The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
New Response Rules for Austin Apparatus
AUSTIN, Texas - Some union leaders question a new Austin city policy that says firetrucks responding to calls must drive the speed limit and fully stop at intersections.
Austin Fire Department Chief Rhoda Mae Kerr said the policy is meant to improve safety for firefighters and motorists.
But Steven Truesdell, president of the Austin Firefighters Association, told the Austin American-Statesman that firefighters' discretion is being curtailed.
"We don't understand if they have some impetus for making these changes," Truesdell said. "They haven't discussed it with us."
Previously, Austin firefighters could drive up to 10 mph over the posted speed limit. Vehicles were not required to stop at intersections, but operators were told to make sure other drivers knew the emergency vehicles needed to proceed.
Kerr said she does not believe that the policy, which took effect Aug. 11, will affect response times.
"It is all about making sure that everyone goes home," Kerr said. "It helps keep our people safer, not only the firefighters, but the community as well."
The new policy is based largely on a 2003 report in EMS Responder magazine, fire department spokeswoman Michelle DeCrane said. The report concluded EMS vehicles going the speed limit and stopping at intersections were operated safer and had limited significant delays.
The change is part of a department-wide effort to turn informal practices into formal policy, DeCrane said.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Austin Fire Department Chief Rhoda Mae Kerr said the policy is meant to improve safety for firefighters and motorists.
But Steven Truesdell, president of the Austin Firefighters Association, told the Austin American-Statesman that firefighters' discretion is being curtailed.
"We don't understand if they have some impetus for making these changes," Truesdell said. "They haven't discussed it with us."
Previously, Austin firefighters could drive up to 10 mph over the posted speed limit. Vehicles were not required to stop at intersections, but operators were told to make sure other drivers knew the emergency vehicles needed to proceed.
Kerr said she does not believe that the policy, which took effect Aug. 11, will affect response times.
"It is all about making sure that everyone goes home," Kerr said. "It helps keep our people safer, not only the firefighters, but the community as well."
The new policy is based largely on a 2003 report in EMS Responder magazine, fire department spokeswoman Michelle DeCrane said. The report concluded EMS vehicles going the speed limit and stopping at intersections were operated safer and had limited significant delays.
The change is part of a department-wide effort to turn informal practices into formal policy, DeCrane said.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ron Ayotte on
-
We are not outdriving the sirens... period.
Are cars built "tighter" and with more soundproofing? Yes. In addition, more cars have a/c as part of the standard equipment complement, so the windows are in the up position more often than they are down.
Pilots have a term for knowing what is going on with their aircraft and what is happening round them when they are flying. It is called "situational awareness".. and it is something that should be taught and practiced behind the wheel of any motor vehicle.
My "toy" is a 2006 Mustang GT. It has a cold air induction system that gives the vehicle a more aggressive sound as well as more power. I also like to crank the audio system when I am driving, yet I pay attention to the road ahead and check the mirrors often for emergency vehicles as well as morons who aren't "in tune" to what they are doing.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
Drive with due regard.. that is common sense.
Gonz...couldn't agree more.
Due regard is taught in a driver/operator course and EVOC courses...so if these are requirements for positions, then there is no need for such a blanket policy.
Due Regard put the decision making to the person driving and also the officer. Does an emergecy vehicle have to come to a complete stop at a stop sign when there is no traffic and there is a clear view both ways? Due regard puts that in the driver's hands. Such a blanket policy like this creates more worry about getting in trouble than getting on the scene.
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
Plus, the new cars have a port where the IPod can be plugged into and how do we listen to our IPods? With earbuds in. I've seen drivers with full blown headphones on as well. Though it is illegal as hell, I don't see much enforcement.
Then, you also have the distracted driving phenom at play with many. Cell phone, eating while driving, shaving, applying make up are just a few activities that are distracting drivers.
If we aren't more aware, we are asking for problems.
The fact that many apparatus cabs are being built to include headsets at every rider position including driver just may be causing some problems with hearing what is going on.
I would think that it would be hard to outdrive the siren if we can't hear the siren from inside the cab.
I remember not long ago, some ffs sued for loss of hearing from the loudness of the siren.
I'm sure that changing protocols isn't a result of someone wanting to show who's boss, but rather a result of too damned many near misses and direct hits.
IMHO.
TCSS.
Art
-
-
The fact that many apparatus cabs are being built to include headsets at every rider position including driver just may be causing some problems with hearing what is going on.
Actually these help with communications enroute to the call. It is easier for every member to hear dispatch, other incoming rigs, first in report, as well as any necessary information. The driver and officer positions mics are open to the cab, but the FF in the back have to push their button on their earpiece to talk. The driver or officer will talk to dispatch.
Thing is these devices help take out ambient noise and allows for communication at a quieter level thus reducing shouting. We have these on our newer rigs, so we live in all worlds, open cab, enclosed cabs without headphones and the newer ones with. Something like this improves hearing, not hinders.
-
-
Read what Chief Billy G has to say about this:
- Attachments:
-
-
TheSecretList.pdf, 116 KB
-
-
Permalink Reply by FETC on
-
I've got HANDS ON experience with a policy like what Austin is trying to implement.
I can honestly say we TRIED this a while ago. We had a Deputy who created a policy thinking we would be responding safer by stopping at every intersection but it created a few close calls which forced our Fire Chief to negate the policy change.
Our policy was that we needed to stop at EVERY intersection, (to include all red or green lights, stop signs, etc.) we also have an opticom system in which we own for locally controlled intersections, and some of the state owned roadways have opticoms as well but state maintained.
Now as for close calls, in the first week of actually enforcing the policy of stopping at all intersections, my company, a quint, had three close calls in two days which the public had absolutely no clue what the hell we were doing.
We were responding on automatic fire alarms, we were not first due, and responded to letter of the policy which was lights and sirens, no going over the speed limit, and stopping at all intersections.
As for close calls, we had three in the first day.
First we were passing cars who yielded to our lights and sirens on a straight piece of road, 30 mph zone and when we approached an intersection and stopped with a green light, we were almost rear ended once, (witnessed by an off duty guy) we were passed at least 4 or 5 times by the same cars that yielded to us earlier. How? as we stopped at green lights, they proceeded through the green light intersection in a different lane (which was actually controlled by our opticom) and then we had to basically pass them again when we blew the sirens on the next straight-a-way or if another vehicle yielded in front of them. So your increasing the traffic in which you are potentially clearing in between intersections.
Next close call, we pull up to an intersection and stop to clear the intersection, and a car on the right, sitting at his red light, thinks we stopped and are going to turn either left or right so as well start to proceed straight, they decided to make a right turn on red, as we almost t-boned them.
My suggestion to the Fire Chief, was to go completely to an all flow of traffic response. Which we did test and they decided that our responses were extremely slow additional 10mminutes while waiting at red lights. So we actually went back to following the state law of emergency apparatus, which says slow down to a reasonable speed in case you need to stop immediately during intersection responses.
You wanna feel absolutely stupid, blow lights and sirens, and have the opticom blinking for your control and stop at an intersection. The public actually thinks you are LOST?
-
Permalink Reply by Jason F. Anderson on
-
Have you seen Austin's traffic lately? They get their drivers' licenses from the candy and toy machines at Chuck E Cheese's!! This is the best thing this Chief could have done to protect the crews. Way to go!!
-
Permalink Reply by Keith Castleberry on
-
what do you tell parents of a dead child that could have been saved if response time was faster ( sorry i was stopped at a light )
-
Permalink Reply by Oldman on
-
"drivers' licenses from the candy and toy machines"
That's pretty much Southeast Texas, and assuming they have correct change. BTW, it used to be Cracker Jacks, but they had a conflict with DPS.
-
Permalink Reply by Manu Forti on
-
As an officer on a Ladder company in Austin (with some actual experience with the driving policies) I'd like to weigh in on this issue. First, this issue is of public concern - therefore my commentary is protected under the 1st Ammendment. I am not in any way criticizing the fire chief or the policy or the department - I am simply providing commentary. This issue boils down to a conflict between competing public goods. Obviously the goal of the policy is to increase firefighter and public safety - an admirable goal. However, many incidents are time critical in the fire service and therefore policies that have an affect on response times need to be carefully analyzed. There are studies and modeling tools available that are able to predict lives saved and lost based on increases and decreases in response times. Based on a 2000 study that included data for our jurisdiction an increase in average response times of 15 to 30 seconds respectively correlates to 19 and 37 additional lives lost to sudden cardiac arrest. If response times are indeed impacted, can we conclude that the lives saved as a direct result of the new driving policy compensate for the potential loss of life for SCA events? What about other time critical events?
For those of you that claim that response times will not be affected - I disagree. I will provide several examples of how response times are affected. First, the new policy requires that apparatus shut down lights and sirens at red light intersections if cars could potentially be pushed through that intersection. This reduction to Code 1 response sends a message to drivers that the emergency no longer exists and that they no longer have a responsibility to move to the right and clear a path for the responding unit. This is not theory - it is fact and I have personally witnessed this. Seconds tick by until the light turns green and the unit is then able to resume code 3 response. In rush hour traffic this frustrating process can happen multiple times at a single intersection. Second, coming to a complete stop at all red lights and all stop signs has an impact on response times. We have several two and three way stop signs in our response area whereby we must come to a complete stop despite the fact that there is no cross traffic. Additionally, depending on time of day there are times when we can clearly visualize the intersection is clear and yet we must come to a complete stop. I prefer a slow and controlled roll through completely clear red light and stop sign intersections with a foot covering the brake. This ensures that we have the ability to stop if necessary and at the same time allowing for our heavy aerial apparatus to maintain a little momentum. For busy intersections with traffic I have no problem with the complete stop. However, it should be noted that apparatus that come to a complete stop often invite motorists to enter the intersection because some motorists become confused about the intent of the responding apparatus. Again, I prefer a very slow and controlled roll through with both officer and driver audibly clearing lanes and "clearly showing apparatus intent" to proceed through said intersection. The point of this section is that loss of momentum and completely stopping at red lights and stop signs that are visually clear of traffic clearly impact response time. Lastly, the inability to exceed the speed limit by 10mph as afforded under Texas State Law also impacts response times on some calls. Obviously, time of day, posted speed limit, apparatus capability and length of run are factors in whether or not 10mph makes a difference. But aggregated over all responses it clearly does impact average response times.
In conclusion, I think this policy was well intentioned. However, I think I have illustrated that response times will be impacted and that because of this impact there is indeed a conflict between competing public goods. Apparatus collisions are high profile incidents and administrators feel compelled to address this issue. Conversely, loss of life in time sensitve incidents (sudden cardiac arrests, trapped fire victims,etc.) due to response delays are rarely reported in the press and for the most part are statistically unavailable without comprehensive analysis and modeling. I encourage any jurisdiction that is contemplating implementing driving policies that have impacts on response times and that eliminate officer discretion conduct a thorough risk/benefit analysis. Perform some modeling of time critical incidents for their respective jurisdiction and weigh the results against an analysis of potential benefits afforded by the policy change. Additionally, provide training (if necessary) on these policy changes. Finally, strive to get buy in from firefighters and your local (if applicable). Everyone’s goal is safety and reduction of loss of life and property. Work to ensure that your policy change indeed meets these ends and is not simply a response to a headline. I encourage thoughtful debate and dissenting opinions.
-
-
As an officer on a Ladder company in Austin (with some actual experience with the driving policies) I'd like to weigh in on this issue. First, this issue is of public concern - therefore my commentary is protected under the 1st Ammendment. I am not in any way criticizing the fire chief or the policy or the department - I am simply providing commentary. This issue boils down to a conflict between competing public goods. Obviously the goal of the policy is to increase firefighter and public safety - an admirable goal. However, many incidents are time critical in the fire service and therefore policies that have an affect on response times need to be carefully analyzed. There are studies and modeling tools available that are able to predict lives saved and lost based on increases and decreases in response times. Based on a 2000 study that included data for our jurisdiction an increase in average response times of 15 to 30 seconds respectively correlates to 19 and 37 additional lives lost to sudden cardiac arrest. If response times are indeed impacted, can we conclude that the lives saved as a direct result of the new driving policy compensate for the potential loss of life for SCA events? What about other time critical events?
For those of you that claim that response times will not be affected - I disagree. I will provide several examples of how response times are affected. First, the new policy requires that apparatus shut down lights and sirens at red light intersections if cars could potentially be pushed through that intersection. This reduction to Code 1 response sends a message to drivers that the emergency no longer exists and that they no longer have a responsibility to move to the right and clear a path for the responding unit. This is not theory - it is fact and I have personally witnessed this. Seconds tick by until the light turns green and the unit is then able to resume code 3 response. In rush hour traffic this frustrating process can happen multiple times at a single intersection. Second, coming to a complete stop at all red lights and all stop signs has an impact on response times. We have several two and three way stop signs in our response area whereby we must come to a complete stop despite the fact that there is no cross traffic. Additionally, depending on time of day there are times when we can clearly visualize the intersection is clear and yet we must come to a complete stop. I prefer a slow and controlled roll through completely clear red light and stop sign intersections with a foot covering the brake. This ensures that we have the ability to stop if necessary and at the same time allowing for our heavy aerial apparatus to maintain a little momentum. For busy intersections with traffic I have no problem with the complete stop. However, it should be noted that apparatus that come to a complete stop often invite motorists to enter the intersection because some motorists become confused about the intent of the responding apparatus. Again, I prefer a very slow and controlled roll through with both officer and driver audibly clearing lanes and "clearly showing apparatus intent" to proceed through said intersection. The point of this section is that loss of momentum and completely stopping at red lights and stop signs that are visually clear of traffic clearly impact response time. Lastly, the inability to exceed the speed limit by 10mph as afforded under Texas State Law also impacts response times on some calls. Obviously, time of day and length of run are factors in whether or not 10mph makes a difference. But aggregated over all responses it clearly does impact average response times.
In conclusion, I think this policy was well intentioned. However, I think I have illustrated that response times will be impacted and that because of this impact there is indeed a conflict between competing public goods. Apparatus collisions are high profile incidents and administrators feel compelled to address this issue. Conversely, loss of life in time sensitve incidents (sudden cardiac arrests, trapped fire victims,etc.) due to response delays are rarely reported in the press and for the most part are statistically unavailable without comprehensive analysis and modeling. I encourage any jurisdiction that is contemplating implementing driving policies that have impacts on response times and that eliminate officer discretion conduct a thorough risk/benefit analysis. Perform some modeling of time critical incidents for their respective jurisdiction and weigh the results against an analysis of potential benefits afforded by the policy change. Additionally, provide training (if necessary) on these policy changes. Finally, strive to get buy in from firefighters and your local (if applicable). Everyone’s goal is safety and reduction of loss of life and property. Work to ensure that your policy change indeed meets these ends and is not simply a response to a headline. I encourage thoughtful debate and dissenting opinions.
-
-
An oldie but goodie.
Read about the "wake effect".
Notice that the date of the article is 1997.
And some of you thought EV crashes were not a big deal?
Please read: http://www.emergencydispatch.org/articles/wakeeffect1.htm
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
