Ambulance fine 115mph in a 50
Discussion
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?
Do you think you're the only person in the world who this would occur to?I'm certainly well aware, and would imagine that a trained professional would be too, that a drivers own condition is one of the many factors that need to be consider before choosing a speed. Whether or not the driver in this instance did is impossible to know, just like it's impossible to know all the other factors which would determine how great the risks were. Yet you, and a bunch of other fools, are jumping to conclusion on the tiniest amount of information.
Sump said:
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.
There's a sticky at the top of the S,P+L board about blues and twos and exemptions , the actual legislation is spread across a variety of Acts and Regulations and some of it despite people making a big deal never actually came into force as the secondary legislation to support it was never made. Just trying to clear up what the rule is here.
While there are a number of exemptions for legitimate emergency services uses , there is no exemption from DWDCA, Careless or Dangerous Driving and the causing death by versions .
the Law itself is fairly free, organisational policy is generally more restrictive in that things which are prima facie legal under the legislation may not be supported by an organisation in any, some or all circumstances.
Rangeroverover said:
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 f
king 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.
+1 a large oneI hope if any of you pompous morons are ever in the nasty situation where you need medical attention as quick as is if f
king 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 f
kwittery 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
I could point to several roads around here which are 50 limits on which 115 would be absolutely fine in the right conditions. Why are they 50s? Good bloody question.
Frankly amazed that people are jumping on medical response drivers, of all people, based on nothing.
saaby93 said:
Aren't there too many collisions on blue light runs anyway?
I'm certain ambulances kill less people than would die due to them being too slow if they had to stick to the speed limits. The same cannot be said of allowing "normal" drivers to do the same speed there. Simple risk vs reward.
Edited by kambites on Friday 24th July 11:48
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?
...and another 'Yes'.a) How long do you think a Police shift is? b) How many of them have a 'proper' break?
Ans: a) anywhere between 8 and 14+ hours and b) Very few, I'd wager.
Nice to see that PH has so many advanced drivers who clearly spend 90% of their working life behind the wheel or training on driving at speed.
I am sure they are the kings of the M25 car park.
Once again my opinion of this place goes down a notch......used to be nice around here, fields and trees and all that.
I am sure they are the kings of the M25 car park.
Once again my opinion of this place goes down a notch......used to be nice around here, fields and trees and all that.
saaby93 said:
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?
In recent years there have been several long-term 50mph "roadworks" limits on the motorways near Bristol, complete with average speed cameras, where it would have been safe to do that sort of speed a lot of the time, particularly at night.I would also be inclined to give the driver the benefit of the doubt - would he (or she) have been doing that speed on that particular occasion if a) it was unsafe, b) he wasn't wide awake and prepared for it, or c) it wasn't a time-critical emergency?
Particularly if it was on the motorway, as he would have been very aware of the speed cameras.
Edited by Pete317 on Friday 24th July 13:06
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.
Why don't you read and digest the actual paper linked to, before slagging off from a position of total ignorance?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?
So you're just assuming that, on that particular occasion, some dog-tired ambulance driver made the decision to go blatting down some village high street or somewhere like that, at insanely high speeds, and all without a very good reason???Christ. Talk about moaning for the sake of it.
You can bullst about how it's wrong until you're blue in the face, but let's be honest here. If your little one/cherished family member was moments from dying would you care if the ambulance was adhering to the speed limits? Or would you rather them get there quicker by breaking them (within reason) to get to you to save your little one/cherished family member?
I suspect, actually I know you would be more worried about your little one, rather than whether Mr Paramedic is driving down the A38 at the designated 50MPH limit. Sure as hell I won't!
We all know what's more important.
The reason it may have been a 50 limit is because of a couple of things.
1. The majority of people out there couldn't give a fk about driving.
2. See the knob thread, for examples of other peoples driving.
3. They're trained to control their Rapid response cars/Vans at high speed, so I suspect they're in control, and apply a wonderful thing called common sense. They're not going to let a lemming control a 7 tonne van with somebody dying when he's doing 50 onto roundabouts and on the border of control. No. They're going to be taught how to drive quickly, but smoothly. When was the last time you saw Lewis Hamilton drifting around Copps, or around parabolica?
Before all of you complain, try working as a Paramedic for a day. I bet you would change your attitudes after that.
Some people need to get a grip. Frankly, if an ambulance is speeding there's most like a fking good reason for it, and as long as they don't drive like a cock (which they're trained not to) then why does it matter, as long as he's using his common sense.
You can bulls
t about how it's wrong until you're blue in the face, but let's be honest here. If your little one/cherished family member was moments from dying would you care if the ambulance was adhering to the speed limits? Or would you rather them get there quicker by breaking them (within reason) to get to you to save your little one/cherished family member? I suspect, actually I know you would be more worried about your little one, rather than whether Mr Paramedic is driving down the A38 at the designated 50MPH limit. Sure as hell I won't!
We all know what's more important.
The reason it may have been a 50 limit is because of a couple of things.
1. The majority of people out there couldn't give a f
k about driving. 2. See the knob thread, for examples of other peoples driving.
3. They're trained to control their Rapid response cars/Vans at high speed, so I suspect they're in control, and apply a wonderful thing called common sense. They're not going to let a lemming control a 7 tonne van with somebody dying when he's doing 50 onto roundabouts and on the border of control. No. They're going to be taught how to drive quickly, but smoothly. When was the last time you saw Lewis Hamilton drifting around Copps, or around parabolica?
Before all of you complain, try working as a Paramedic for a day. I bet you would change your attitudes after that.
Some people need to get a grip. Frankly, if an ambulance is speeding there's most like a f
king good reason for it, and as long as they don't drive like a cock (which they're trained not to) then why does it matter, as long as he's using his common sense. If more people got out of the way of Ambulances and other emergency vehicles [i]correctly[/] and didn't hold them up, then they get to accidents even sooner.
I can't believe the amount of muppets I see who just stop in the road, rather than look for somewhere to pull over further up the road.
I can't believe the amount of muppets I see who just stop in the road, rather than look for somewhere to pull over further up the road.
Topically, there is a sky news story today about ambulance responses. In their trial a quarter of calls have not required a blue light responce at all. There figures don't seem to quite add up but a chap being interviewed said 20% req no ambulance to be sent at all. And only 40% of patients they did go to went on to go to hospital (so cannot have been very serious)
http://news.sky.com/story/1524285/new-999-system-c...
in other words, most of the time it is not life or death, so no I don't think should be hurtling around at silly speeds on the unlikely event it may be.
http://news.sky.com/story/1524285/new-999-system-c...
in other words, most of the time it is not life or death, so no I don't think should be hurtling around at silly speeds on the unlikely event it may be.
CoolHands said:
Topically, there is a sky news story today about ambulance responses. In their trial a quarter of calls have not required a blue light responce at all. There figures don't seem to quite add up but a chap being interviewed said 20% req no ambulance to be sent at all. And only 40% of patients they did go to went on to go to hospital (so cannot have been very serious)
http://news.sky.com/story/1524285/new-999-system-c...
in other words, most of the time it is not life or death, so no I don't think should be hurtling around at silly speeds on the unlikely event it may be.
So you just assume that, on that particular occasion, it wasn't necessary?http://news.sky.com/story/1524285/new-999-system-c...
in other words, most of the time it is not life or death, so no I don't think should be hurtling around at silly speeds on the unlikely event it may be.
And all without knowing any of the details of that particular occasion?
CoolHands said:
in other words, most of the time it is not life or death, so no I don't think should be hurtling around at silly speeds on the unlikely event it may be.
Brilliant. So, based on the bastion of fact that is a guy interviewed on Sky News, for the portion of time it is life or death, then they just shouldn't rush, because, statistically, the patient will probably be fine. And also, based on that, there is no way that the case the thread about was one of those small numbers of cases.
Jeebus, I've read some s
t on here in the past, but this has to be deliberate trolling?- Fry meme *
Edited by FD3Si on Friday 24th July 13:49
Edited by FD3Si on Friday 24th July 14:23
I don't think time of the incident was mentioned? I doubt anyone could do 115mph during the day unless it really is the middle of nowhere or very early/late. For all we know it could have been 4am on a dead straight, well lit dual carriageway when the road was completely dry. I'm sure the driver believed the speed he was travelling at to be completely safe.
CoolHands said:
Topically, there is a sky news story today about ambulance responses. In their trial a quarter of calls have not required a blue light responce at all. There figures don't seem to quite add up but a chap being interviewed said 20% req no ambulance to be sent at all. And only 40% of patients they did go to went on to go to hospital (so cannot have been very serious)
http://news.sky.com/story/1524285/new-999-system-c...
in other words, most of the time it is not life or death, so no I don't think should be hurtling around at silly speeds on the unlikely event it may be.
the long standing issues with Old US based prioritisiation systems ( e.g. AMPDS and before that Crtieria Based Dispatch) and their false positives are being addressed , a system which reduced emergency responses or offered the potential to for quite a while ( although in a lot of places the 'cat c' / 'green' responses didn;t get put in place for a long while )... http://news.sky.com/story/1524285/new-999-system-c...
in other words, most of the time it is not life or death, so no I don't think should be hurtling around at silly speeds on the unlikely event it may be.
in the recent past the vast majority of staff in ambulance control weren;t clinically trained at all - they came in as call takers ( a role superficially similar to working in a call centre - except it's using aforementioned computer aided dispatch systemks to ask the questions related tothe 'emergency' - hence the false positives ) and these calls were then passed to lay person dispathcers to pass to the ambulance / RRV / Helicopter colsest / most suited
slightly more recently they in troduced Nurses and paramedics into control to try and re triage some calls either to making their own way / a 'delayed' ambulance response ( ranging from sending the next available ambulance at normal road speed to a category like 'urgents' where the target time is 2 -4 hours), or referring people to OOHGP services / oOH dentist / Crisis Team etc etc
FD3Si said:
CoolHands said:
in other words, most of the time it is not life or death, so no I don't think should be hurtling around at silly speeds on the unlikely event it may be.
Brilliant, so, based on the bastion of fact that is a guy interviewed on Sky News, for the portion of time it is life out death, then they just shouldn't rush, because, statistically, the patient will probably be fine. And also, based on that, there no way that the case the thread about was one of those small numbers of cases.
Jeebus, I've read some s
t on here in the past, but this has to be deliberate trolling?- Fry meme*
Edited by FD3Si on Friday 24th July 13:49
Hence, why he was bringing 200mph into the debate earlier.
Lacks some understanding of the topic too.
Armchair experts... ASSEMBLE!
I can't help but think that the undercurrent of support for the 115mph ambulance driver isn't for his dedication to save lives, but is based on a general dislike of being punished for breaking speed limits.
If the ambulance driver in this case had genuinely avoided most risks while driving at 115mph (eg, dry, empty motorway or DC with no junctions) then I'd doubt they'd have been punished. The fact they were punished leads me to believe they did take one risk too much.
If the ambulance driver in this case had genuinely avoided most risks while driving at 115mph (eg, dry, empty motorway or DC with no junctions) then I'd doubt they'd have been punished. The fact they were punished leads me to believe they did take one risk too much.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff