might not be so lucky

There was a women near me complaining "IS IT REALLY NECESEARY (spelt like that) FOR AMBULANCES TO USE SIRENS AT 6am SUNDAY MORNING" to which a lady replied on facebook; "Sorry that would have been going to me , my 8 year old son passed away, I hope you fell back asleep OK "

Hats off to paramedics and all frontline NHS staff, the nimbys and armchair ttfaces long with bureaucratic bullst must really grind them down

Agreed, this country is genuinely going mental. Filled with a bunch of self righteous, self entitled, selfish and politically correct morons that perpetually feel they're on the moral high ground.

Get a fking grip people, down south your motorways are covered with mile after mile of 50mph average zones. There are plenty situations that 115mph is safe and understandable on the way to a shout.

Put the copy of the Daily Mail down, get outside your selfish little bubble and get a grip of yourself, else Karma might come back around right when you need an ambulance.
"Sorry dheadPosters other half. We could have got to your husband and saved him if we were allowed to speed but got to stick to that 50mph average. There are lives at stake...."

[FD3Si]

CoolHands said:

ou're an idiot. To try & make it simpler for you - is it ok if the driver drives at 200mph through the local highsteet on the way? If not, why not?

By the way, going on your quote - does that mean if they could reduce their response time by 4 or 5 minutes, virtually noone would die of a heart attack? Fascinating.

Thanks, I'd expect nothing less.
Let me make this clear for you - in your bizarre alternate reality where that would happen, I'll also make the assertion that, (as this is evidently some time in the distant future), the entire high street is enclosed in a pedestrian proof tunnel, and all other cars are fitted with a magic crash prediction system, so yep, I'm more than fine with that
Meanwhile, back in the real world, where I don't know anything as fact other than what the speed limit was, and how fast the vehicle was going at one particular point, then I'll say that the example this thread is about is absolutely fine. But let's not muddy the waters of indignance and conjecture by looking at facts like where the road was, the time of day, what other traffic was on the road, what the circumstances of the callout were, how long the driver had been on shift, what their training background was, etc. because where's the fun in that?

Meanwhile, back in the real world, if the question is do I trust someone in the mentioned position to make an informed decision about whether or not doing 115mph on an emergency response call is appropriate, given what they know about their background, the road conditions, and all the other environmental factors that affect the decision? Emphatically yes.

Also, clearly your understanding of the concept of statistics and compound percentages is a little off. Even my E at A level maths tells me that.

[CoolHands]

haha oh so its only the first minute that increases the survival rate by 24%? Compared with what? One minute faster being to get there in 59 mins instead of 1 hour? Or 5 mjns instead of 6mins. Hmmmm, yeah I don't understand numbers much. It sounds good though, & defends excessive speeding nicely, on the surface.

[saaby93]

FD3Si said:

Meanwhile, back in the real world, if the question is do I trust someone in the mentioned position to make an informed decision about whether or not doing 115mph on an emergency response call is appropriate, given what they know about their background, the road conditions, and all the other environmental factors that affect the decision? Emphatically yes.

You're forgetting why is there a 50mph camera there.
If it was anyway maybe 115mph is ok, but justify it. It's not all abulance drivers doing 115mph everywhere there is a run and the last we want to hear is of 115mph driver etc.

If it's ok for 115mph albeit by someone after a training course, why is there a 50mph camera?
Can we find out where it is

[kwk]

All of the emergency services are issued with these notices, not just the ambulance service. I was a police driver, and, as with my colleagues, it was not unusual to get two or three a week. You are then supposed to fill out an exemption certificate for each one.
After one particularly stressful attendance as a family liason officer where a young child had been killed in a road collision, I received a notice, refused to fill in the form and asked for a court appearance so that I could explain to the magistrates why I was there wasting their time, my time and the time and money of the taxpayers. I was taken into an office and was ordered to sign the form. I refused but was never taken to court.

[tomjol]

CoolHands said:

haha oh so its only the first minute that increases the survival rate by 24%? Compared with what? One minute faster being to get there in 59 mins instead of 1 hour? Or 5 mjns instead of 6mins. Hmmmm, yeah I don't understand numbers much. It sounds good though, & defends excessive speeding nicely, on the surface.

Stop digging, it's getting embarrassing.

[Rangeroverover]

FD3Si said:

It's very rare that something I read makes me wish I could reach through the screen, grab someone, and punch them squarely in the chops, but congratulations, this thread, you have achieved it. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that it's 'the usual suspects'.

I hope if any of you pompous morons are ever in the nasty situation where you need medical attention as quick as is if fking possible, then you have a think about the words your fingers smashed into the keyboards on this bit of the internet.

EDIT: To add an example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20798090
Cardiac arrest patients:
'The estimated effect of a 1 min reduction in response time was to improve the odds of survival by 24%'

To any NHS/general emergency staff reading this - keep doing what you're doing, that majority of the populace are eternally grateful, it must be utterly demoralising and craptacular having to deal with the sort of fkwittery scrawled on here on a regular basis. And thank you for saving the lives of several of my friends.

Edited by FD3Si on Friday 24th July 10:07

+1 a large one

[Jasandjules]

hora said:

Would you or any of your loved ones be happy to share a road with someone who has been on the road for say 10hours and hasn't had a break (who knows but from friends in the industry they can go long stretches without a break due to workload) doing in excess of 100?

Yes.

The only reason my nephew is alive is because an ambulance arrived very quickly indeed. I have no idea how fast he went but it was a whole lot faster than I could ever have driven it.......

They do 12 hour shifts as standard IIRC so they get used to it quite quickly. A friend is also an ambulance driver (and paramedic of course) and my word he is a careful driver.

[DottyMR2]

CoolHands said:

haha oh so its only the first minute that increases the survival rate by 24%? Compared with what? One minute faster being to get there in 59 mins instead of 1 hour? Or 5 mjns instead of 6mins. Hmmmm, yeah I don't understand numbers much. It sounds good though, & defends excessive speeding nicely, on the surface.

It was a good attempt at a straw man argument though, very Daily Mail of you. The follow up dripping with sarcasm just compounds how stupid you are making yourself look. The typos give a lovely sense that it was also typed in fury. What a vile attitude you have.

[saaby93]

He's right. Just because nothing bad happened this time, it doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. Aren't there too many collisions on blue light runs anyway?
If it was the right thing to do, it'll have been reviewed and signed off.

The question I keep coming to is, if it's ok to do 115mph there, ok by someone after training, why does it have a 50 camera?
Something doesnt add up

[Motorrad]

Breaking the law is breaking the law. The limits are there for a reason, no exemptions!

Ban a few of these wreckless speed demons, police included, for their heinous transgressions.

[saaby93]

Motorrad said:

Breaking the law is breaking the law. The limits are there for a reason, no exemptions!

Ban a few of these wreckless speed demons, police included, for their heinous transgressions.

That might work too.
It might make someone in authority question why there is a 50 camera