Ambulance fine 115mph in a 50
Discussion
oyster said:
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.
From the BBC report in the OP: "The highest speed recorded was 115mph in a 50mph zone by the South Western Ambulance Service."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.
Which you turned into: "The fact they were punished"
Am I missing something?
doogz said:
CoolHands said:
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?
Of courseI'd expect to be pulled for those offences, but then, I'm breaking the law by speeding/using a phone/etc.Whereas, paramedics, doctors, the police, and fire brigade have a slightly different set of rules to operate under, which is why it's justifiable.
I presume you don't understand the way our justice system works?
The argument is not void, you don't seem to like it and in trying to back it up with a null and void point, have made mine for me.
Good work.
I think from that you are saying police etc have different rules hence it's justifiable. Which in many cases legally it is. But that doesn't mean all of us agree with it (as I don't). Still they have had 'special training' so that's ok, I'm sure they never make errors of judgement (oops that isn't accurate though, is it).
To the hard-of-thinking posters attacking me - yes likelihood matters. The likelihood of their call being life or death is clearly less than half just from the skynews story published today. It's probably very low, if I could be arsed to look for the number (if they publish them). So that is something that any rational decision making process has to balance with likelihood of harm (from driving too fast). BTW how do you explain why some fast police pursuits are called off? Surely they should get their man? Why do they let them get away?
You can't bring the "I don't care how fast they drove to save my child" argument into it. That's based on the emotional connection to a loved one and should not form the basis of any opinion. The very obvious flip side to this is to ask how you'd feel if your child was killed by a speeding ambulance driver on his way to save someone else's child. Exactly.
The bottom line though, which should be pretty damned obvious to anyone, is that ambulance drivers should use their best judgement at all times when considering the speed they drive at. Should they perhaps drive at 80MPH in a 50 limit to get to someone who has gone into cardiac arrest? Well perhaps...as long as it's not foggy... or wet... or if the patient happens to be with someone who knows CPR....
Every case is different. You cannot lay down specific rules, but you can give guidelines, train people well, and have procedures in place to review those guidelines and their outcomes on a regular basis.
The bottom line though, which should be pretty damned obvious to anyone, is that ambulance drivers should use their best judgement at all times when considering the speed they drive at. Should they perhaps drive at 80MPH in a 50 limit to get to someone who has gone into cardiac arrest? Well perhaps...as long as it's not foggy... or wet... or if the patient happens to be with someone who knows CPR....
Every case is different. You cannot lay down specific rules, but you can give guidelines, train people well, and have procedures in place to review those guidelines and their outcomes on a regular basis.
I also think people should consider other drivers reactions to a car speeding at 115mph vs a car/ambulance with blues and twos doing 115mph
If this was on an A-road/Motorway there is a good chance that the cars in front, probably for some distance, saw the flashing lights and got out the way, therefore the driver can make an informed risk based decision to get the peddle down.
If this was on an A-road/Motorway there is a good chance that the cars in front, probably for some distance, saw the flashing lights and got out the way, therefore the driver can make an informed risk based decision to get the peddle down.
CoolHands said:
To the hard-of-thinking posters attacking me - yes likelihood matters.
So if you ever find yourself having the misfortune to be in the back of an ambulance, bleeding internally from a stab wound, I take it you will tell the driver to take it easy, as you only have a 0.001% probability of being stabbed so therefore there's a 99.999% likelihood that you'll be just fine?You attempt to apply population-based statistics to individual events, and then accuse others of being hard of thinking
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.
Chapeau, best post on here for some time. 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 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
kwk said:
CoolHands said:
BTW how do you explain why some fast police pursuits are called off? Surely they should get their man? Why do they let them get away?
Because most police pursuits are not a matter of life and death and the trained officer has made the correct decision to abort.in a response drive you know the training of the driver(s) who will be claiming exemption and the provenance and state of the vehicles who will be claiming exemptions ...
Jasandjules said:
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".
I agree!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".
Who knows if 115m mph mph is dangerous or not. In a modern car, it's frankly neither here nor there. Any modern car can do 115mph all day without undue duress, so only if you know the traffic conditions at the time could you state the true level of risk!
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.
As a casual browser of the forums I rarely feel compelled to post in response to comments here, but I am genuinely stunned by the level of stupidity you are displaying. Linking to the Sky News report only proves your stupidity further because the content is at odds with your argument. 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.
Sky News article said:
Under the scheme, life-threatening calls still get an immediate response, with the aim of reaching the scene within eight minutes.
But other calls are now triaged over the phone with a series of medical questions in a maximum of two minutes.
Those rated as less serious are given advice over the phone by a clinician or sent an ambulance with a lower priority.
So the SW Ambulance Service are going out of their way to ensure that the patients who do get ambulances "hurtling around at silly speeds" to reach them are those who are judged to be at highest risk of death. Those at lower risk don't get a blue light response. But other calls are now triaged over the phone with a series of medical questions in a maximum of two minutes.
Those rated as less serious are given advice over the phone by a clinician or sent an ambulance with a lower priority.
The figures quoted in the article are 398k calls, of which 56k were dealt with over the phone and 74k got a reduced priority response. In other words, c.60% were judged to be serious enough to to warrant a blue light rapid response. Assuming that the 115mph case in question wasn't part of this trial (though it could have been, it was in the SW), it would be reasonable to expect a similar correlation of instances where rapid response is required to total 999 calls. If 60% of calls are deemed that serious, why would you not want paramedics responding as quickly as is safely possible? There is no evidence to suggest the 115mph driver wasn't doing so safely.
If you are a troll, well played you've got a bite from me. I suspect however, that you really are the deluded f
kwit that your online persona portrays.God help us - please don't breed.
Coff, getting back on topic....
"The police said some speed cameras only captured the speed and number plate of the vehicle."
Erm... lets think here.... lets save some of our tax money, you know, the stuff that pays the police (camera partnership or whatever) and the ambulance services money.... input the fking licence plates of all blue lighted vehicles into a database and check every ticket that is produced by unmanned equipment. Then, when they flag up, a manual check to look for the blue lights been displayed.
Isnt this why I now see many Amb's with a solid blue light at the rear and on the front - so that by some miracle if the blue lights just happened to be on the off cycle while flashing as the camera took the prize shot, the solid light would still show.
Do we employ morons in these services/government? Oh, hold on a second.....
"The police said some speed cameras only captured the speed and number plate of the vehicle."
Erm... lets think here.... lets save some of our tax money, you know, the stuff that pays the police (camera partnership or whatever) and the ambulance services money.... input the f
king licence plates of all blue lighted vehicles into a database and check every ticket that is produced by unmanned equipment. Then, when they flag up, a manual check to look for the blue lights been displayed. Isnt this why I now see many Amb's with a solid blue light at the rear and on the front - so that by some miracle if the blue lights just happened to be on the off cycle while flashing as the camera took the prize shot, the solid light would still show.
Do we employ morons in these services/government? Oh, hold on a second.....
My view. Which may or may not bring some perspective, given my experience...
I am just about to (in three weeks) graduate as a fully-qualified Paramedic, after three years of college / University / frontline Ambulance training.
As part of that, I have completed 1500 hours of frontline experience, over the last two years, in both full size Ambulances, and rapid response cars.
Our Trust's Ambulances are a mix of older shape (55, 56 plate) Mercedes Sprinters, which are around 5 tonnes, and the latest, bigger Sprinters, which are 6 tonnes plus. The older ones struggle on to around a ton, the newer ones manage around 110 given time and space. The older ones handle a wee bit better, the newer ones are more of a handful - but then again, have more modern electronic stability control. They ALL have Telma brake system retardation devices on them, and despite their weight, if you stamp hard on the brake pedal, they all stop remarkably quickly. When things get a bit frisky, they all default to understeer. I've never experienced a state where any of them have felt tail happy.
Our cars are now all Ford Mondeo TDCi's - they do have a fair bit of kit in the boot, and extra electronics etc....but don't handle too badly, and will also mostly default to understeer.
Despite another poster saying that frontline NHS responders have 3 weeks of training - in our Trust, it is 4 weeks. I will be starting mine soon. From what I have been told by basically everyone, it is a hard course, and the instructors WILL fail you if they think you're not up to scratch.
But now to address the OP and the question - despite all I have said, I do not think that it is appropriate for Ambulance response vehicles to be travelling at speeds which endanger the vehicle, the crew and the public. Yes of course we need to crack on a bit, through the normal traffic, and not dawdle to emergencies - but at the same time, as someone who has 25 years of road driving experience, plus racing experience and having been a track-day instructor...I see with great clarity the myriad of potential dangers in the real world environment, on our roads, and I know how quickly things can go extremely pear-shaped.
My personal opinion is that, if we're travelling to an emergency, someone who really is on the brink of life and death, then the first priority is to get there, in one piece, to be able to give all our help and support. If we crash on the way, then that's not gonna happen. Hence a degree of care and discretion whilst driving should really be the best practice.
Secondly to that, most people may or may not know, that for any coded 'top priorty' job, we are required to travel to them under full 'blues and twos' - however, I can probably count on one hand the amount of jobs in the past year that have truly required a totally committed, flat-out response. As has been already suggested however, there are one or two people whom consider every drive to be an excuse to 'GLF' whatever the circumstances....and on those occasions, where I have felt unsafe, I have bloody well said so! To a mixed response.....
Hope this helps
I am just about to (in three weeks) graduate as a fully-qualified Paramedic, after three years of college / University / frontline Ambulance training.
As part of that, I have completed 1500 hours of frontline experience, over the last two years, in both full size Ambulances, and rapid response cars.
Our Trust's Ambulances are a mix of older shape (55, 56 plate) Mercedes Sprinters, which are around 5 tonnes, and the latest, bigger Sprinters, which are 6 tonnes plus. The older ones struggle on to around a ton, the newer ones manage around 110 given time and space. The older ones handle a wee bit better, the newer ones are more of a handful - but then again, have more modern electronic stability control. They ALL have Telma brake system retardation devices on them, and despite their weight, if you stamp hard on the brake pedal, they all stop remarkably quickly. When things get a bit frisky, they all default to understeer. I've never experienced a state where any of them have felt tail happy.
Our cars are now all Ford Mondeo TDCi's - they do have a fair bit of kit in the boot, and extra electronics etc....but don't handle too badly, and will also mostly default to understeer.
Despite another poster saying that frontline NHS responders have 3 weeks of training - in our Trust, it is 4 weeks. I will be starting mine soon. From what I have been told by basically everyone, it is a hard course, and the instructors WILL fail you if they think you're not up to scratch.
But now to address the OP and the question - despite all I have said, I do not think that it is appropriate for Ambulance response vehicles to be travelling at speeds which endanger the vehicle, the crew and the public. Yes of course we need to crack on a bit, through the normal traffic, and not dawdle to emergencies - but at the same time, as someone who has 25 years of road driving experience, plus racing experience and having been a track-day instructor...I see with great clarity the myriad of potential dangers in the real world environment, on our roads, and I know how quickly things can go extremely pear-shaped.
My personal opinion is that, if we're travelling to an emergency, someone who really is on the brink of life and death, then the first priority is to get there, in one piece, to be able to give all our help and support. If we crash on the way, then that's not gonna happen. Hence a degree of care and discretion whilst driving should really be the best practice.
Secondly to that, most people may or may not know, that for any coded 'top priorty' job, we are required to travel to them under full 'blues and twos' - however, I can probably count on one hand the amount of jobs in the past year that have truly required a totally committed, flat-out response. As has been already suggested however, there are one or two people whom consider every drive to be an excuse to 'GLF' whatever the circumstances....and on those occasions, where I have felt unsafe, I have bloody well said so! To a mixed response.....
Hope this helps
I was going to reply to this thread but the number of people who believe a number on a stick is more important than someone's life put me right off.
I am fairly confident that most response drivers have the judgement to decide a safe speed for them, their machine and the conditions, and the driving skill to make appropriate progress.
To anyone who says otherwise, I sincerely hope you never have cause to regret an ambulance arriving just a little too late.
I am fairly confident that most response drivers have the judgement to decide a safe speed for them, their machine and the conditions, and the driving skill to make appropriate progress.
To anyone who says otherwise, I sincerely hope you never have cause to regret an ambulance arriving just a little too late.
Well hopefully the idiots will get their way and all emergency vehicles will not be allowed to speed. Right, who's with me to go steal loads of cash and escape the police by doing 75mph, or 33mph in town? In fact stick to 20mph zones and I can escape them on my mountain bike if there is a bit of a tail wind.
Emergency services need the ability to drive at a speed they are trained to deal with, anyone who thinks otherwise needs a damn good ear flicking.
Emergency services need the ability to drive at a speed they are trained to deal with, anyone who thinks otherwise needs a damn good ear flicking.
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.
You are a bit of a moron, aren't you.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.
Heart attacks/stroke events are common. Sometimes the victim gets some degree of warning that something is going wrong, sometimes not. What is vital is getting treatment as quickly as possible.
Prompt treatment reduces fatalities, and also importantly permanent disablement.
There are around 125,000 heart attacks and 160,000 stroke events per year. Around 1 in 3 die before reaching hospital, about 90,000 people.
If they could improve their response by 4 or 5 minutes they would improve the survival rate by about 5%, or 4,500 lives saved.
That is the upside, 4,500 lives saved. Downside 2 die.
The downside is speeding ambulances, which as far as I can see kill around 2 people per year.
Hello, actual, real, fast response paramedic here.
115 in a 50 is too fast, regardless of job details. Our trust operates "guidelines" of 20 mph over limit for an ambulance, 30mph over limit for a car. Response cars are not (or very very rarely) uprated in anyway. WE used stnadard volvo V40's, then standard Vauxhall zafira SRI's, then standard Skoda Octavia Scouts. Not bad cars, but not great cars either (considering the ammount of weight behind the rear axel they can be alittle tail happy as well).
We drive to the conditions, but like anywhere, osme people take things too far and rely too much on pervieved skills. 3 weeks driving training is naff all and you learn very little without real world fast driving experience.
115 in a 50 is too fast, regardless of job details. Our trust operates "guidelines" of 20 mph over limit for an ambulance, 30mph over limit for a car. Response cars are not (or very very rarely) uprated in anyway. WE used stnadard volvo V40's, then standard Vauxhall zafira SRI's, then standard Skoda Octavia Scouts. Not bad cars, but not great cars either (considering the ammount of weight behind the rear axel they can be alittle tail happy as well).
We drive to the conditions, but like anywhere, osme people take things too far and rely too much on pervieved skills. 3 weeks driving training is naff all and you learn very little without real world fast driving experience.
^^^^ Thanks - this was posted earlier too
No-one wants to know that in trying to get to you too quickly, an ambulance has crashed so theyre going to have to deal with that as well as you
There's an ambulance forum where they discuss they can exceed the speed limit, but theres a 20mph guideline.
Some posters have said that on an open road or a clear dual carriageway 115mph might be ok or subject to the drivers discretion.
Trouble is that discretion can have mistakes and red mist set in, hence maybe the 20mph guideline so they know its not about getting there at all costs
The point here is there is a 50mph camera. There's something else going on.
Either the limit and camera is wrong or the red mist may have set in.
It should be more than a tick box - it was blues so ok
My tuppence
Ray Luxury-Yacht said:
..snip..
But now to address the OP and the question - despite all I have said, I do not think that it is appropriate for Ambulance response vehicles to be travelling at speeds which endanger the vehicle, the crew and the public. Yes of course we need to crack on a bit, through the normal traffic, and not dawdle to emergencies - but at the same time, as someone who has 25 years of road driving experience, plus racing experience and having been a track-day instructor...I see with great clarity the myriad of potential dangers in the real world environment, on our roads, and I know how quickly things can go extremely pear-shaped.
My personal opinion is that, if we're travelling to an emergency, someone who really is on the brink of life and death, then the first priority is to get there, in one piece, to be able to give all our help and support. If we crash on the way, then that's not gonna happen. Hence a degree of care and discretion whilst driving should really be the best practice.
There have been previous reports too about the best way to get to an incident is to keep pace with traffic and overtake when the opportunity arises. If theres too much of a differential you have no idea what other people are going to do to get out the way.But now to address the OP and the question - despite all I have said, I do not think that it is appropriate for Ambulance response vehicles to be travelling at speeds which endanger the vehicle, the crew and the public. Yes of course we need to crack on a bit, through the normal traffic, and not dawdle to emergencies - but at the same time, as someone who has 25 years of road driving experience, plus racing experience and having been a track-day instructor...I see with great clarity the myriad of potential dangers in the real world environment, on our roads, and I know how quickly things can go extremely pear-shaped.
My personal opinion is that, if we're travelling to an emergency, someone who really is on the brink of life and death, then the first priority is to get there, in one piece, to be able to give all our help and support. If we crash on the way, then that's not gonna happen. Hence a degree of care and discretion whilst driving should really be the best practice.
No-one wants to know that in trying to get to you too quickly, an ambulance has crashed so theyre going to have to deal with that as well as you
There's an ambulance forum where they discuss they can exceed the speed limit, but theres a 20mph guideline.
Some posters have said that on an open road or a clear dual carriageway 115mph might be ok or subject to the drivers discretion.
Trouble is that discretion can have mistakes and red mist set in, hence maybe the 20mph guideline so they know its not about getting there at all costs
The point here is there is a 50mph camera. There's something else going on.
Either the limit and camera is wrong or the red mist may have set in.
It should be more than a tick box - it was blues so ok
My tuppence
Edited by saaby93 on Saturday 25th July 11:45
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff