FF charged with negligent homicide in accident. [Archive] - Firehouse Forums

LaFireEducator

08-21-2005, 03:59 PM

343 ..

It happened in Bennington, and I want to say in like 1997 or 1998. Involved an engine that went through a red light and hit a van. I don't have a lot of other details. I also know of an event in Rutland (Town, I beleive) where another firefighter was almost charged but the State's Attorney backed off, however he was sued in civil court and settled out of court.

ChicagoFF...

I sure as hell hope that you are coming very close to a full stop EVERY RED LIGHT until your driver is 100% sure that all traffic has stopped and he has complete control of the intersection. It is the apparatus driver's responsibility to make sure that he has control before he procedes ... if he is rolling through assuming that it's a civilian's responsibility to stop and proceeding through before he is given control of that intersection, he is an accident waiting to happen. Nothing, including civilian lives that may be put at risk by the increased response times that prudent and responsible intersection management may cause, is more important than firefighter lives. Period.
He also may be volating state law as in most states, "due care" means that you stop at the red signal before proceeding through.

SSTONER

08-21-2005, 04:14 PM

And how would the public feel if you stopped at every red light and response times doubled? Gimme a break.

I am hoping that is sarcasm?? :confused: We are not exactly waiting for the light to turn green again. :rolleyes: :)

NJFFSA16

08-22-2005, 01:20 AM

TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (AP) - A Grand Traverse Metro Fire
Department firefighter has been charged with negligent homicide,
more than five months after the fire truck he was driving was
involved in a fatal crash.
Firefighter Cory Carlton, 26, was arraigned and released on a
$1,000 personal-recognizance bond after surrendering Thursday. He
could face up to two years in prison if convicted of the
misdemeanors, the Traverse City Record-Eagle reported.
Prosecutors allege Carlton was on the way to an emergency call
when he sped through a stoplight March 8 and struck a sports
utility vehicle driven by Matthew Garrisi, 28. The collision in
Grand Traverse County's Garfield Township killed Garrisi's wife,
Rebecca Garrisi, 28, and the couple's 11-month-old son Jesse.
Antrim County Prosecutor Charles Koop authorized the charges.
The state attorney general's office appointed Koop special
prosecutor after Grand Traverse County Prosecutor Alan Schneider
asked for a conflict-of-interest review.
Sheriff's investigators said it appeared Carlton went through a
red light without slowing to check for oncoming traffic. Michigan
law says emergency vehicles may proceed past a red light "only
after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation."
Carlton's attorney, Roger Wotila, of Cadillac, said criminal
charges aren't warranted.
"It was an accident, and every accident is not a crime,"
Wotila said. "It was a tragedy, but not a criminal action."
Carlton returned to work shortly after the crash but was banned
from driving emergency equipment, Fire Chief Wayne Hanna said.
Carlton will be suspended while until the charges against him are
resolved, Hanna said.
Matthew Garrisi filed a civil suit against the fire department
in June on behalf of his wife and son.
---
Information from: Traverse City Record-Eagle,
http://www.record-eagle.com

(Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

DrParasite

08-22-2005, 03:04 AM

And how would the public feel if you stopped at every red light and response times doubled? Gimme a break.
I don't know, ask FDNY how the public is recieving it.

also, the law say you need to stop at every red light, and you can only procede through it while using due regard. yes, many FD departments tend to blow through red lights, but they are supposed to be utilizing due regard.

mcaldwell

08-22-2005, 03:31 AM

I received this today from Billy G's newsletter (visit "firefighterclosecalls.com" to subscribe).

Hey....
A Michigan firefighter has been charged in the traffic deaths of a Traverse City-area woman and her eleven-month-old son. Firefighter Cory Carlton of the Grand Traverse Metro Fire Department was arraigned Thursday on two counts of negligent homicide. Firefighter Carlton was responding to a chimney fire back in March when the fire apparatus he was driving collided with a sport utility vehicle. Rebecca Garrisi and her son Jesse were killed in the accident. Rebecca Garrisi's husband Matthew, who was driving the S-U-V, was seriously injured. The 26-year-old Carlton is free on bond. He faces up to two years in jail. Firefighter Carlton was his battalion's safety officer when the crash occurred, according to court files.

Antrim County Prosecutor Charles Koop authorized the charges. Sheriff's investigators said it appeared Carlton went through a red light without slowing to check for oncoming traffic. Michigan law says emergency vehicles may proceed past a red light "only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation." A statement of probable cause against Carlton alleges he drove "without due regard" for the safety of others and operated the fire engine at an "immoderate" rate of speed in a "reckless manner."

Carlton's attorney, Roger Wotila, of Cadillac, said criminal charges aren't warranted. "It was an accident, and every accident is not a crime," Wotila said. "It was a tragedy, but not a criminal action." Carlton returned to work shortly after the crash but was banned from driving emergency equipment, Fire Chief Wayne Hanna said. Carlton will be suspended until the charges against him are resolved, Hanna said. Matthew Garrisi filed a civil suit against the fire department in June on behalf of his wife and son.

"We feel the proper forum is the civil lawsuit and do not believe a criminal charge is in any way warranted," said Wotila. But Traverse City attorney George Thompson, who represents Garrisi in the civil suit, said Carlton should have known that sirens alone would not adequately warn motorists. "It is clear that the risks associated with the way he was driving were unreasonable," said Thompson. "We admire these people for their service, but if they are not going to follow the rules and use reasonable judgment, something has to be done."

Thompson filed interrogatories that asked the county whether Carlton had been informed that his engine was not needed at the fire call before he reached South Airport Road, a contention the county denied as "not true," according to court records. Martin thinks the case could be a lesson for drivers of emergency services vehicles. "I really want it to be brought to the public's and lawmakers' attention that more schooling should be done for firemen," said Martin. "Getting to a fire a minute sooner and risking the possibility of killing someone isn't worth it."

This kind of case knocks the wind out of all of us for a variety of reasons...after all, the firefighter's intentions were good-he was responding with his crew to "help" someone....we have all been there, but then, a horribly tragic outcome.

There are numerous discussion points on this issue that we can all use at our firehouses. Here are some important links to help your FD minimize the potential:

www.drivetosurvive.org
http://wsfd.us/Higway%20Safety.htm
www.ResponderSafety.com
www.EmergencyVehicleResponse.c om
www.emergencydispatch.org/articles/useoflights1.htm
www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/cvvfa.pdf
www.usfa.fema.gov/research/safety/vehicle.shtm
www.caryems.com/training/driversInformation.html
www.VFIS.com
www.ESIP.com

Please take a few minutes to review this incident, do some research to follow up, and use all of the above links to minimize the potential for the above tragedies to occur again.

*****ALSO-PLEASE NOTE: If you tried to order the free "10 Cones For Highway Safety" video program from: www.ResponderSafety.com, and it didn't work, try it again-please go to: http://www.respondersafety.com/downloads/videoform.html .

Take Care-BE CAREFUL,
BillyG
The Secret List 8-21-05
www.FirefighterCloseCalls.com

Regardless of how we feel about the charges and accusations, the fact is these types of legal scenarios are going to keep on increasing unless we do something.

I was watching a response video posted here a couple of weeks ago, and was somewhat surprised to see the first due apparatus stop at EVERY streetlight in their downtown area. Obviously some dept's out there can see what is coming down the pipe.

How it affects response times and suppression/rescue activities, I am not sure yet, but I don't think we can argue that it doesn't improve safety for the rest of the drivers on the road.

FireAndy

08-22-2005, 09:52 AM

Glad you guys found some more on it, that was all I could find at the time of posting. And I just want to point out that their Garfield Twp, is not my Garfield Twp., they are about 1 hour north of us.

This is extremely scary for all of those who drive apparatus. Being new on the department still, it makes me a little hesitant to drive.

EDIT: I have to say that our SOG's state that we must slow and clear each intersection, and it even states that we are liable for any accidents while driving the apparatus under Michigan law. I don't remember the speed requirements off hand, but this has been in our SOG's for quite some time already.

DrParasite

08-22-2005, 03:20 PM

if I remember correctly, the only vehicles that could legally run a red light was a postal vehicle during a period of declared war. or something like that.

In other words, you can speed, you don't have to come to complete stop at a stop sign, you can pass through a red light. However, when passing through a red light you must slow down to assure there is no oncoming traffic. You can't just blow through intersections at 60 MPH. Trojan, your right and your wrong. you are right in the way you can do those things legally, provided you are driving with due regard to the safety of others. but your wrong, because while you may be permitted to do that, the instant you get into an accident (it doesn't always have to be your fault), you are thought to be driving with out due regard.

so while you can do whatever you want while responding to emergency, the moment you get into an accident, your ass will be handed to you by any lawyer.

JackTee09

08-22-2005, 03:43 PM

NJFFSA16

Thanks for posting the updated story.

It doesn't really matter how your department perceives the law with respect to running red lights - if you do it and end up in the type of situation that happened here you will find yourself involved in a lawsuit.

Lawyers salivate over the prospects of these types of suits. When I was a driver I would routinely bust lights and stop signs - now if I were a driver again I would excercise restraint.

FFFRED

08-22-2005, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by ChicagoFF
And how would the public feel if you stopped at every red light and response times doubled? Gimme a break.

I don't know, ask FDNY how the public is recieving it.

also, the law say you need to stop at every red light, and you can only procede through it while using due regard. yes, many FD departments tend to blow through red lights, but they are supposed to be utilizing due regard.

I'll tell you the taxpayers aren't happy...but this mayor has done everything from ignore it, try to hide it, make excuses for it, blame everyone but him and his administration, have the media write editoritals blasting the firemen for not blowing through red lights (figure that one out), Blame us for slowing down...etc.

The fact is in the past 10 months since the Fire Commish leveled charges against a ECC and the officer (Unheard of prior to that) that response times have increased 15-30 seconds. The cities lawyers offered a half-azz promise of a legal defense (had more holes than a block of swiss cheese) and the Commish tried unsuccessfully to pass the blame on to us!

After this accident where the ECC was accused of running the stop light they changed our Dept regulations that orginally stated we must come to a "full and complete stop" to "we may proceed past...when we have ensured all other traffic has stopped...etc."

Now I would love to see any other FD that would actually relax the regualtions in light of an accident that involved more or less what they want us to do right now.

Why did they change that and since then also change the rules to state that we can now drive against traffic?

Because we started following the rules to the letter because everyone realized these clowns would hook up their own mother and weren't smart enough to look at the larger picture.

They wanted us to drive safely...so guess what we did and response times have gone up....BIG TIME and they don't like that.

Allthough accidents are down near 50% they don't care as the response times they use to close companies are now fouled up and it will difficult for them to close companies after the election. Whereas in past years times might vary from 1-4 seconds year over year...the times have increased 15-30seconds and maintained this level for 10 months!

The Fire Commish is now reportedly furious and worried about loosing his job after the election. (He and the Mayor could both leave and there will be no tears shed around here.)

I can't comment on the case mentioned above...however I can say it is a fine line that they must tread if they don't want response times to go through the roof.

I can tell you if I were a chauffeur in that town I would be pushing the apparatus to fires.

FTM-PTB

ChiefReason

08-22-2005, 05:03 PM

With regards to volunteer fire departments:
What do we expect when all of these great programs for fire departments on driving apparatus are FREE and few are taking advantage of them?
Insurance companies will fall over themselves to put on a driving program for firefighters.
Many firefighters aren't even properly classified on their drivers' licenses and there isn't a problem until there's a problem.
Our problem extends from not only driving fire apparatus, but the ones who want to drive their POVs like they are department vehicles somehow. Otherwise, why would they spend so much time picking out just the right lights for their POV? It's simple: they believe that marking their personal vehicles like it is a fire department vehicle will "give them the road". With the lights, fire department maltese, wigwags and a gearbag in the back, they are now free to terrorize the highway. But if they have an accident, they won't be charged. THEY WERE RESPONDING TO A CALL! No cop in their right mind will stop them, no prosecutor will charge them and no jury in the world will convict them. Right? Anyone else believe that fairy tale?
What we are seeing in this day and age is called "Accountability". We are being held accountable for our actions, and if they endanger the very public that we are sworn to protect, then expect to pay and pay plenty.
It was an accident, but it wasn't criminal? Are you kidding me? The "accident" happened to the Garrisi family. It was CAUSED by Carlton. Whether it gives rise to a criminal act remains to be seen.
Though I have a tough time understanding how the motoring public can NOT see the flashing lights and NOT hear the blaring sirens, it is that same mindset that should cause us to be even MORE cautious.
But out here in our parts, once the lights, department markings and the gearbag is in the car, ordinary sedans become invincible!
There's a storm coming.
CR

bobsnyder

08-22-2005, 05:53 PM

...the instant you get into an accident (it doesn't always have to be your fault), you are thought to be driving with out due regard.

so while you can do whatever you want while responding to emergency, the moment you get into an accident, your ass will be handed to you by any lawyer.

Not necessarily true. A friend of mine landed in court a few years back when a driver ended up underneath his fire truck. He was never charged criminally because the DA determined there was nothing criminal about the incident. He was eventually cleared in civil court because of a combination of the precautionary actions he had taken (and others had witnessed) before the crash, the conditions at the intersection itself, and the actions the other driver had taken (and others had witnessed) before crashing into the fire truck.

I really can't get into any specifics of this case, but suffice it to say you will almost certainly be dragged into court for almost any crash you're involved in while responding, but you still at least have a chance of defending yourself and prevailing in court if you take your responsibilities behind the wheel seriously and truly operate with due regard for others. No guarantees, of course.

Firedan38

08-22-2005, 07:07 PM

Well said CR

ChicagoFF

08-23-2005, 10:02 PM

No cop in their right mind will stop them, no prosecutor will charge them and no jury in the world will convict them. Right? Anyone else believe that fairy tale?
CR
It would be a cold day in hell before a Chicago cop gave a ticket to a responding fire rig or ambo. The civilian always goes away with a pile of tickets he can't see over if they are involved in an accident with a rig. If we are responding, the public and the city expect us to be there fast - we deliver.

GeorgeWendtCFI

08-24-2005, 06:48 AM

CaptainGonzo

08-24-2005, 08:06 AM

And how would the public feel if you stopped at every red light and response times doubled? Gimme a break.

How would you feel if the rig slamed into a car driven one of your family members?

The rig gets into an accident and goes out of service until the accident scene can be cleared... how's that for "adding to your response time?"

It would be a cold day in hell before a Chicago cop gave a ticket to a responding fire rig or ambo. The civilian always goes away with a pile of tickets he can't see over if they are involved in an accident with a rig. If we are responding, the public and the city expect us to be there fast - we deliver.

Yes, the public expects us to deliver...but not at the expense of killing them or one of our own!

Someone driving to endanger with the lights and sirens on deserves to be cited and driving priveledges suspended.

Just my 3 cents worth... Captains have to pay a little more!

firepimp

08-24-2005, 11:40 AM

It would be a cold day in hell before a Chicago cop gave a ticket to a responding fire rig or ambo. The civilian always goes away with a pile of tickets he can't see over if they are involved in an accident with a rig. If we are responding, the public and the city expect us to be there fast - we deliver.

Wow the last 2 posts done by yourself are sad . If you are driving the truck and you are involved in an accident whether its your fault or not being the driver opp. IT'S STILL YOUR FAULT NO MATTER WHAT . It's just a determination of how much of it is your fault .

To think you can just blow every light and get away with everything while driving a apparatus is ludacris . You must remember incidents that are happening aren't your emergency , you want to get there as fast as possible yes but in due regard safety for all others en route.

Say you blow a redlight liek you say you have the right to do , a vehicle strikes your QRV and your brothers are seriously injured or dead ( god forbid ) and all it would have taken was for you to stop or slow . Learn soem defensive tatics . If you had this attitude arund my county or my department you would not be driving let alone fighting anything.

I'm actually seriously irritated by your lack of intelligence on this matter , and it's sad to say that a young guy such as myself only 1 year out of school , can see and read the pro's and con's of a matter such as this and your whacker attitude towards it is sad. But whatever.

Dave1983

08-24-2005, 11:47 AM

JackTee09

08-24-2005, 11:47 AM

Dave1983

08-24-2005, 12:04 PM

That is pure drivel. I waited a day to post on this because two guys I know are with the Windy City's bravest - I spoke with one by phone and the other by email about this and they both confirmed that what was said is not true. If they pop a light, hit and hurt someone they are as likely to get a ticket as anyone. Both guys are company officers with over 10 years each and frankly they seem embarassed that this would even be put out.

One thing I admire about the brothers I know in Chicago is their dedication to the job and their abilities. Without fail they always appear to be upfront as well. This is different.

Oh my. :confused: :confused: :confused:

Makes you wonder if this guys even with CFD. Maybe he's just a FF wannabe how lives in Chicagoland?

firepimp

08-24-2005, 12:05 PM

I do belive this chicagoff guy , is either a probi or has soem serious issues , or just has had some horrible schooling or never paid attention at all in school . This is just freaking sad someon eliek this cannot belive in anythign defensive . But this is what we face on a day to day scale , that no matter how much trainign we provide and safety concerns and mor and more and more safety concerns we have people liek this which safety concerns were developed for.

firepimp

08-24-2005, 12:09 PM

Whatever dude , your just on a role with your B.S.

JackTee09

08-24-2005, 12:59 PM

Whoa!

No one said he isn't a firefighter in Chicago. What I pointed out was that the claim he made about no cop in the windy city giving a rig a ticket is nonsense.

I don't see any reason why he would lie about being a firefighter in Chicago. He writes some very interesting stuff that I enjoy reading but his comments on the aforementioned topic were just ludicrous. However I don't think it is fair to question whether he is a firefighter.

GeorgeWendtCFI

08-24-2005, 02:40 PM

Isn't this the same guy who said the fire fighters in Chicago were too good and too busy to wear turnout pants?

Zero credibility.

snowball

08-24-2005, 03:46 PM

The very same

sjbutton

08-24-2005, 04:04 PM

And how would the public feel if you stopped at every red light and response times doubled? Gimme a break.

I just want to say that "as a member of the public" I cannot believe a FF is being charged with murder (negligent or otherwise) for doing his job. I could see if he was just "cruising around" and blew a light, but on a call??? Come on now... In Washington State, it is the obligation of motorists to pull to the right and STOP as soon as they see or hear an emergency vehicle.

I cannot tell you how many times I am forced to go with the flow of traffic that just seems to be minding their own business continuing at 30, 35, 40 mph and not even making an effort to slow down. Are they hoping the EV turns off somewhere?? Eventually I have to put my foot down and just stop, only to be bewildered to watch a suburban passing into the left lane right as an EV approaches, forcing the EV to drive down the center line. WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE??? They can't slow down and then they can't even stay out of the left lane!!!

I understand that this may not be the same as blowing a light, but "due care" seems to be a very vague term and could only be compared to what a "reasonable person" would determine is "due care." As a civilian I expect my FFs to get to every call as fast as possible. I don't think I've ever seen a truck come to a full stop at a light and I don't believe one should have to unless the intersection is very obstructed. Going the speed limit?? You're on a call! Hurry up already.

My personal interpretation would be that every one of your red lights is basically flashing yellow and you just need to slow down enough to ensure it's clear. As a member of the public, I want you to be able to do your job to the best of your ability and get to calls as fast as possible.

In the City of Yakima, FF are required to make it in 5 minutes to every call. (ok, so it only takes 15 minutes to get anywhere in Yakima, but that's why we pay to have fire stations dispursed throughout the city.) I don't pay taxes to support a fire department that has to live in fear of the citizens it serves. Wondering when they get in the truck today if some idiot has his stereo on too loud (which is also illegal in Washington state) and won't hear my sirens. There is NO acceptable excuse why a civilian should not be able to hear a truck from a block away and be anywhere NEAR the intersection. In my opinion, civilian vehicles that hit a truck should be the only ones at fault. This is not public transportation. This is emergency services.

The only comparison I can make is: would a police officer be charged with murder if an innocent victim standing by was somehow shot in the line of fire and died? Maybe I just watch too much TV, but I've never heard of a police officer being charged with "negligent murder" and I can't imagine that innocents are not somehow killed from time to time.

In the same respect, I know civilian drivers who are negligent can be charged with vehicular homicide if those in their vehicle die because they put them at risk. Driving through a light when a truck is at code 2 (lights and sirens) is just not acceptable. How can anyone else be responsible besides the civilian that did not heed the sound of the sirens. Blowing through or not. (and aren't the trucks able to make the lights change as they're coming through or is Michigan just not that advanced?)

Well, those are my humble opinions as a civilian and member of the general public. I may not be as knowledgable as even a probie in the codes of fire or police, but this case just doesn't sit well with me. I stand behind America's Bravest. All the best, Sarah

JackTee09

08-24-2005, 04:54 PM

Unreal.........

ChicagoFF

08-24-2005, 05:47 PM

Isn't this the same guy who said the fire fighters in Chicago were too good and too busy to wear turnout pants?

Zero credibility.

I fail to see how our uniforms reflect on our credibility. Too good or busy, no. We just don't wear them and I don't see that the positives outweigh the negatives. We used to wear bunkers - now we don't.

I never advocated blowing lights without any consideration for traffic - but to come to a complete - however brief stop at every light and stop sign is unrealistic unless your community has only one or two. 15 - 20 complete stops on a run will MORE than double your response. No one iv'e asked can remember a truck driver or an engineer getting a ticket for an accident while responding to a call. Possible? I suppose, but not likely.

P.S. Firepimp - If you need help with typing I'd be happy to help. One or two typo's maybe, but that - wow

Dave1983

08-24-2005, 06:46 PM

However I don't think it is fair to question whether he is a firefighter.

Sorry Jack, but when he posts comments like that, its the only thing that comes to mind. I would expect comments like that from a whacker, scanner jockey or maybe even an Explorer, not a paid FF.

With all the stories in recent years involving this very subject, along with thoese about police agencies nationwide changing their policies on who to chase and who not to due to the liability, I find it very hard to belive that there are FF's in this country that still have that attitude. Just as surprising is the idea that a major city in this country would allow this attitude to exist with its employees.

However, if that is the case, and he is a firefighter, I apologize. I also wish him, his brother & sister firefighters and the fine city they work for the best of luck, cause with an attitude like that, their going to get nailed, hard. Its only a matter of time.

GeorgeWendtCFI

08-24-2005, 06:52 PM

I fail to see how our uniforms reflect on our credibility. Too good or busy, no. We just don't wear them and I don't see that the positives outweigh the negatives. We used to wear bunkers - now we don't.

I never advocated blowing lights without any consideration for traffic - but to come to a complete - however brief stop at every light and stop sign is unrealistic unless your community has only one or two. 15 - 20 complete stops on a run will MORE than double your response. No one iv'e asked can remember a truck driver or an engineer getting a ticket for an accident while responding to a call. Possible? I suppose, but not likely.

P.S. Firepimp - If you need help with typing I'd be happy to help. One or two typo's maybe, but that - wow

OK folks. Compare the above post with this gem:
It would be a cold day in hell before a Chicago cop gave a ticket to a responding fire rig or ambo. The civilian always goes away with a pile of tickets he can't see over if they are involved in an accident with a rig. If we are responding, the public and the city expect us to be there fast - we deliver.

You are a joke.

FFFRED

08-24-2005, 09:01 PM

Yes, the public expects us to deliver...but not at the expense of killing them or one of our own!

Someone driving to endanger with the lights and sirens on deserves to be cited and driving priveledges suspended.

Just my 3 cents worth... Captains have to pay a little more!

Wanna bet...

I'll ask you to recall the editiorails written about in the NY DailyNews and NYPOST after months of the city ignoring raising response times they finnaly were forced to address the issue and blamed the firemen for slowing down...never did they address the fact that we were following procedures and never did they address the 50% reduction in accidents.

The people and the papers were blaming us for taking too much time and that we shouldn't have to stop at red lights!

The Dept has since changed policy twice(they've rarely if ever do this due to pressure from the membership and it usually isn't to benefit the men)...because the increased response times are threatening their efforts to close companies after the election.

So don't think for a second that the citizens who are usually unsympathetic to our problems...won't care when it becomes a tangible problem for all of them!

FTM-PTB

PS- As I said earlier if I was a chauffuer in that town..I would either step down or drive at 5 mph because my families and brothers personal and finiancal well being comes first and it just isn't worth it. And before anyone claims it wouldn't happen to them because they are a safe drive...is naive and doesn't realize this brother certainly didn't think we was driving recklessly either!

CaptainGonzo

08-24-2005, 10:43 PM

Well, FFFred.. I take into consideration that the NY Post and the Daily News are just a daily version of the National Enquierer. They sensationalize to sell papers and really don't give a fat rats rump about us and "da job". The public that reads those rags wouldn't hesitate to sue the FDNY if they were in an accident.

As I stated in my answer to ChicagoFF, when your engine, rescue or truck company is involved in an accident, you're out of service for God knows how long.. and if there is a 10-45 Code 1, 2 or or 3, the crap is really going to hit the fan.

I would be willing to bet my bugles what the tabloid rags would print then....

Dave1983

08-24-2005, 11:04 PM

PS- As I said earlier if I was a chauffuer in that town..I would either step down or drive at 5 mph because my families and brothers personal and finiancal well being comes first and it just isn't worth it.

That will only create more problems, although I do agree with you that the Brothers or Sisters on that rig are your #1 priority.

My regular assignment is as an engineer and I take that assignment very seriously. I come to a COMPLETE stop at ALL red traffic lights, then proceed slowly, clearing each lane as I cross the intersection (department policy). I come to a complete stop at ALL stop signs, then proceed slowly, clearing each lane as I cross the intersection (department policy). I do not exceed the posted speed limit by more then 10 MPH, depending on weather/road conditions (department policy).

And you know what? I still have a 4-6 minute response to all of my first due area.

Why do I do this? Simple, Im not going to loss everything I have and/or do jail time by driving at top speed and blowing red lights, or getting a Brother/Sister hurt or killed.

Im going to respond in a timely, safe, controlled manner which gets my crew to the scene in one piece. Too me, that is the most important part of an engineers job. :cool:

SSTONER

08-24-2005, 11:44 PM

(SNIP)

I never advocated blowing lights without any consideration for traffic - but to come to a complete - however brief stop at every light and stop sign is unrealistic unless your community has only one or two. 15 - 20 complete stops on a run will MORE than double your response. No one iv'e asked can remember a truck driver or an engineer getting a ticket for an accident while responding to a call. Possible? I suppose, but not likely.

(SNIP)

Ohhh I donT know about doubling response times - Phoenix Fire and Tucson Fire Departments have no issues. I would be courious to know your first due area -

JackTee09

08-25-2005, 09:35 AM

Phoenix Fire and Tucson Fire Departments have no issues.

Shawn:

There is a big difference in the layouts of Phoenix and Chicago. In fact comparing the two is like comparing a suburb to a major city. I have been to both and they are nothing alike.

FFFRED

08-25-2005, 09:50 AM

Shawn:

There is a big difference in the layouts of Phoenix and Chicago. In fact comparing the two is like comparing a suburb to a major city. I have been to both and they are nothing alike.

Jack you are exactly right. There is no comparision in the amount of intersections, buildings that sit mere feet from the corner, effectively obscuring cross traffic, modern wide throughfares, pre-emption systems...etc.

Comparing "new" cities like Phoneix, Much of Southern California, Arizona, Texas, and Florida to those "old" cities like Chicago, New York, Boston, Philly is a spurious argument.

FTM-PTB

PS- Once times increase in that town...we'll see what is more important to the city and the taxpayers...personally if I have to worry about going to prison...that rig might as well be pulled to the fire as if it were the 1800s! Sorry if that sounds callous but we are already under paid and under appricated...I didn't start the fire and if they want faster response times they'll know what to do. Don't expect me to do my best to get there when my best might be twisted by some lawyer into making me look like a reckless executioner of civilians.

Station2Capt

08-25-2005, 12:45 PM

I discussed this very story with my guys at work yesterday. I hope that everyone here gets the lesson I tried to get across to the guys. Lets be careful out there. We have to drive responsibly, We have to arrive at the dispatched location. In the world we live in today we can and should be held responsible if we are negligent in our actions.

ChiefReason

08-25-2005, 02:05 PM

If I were king of the forrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeesssst!
It would be the law that any municipality with traffic signals would require all emergency vehicles to be equipped with pre-emptive traffic control devices.
That way, YOU have the green light. You are not running red lights. If there is an accident, it is the other guy's fault.
You would still have to drive sensibly, but let's face it; it will improve the chances that you will get there safely and the public will be safer as well.
Oh and for those of you not familiar with these devices, there is a delay before the light changes, so the driver will be slowing down just in case.
Cost for this option should not be questioned.
Now; what about stop SIGNS?
CR

ChicagoFF

08-25-2005, 08:29 PM

Ohhh I donT know about doubling response times - Phoenix Fire and Tucson Fire Departments have no issues. I would be courious to know your first due area -

Just under 2 sq miles

ChicagoFF

08-25-2005, 08:40 PM

You are a joke.

Made many inquiries and still no one can recall a CFD rig getting a ticket while responding in the last 30 years. Did I over state the case with never? Maybe, but none in thirty years seems to me to make it a pretty rare occasion. Again, I never said blow through at 60 mph, simply that a complete stop at every light and sign is unrealistic.

Also George, you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with our guys not wearing pants (hmmm....) - I'd have a professional look into that if I were you.

P.S. What does your dept issue you and how does that effect your credibility?

GeorgeWendtCFI

08-26-2005, 06:56 AM

Made many inquiries and still no one can recall a CFD rig getting a ticket while responding in the last 30 years. Did I over state the case with never? Maybe, but none in thirty years seems to me to make it a pretty rare occasion. Again, I never said blow through at 60 mph, simply that a complete stop at every light and sign is unrealistic.

Also George, you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with our guys not wearing pants (hmmm....) - I'd have a professional look into that if I were you.

P.S. What does your dept issue you and how does that effect your credibility?

Keep talking. You are proving my point with every post.

I have no obsessions. But what I have is disdain for arrogant, ignorant blowhard tough guy-acting jerks.

Your post did not say "In 30 years, no CFD has received a summons..." Your post said:
It would be a cold day in hell before a Chicago cop gave a ticket to a responding fire rig or ambo. The civilian always goes away with a pile of tickets he can't see over if they are involved in an accident with a rig.
And that is a stupid arrogant thing to say. As stupid and arrogant as your posts in the turnout pants thread.

Your other comments are juvenile and idiotic.

SSTONER

08-26-2005, 07:12 AM

Shawn:

There is a big difference in the layouts of Phoenix and Chicago. In fact comparing the two is like comparing a suburb to a major city. I have been to both and they are nothing alike.

I agree they are different - I was only commenting on cities I am familier with. I never said if its possible in Phoenix it's possible in Chicago - I just said Phoenix clears each lane etc and they seem to get every where in an acceptable amount of time under thier SOP/SOG's. Just because you have ten lights between you and your call doesnt mean they will all be red when you get there ( well then again there is murphy :) ).

Regardless...many large older and newer cities follow a guideline of clearing intersections and nobody has complained about it doubling response times that I know of.

For me the arguement of not slowing (stopping) and clearing each lane beacuse it will double response times is mute.

SSTONER

08-26-2005, 07:35 AM

Just under 2 sq miles

What are your response times for that first due? Here the units have 8 minutes or less lights and sirens. The first dues are 5-6 sq miles per station.

In that 8 min response times you also have your 2 min out of chute time(the time to get your gear etc and go enroute).

ChicagoFF

08-26-2005, 08:51 AM

Keep talking. You are proving my point with every post.

I have no obsessions. But what I have is disdain for arrogant, ignorant blowhard tough guy-acting jerks.

Your post did not say "In 30 years, no CFD has received a summons..." Your post said:

And that is a stupid arrogant thing to say. As stupid and arrogant as your posts in the turnout pants thread.

Your other comments are juvenile and idiotic.

30 years = cold day in hell in my book, maybe it's 60 or 80 in yours. What does your department issue you and how does it effect your credibility? Well?There is more to a gear choice, George, than "nfpa says so". That seems to be the rational for many of your opinions. What facts are you basing these opinions on? How many burn injuries were there in Chicago last year that could have been prevented by bunker pants? The year before how many? Before that? C'mon - get your nfpa and ifsta book out from under your pillow and tell me those numbers. What? You don't know the numbers? O.K, then tell me what the increase in heat related injuries will be once the city spends the millions needed to switch our gear? How much will it cost the city in overtime if lay-ups increase? Will it increase our medical costs? If heat injuries go up, do we have enough manning to cover the spots? What are the the maintainence costs of bunker vs. turnouts. You don't know any of these answers, do you? And I'm stupid and arrogant because I don't want bunker gear or think it is a great leap forward? One of your police or fire manuals must have the answers I'm looking for. No? Then I'm sure you won't have a real strong argument, just more of your typical "the book says so...." Like I said we used to wear them (probably long before your department did) and now we don't. Go back to your FOP lodge and you can tell them all about your nfpa book and ifsta book and how they have all the answers. I'm sure they won't care any more than I do.

P.S. Yes you do have an obsession or you wouldn't have hijacked this thread because you are still upset that there is a department out there (several in fact) that doesn't do what your city does. What city do you work for again?

ChicagoFF

08-26-2005, 08:58 AM

What are your response times for that first due? Here the units have 8 minutes or less lights and sirens. The first dues are 5-6 sq miles per station.

In that 8 min response times you also have your 2 min out of chute time(the time to get your gear etc and go enroute).

On-scene in 2 - 4 minutes barring any complications. 20 or 30 seconds out the door.

FFFRED

08-26-2005, 09:16 AM

Regardless...many large older and newer cities follow a guideline of clearing intersections and nobody has complained about it doubling response times that I know of.

I assume you haven't heard about the nonsense we have been dealing with in NYC.

After the city hooked up some guys for getting into a wreck (something that was never done before) and instiuting a drivers safety class for chauffeurs the times are up and in one Boro...they are over the national average of 5 minutes which was unthinkable before this idiot Mayor and his puppet Commissioner took office. Times are up 15-30 seconds overall and they aren't going down where in the past year over year times would only varry by as much as +/- 4 seconds.

People are furious and these idiot bureaucrats don't know what to do...they never imagined we would actually follow the rules. (Which have been changed twice now because they were rules we started following and they felt were the cause of the times increase...figure that one out) And stopping at lights will increase your response times drasticly and the proof is our times increase.

The Chauffs on my job have lost all confidence in the city and the Commish who doesn't know a nozzle from a hook. He though he could just give charges for however many days he felt was good regardless on how that would affect mens families and their motivation to do anything for the city. Well now their heads are spinning as their phoney baloney jobs are on the line(Thanks Mel Brooks) and they have no idea how to address it other than issuing a "please drive faster" memo that comes a few months after another memo that attempted to blame us for their shortcommings.

For anyone to think that stopping at all lights doesn't increase response times...has never driven an apparatus or has their head in the sand. The proof is in our times.

If your city likes to give charges and hassle the men who are only trying to do the right thing, start driving "safely" and see what the cities response is...like I said it might be callous but the men on the rig and your family come first. If the citizens don't like waiting for a fire Engine they will tell their elected reprsentatives to either lay off the firemen or open more Engines. Don't risk your livelyhood for a bunch of ungrateful humps.

FTM-PTB

FFFRED

08-26-2005, 10:00 AM

Trojan...I forgot to mention that as part of the issue in this post however I have posted that fact a number of other times in other posts. Accidents are down 50% (Most are just scrapes and fender benders) And before and even now we have one of the lowest accident rates in the country.

He stated that he has never heard of it increasing response times and no one complaining about that...I'm showing him and everyone that it does happen and can happen anywhere.

As for a good trade off. You are right...However the citizens, Mayor and Commissioner don't see it that way. Besides a number of Editorials and letters to the editor complaining about the increase in times and blaming us have appeared since then! The commish first issued a memo that blamed us and now since he has begun to realize what a mess he has made for himself has been reduced to begging us in a letter to the members to drive faster. (He leaves out the part about how his boss, the Mayor, wants to close firehouses after the election) and now the times won't support those closures.

Also you didn't notice I mentioned that the department relaxed rules intended for a safer response when those safe response rules were blamed by the Commish as the cause of the increase in times. THEN:We formerly were required to stop at all reds and stop signs...NOW: We are permitted to roll though...THEN: We only went against traffic only when absoulutely necessary...NOW: Regs state we can travel up to one block the wrong way. It is funny how the rules change when it benefits the poltical hacks running this joint.

-Stopping at lights does increase times.
-Citizens and polticans don't like increased response times.
-They want a quick respsonse but if you get in a wreck, you and your family are screwed...I know guys personally who have gone through legal hell after wrecks.
-No one should put their lives or well being on the line for a bunch of political clowns who are building their careers on the backs of the working man.

FTM-PTB

JackTee09

08-26-2005, 12:29 PM

But what I have is disdain for arrogant, ignorant blowhard tough guy-acting jerks.

George:

First this guy is a brother. If you want to call the kid on here, Spectre08 something, that is fine because he has yet to step foot on a fire scene as a firefighter.

However ChicagoFF and everyone else here deserves the measure of respect afforded them by virtue of doing the job. All of us can debate but this is terrible. Like I stated I know some brothers there in Chicago and I asked a couple about this-their respone was in an earlier post.

Responses are dangerous and there in Chicago I am sure we all remember the tragic accident that happened when one of their ladders was struck enroute to a false alarm a few years back.

ChicagoFF comes off a bit strong but then so do I, and frankly, so do you George. Perhaps the way you are viewing him is the same way others view us. Me - I have no problem with being considered a jerk. However to watch a total meltdown occur here is too much for me. Disagree, dispute - whatever - but I don't believe for a second that ChicagoFF is ignorant nor is he a jerk. Over the top-yeah - but a brother.

Okay -back to arguing.

SSTONER

08-26-2005, 06:05 PM

George:

First this guy is a brother. If you want to call the kid on here, Spectre08 something, that is fine because he has yet to step foot on a fire scene as a firefighter.

However ChicagoFF and everyone else here deserves the measure of respect afforded them by virtue of doing the job. All of us can debate but this is terrible. Like I stated I know some brothers there in Chicago and I asked a couple about this-their respone was in an earlier post.

Responses are dangerous and there in Chicago I am sure we all remember the tragic accident that happened when one of their ladders was struck enroute to a false alarm a few years back.

ChicagoFF comes off a bit strong but then so do I, and frankly, so do you George. Perhaps the way you are viewing him is the same way others view us. Me - I have no problem with being considered a jerk. However to watch a total meltdown occur here is too much for me. Disagree, dispute - whatever - but I don't believe for a second that ChicagoFF is ignorant nor is he a jerk. Over the top-yeah - but a brother.

Okay -back to arguing.

Regarding the public perception of response times, we all know they have no idea how long it takes to get to a call - 5 minutes seems like 30 minutes to them.

and off the subject -

Jack, George, Torjan, chicagoFF, and the other "regular" posters - I have learned a lot in the short time I have lurked here.

It takes all types no matter how differently each of you feel on a subject.

So keep it up - heck sparring never hurts! :D

Emberxx

08-26-2005, 06:43 PM

About ten years ago one of our guys was driving a tanker with lights and sirens. When he came to a red light at the interstate, he slowed down, looked both ways and proceeded on his way. Unfortunately, a driver had come up to the intersection from the other direction, noted that there was a green light and the cars in front of him weren't moving, so he went around them onto the shoulder and right out into the intersection.

The tanker went completely over the car, killing the driver and injuring the passenger. The engineer was not charged with anything criminally, however, he was sued in civil court. The judgement took into account the fact that he did slow down and that the traffic had stopped, but because he did not stop completely he was found partially liable for the death.

Because of this accident, tankers now go priority three to all calls until they are stepped up by the officer on scene. The department also requires that department vehicles make a complete stop at each lane of traffic, ensuring that traffic has ceased before moving forward through a red light.

Though we are a densly populated city, we are nowhere near the size of NY or Chicago, but the affect it has had on our response times has been negligable.

JackTee09

08-26-2005, 07:38 PM

You can respond from across the street and the public will say it took you 20 minutes. Shawn is right about perception.

We were usually 2 minutes on any response in the downtown area - but this came because we pushed - as a driver I would make decisions about lights and stop signs based on what I knew about my response area. Very often I would not come to a complete stop. In fact I rarely did unless forced to do so by the presence of another vehicle.

Now I would not drive the same way. Civil lawsuits against departments in addition to the aforementioned problems - and the potential loss of life of one of the brothers-is just too much.

I will say this though - you can be as safe as you want -and some jerk will still hit you. Thats life. We can't squeeze out accidents no matter how hard we try. Reduce the odds - yeah. Stop them-no.

ChicagoFF

08-26-2005, 08:12 PM

Disagree, dispute - whatever - but I don't believe for a second that ChicagoFF is ignorant nor is he a jerk. Over the top-yeah - but a brother.

Okay -back to arguing.

But maybe I'm that brother that you "forget" to tell about family events! hahaha. I'm with jack - I don't mind being considered a jerk. That said, I also don't argue just to stir the pot. Many disagree with many of my opinions but I do (infrequently) get someone on my side too. If I wanted to intentionally start an argument I'd ask - Whats better career or volly? I appreciate the defense Jack but I'm not easily offended. We have worse fights here over southside, northside, westside differences (west is always right!) or even differences in how shifts do things (we add hose every morning for our shift and take it off the next day because other shifts don't like our way) Who knows, maybe I'll win george over to my side - then you're all in trouble! Haha

Okay - back to arguing

Tiocfaidh Ar La

GeorgeWendtCFI

08-27-2005, 09:11 AM

30 years = cold day in hell in my book, maybe it's 60 or 80 in yours. What does your department issue you and how does it effect your credibility? Well?There is more to a gear choice, George, than "nfpa says so". That seems to be the rational for many of your opinions. What facts are you basing these opinions on? How many burn injuries were there in Chicago last year that could have been prevented by bunker pants? The year before how many? Before that? C'mon - get your nfpa and ifsta book out from under your pillow and tell me those numbers. What? You don't know the numbers? O.K, then tell me what the increase in heat related injuries will be once the city spends the millions needed to switch our gear? How much will it cost the city in overtime if lay-ups increase? Will it increase our medical costs? If heat injuries go up, do we have enough manning to cover the spots? What are the the maintainence costs of bunker vs. turnouts. You don't know any of these answers, do you? And I'm stupid and arrogant because I don't want bunker gear or think it is a great leap forward? One of your police or fire manuals must have the answers I'm looking for. No? Then I'm sure you won't have a real strong argument, just more of your typical "the book says so...." Like I said we used to wear them (probably long before your department did) and now we don't. Go back to your FOP lodge and you can tell them all about your nfpa book and ifsta book and how they have all the answers. I'm sure they won't care any more than I do.

P.S. Yes you do have an obsession or you wouldn't have hijacked this thread because you are still upset that there is a department out there (several in fact) that doesn't do what your city does. What city do you work for again?

The last thing I'll say about turnout pants (to you on this thread) is that I don't care how many burn injuries you had last year. My information comes from watching the NIST BFRL conducting tests on turnout pants in their live burn testing facility in MD. These tests are done in conjunction with a fly by night outfit known as FDNY. The data from these tests would make any intelligent fire fighter (which most likely explains your attitude) a believer in these pieces of equipment.

GeorgeWendtCFI

08-27-2005, 09:14 AM

George:

First this guy is a brother. If you want to call the kid on here, Spectre08 something, that is fine because he has yet to step foot on a fire scene as a firefighter.

However ChicagoFF and everyone else here deserves the measure of respect afforded them by virtue of doing the job. All of us can debate but this is terrible. Like I stated I know some brothers there in Chicago and I asked a couple about this-their respone was in an earlier post.

Responses are dangerous and there in Chicago I am sure we all remember the tragic accident that happened when one of their ladders was struck enroute to a false alarm a few years back.

ChicagoFF comes off a bit strong but then so do I, and frankly, so do you George. Perhaps the way you are viewing him is the same way others view us. Me - I have no problem with being considered a jerk. However to watch a total meltdown occur here is too much for me. Disagree, dispute - whatever - but I don't believe for a second that ChicagoFF is ignorant nor is he a jerk. Over the top-yeah - but a brother.

Okay -back to arguing.

I gave up a long time ago caring what people think of me. I do not agree with your assessment of him. He got called on a stupid ignorant post and is now backpedaling instead of just admitting he was wrong.

JackTee09

08-27-2005, 12:11 PM

I do not agree with your assessment of him. He got called on a stupid ignorant post and is now backpedaling instead of just admitting he was wrong.

Okay. You two have fun. :D

cowtown

08-27-2005, 01:03 PM

Emberxx

In our state we are allowed 10 mph over and to proceed through red lights after checking all lanes of traffic - we are not required to come to a complete stop. We have done several response-time checks for speed-hump issues and the result is almost always a delayed response in the neighborhood of 5-10 seconds per speed bump. Our times are tracked through a CAD system and are fairly accurate.

Coming to a complete stop at DOES increase your response times, stopping for each lane is way over the top! (maybe I misunderstood you) If the citizens in your area are willing to pay for enough stations to keep response times down while operating this way then congrats.

If this guy was blowing the intersection at 60, then he probably will get hammered and rightfully so, but don't get carried away calling for more restrictions than we deal with already ;) .

Emberxx

08-27-2005, 03:00 PM

Cowtown,

We are also allowed 10 miles over, again though - if an accident is caused due to your speeding you will be responsible. Part of that whole 'due care' thing.

As far as the response times go, as I stated, we are a more rural department compared to Chicago and NY. That means that we have less lights and intersections to go through. Thus, the response time issue FOR US is negligable. We also use a Cad System. I believe that the result was a 16 second or so increase in the total response time.

And yes, you did not misunderstand me. We have been told to stop at each lane of traffic before proceeding. I did not say that it would not increase response times, nor did I say that I agreed/disagreed with it.

I also never called for anything. I simply, like others on this particular thread, stated how things are done where I work. If you have any further questions, please feel free to reread my original post.

ChicagoFF

08-27-2005, 04:44 PM

The last thing I'll say about turnout pants (to you on this thread) is that I don't care how many burn injuries you had last year. My information comes from watching the NIST BFRL conducting tests on turnout pants in their live burn testing facility in MD. These tests are done in conjunction with a fly by night outfit known as FDNY. The data from these tests would make any intelligent fire fighter (which most likely explains your attitude) a believer in these pieces of equipment.

Golly gee George, you actually got to watch a live burn? Cool! Just as I said, you have no answers to real questions, just more theories based on watching another dept test things. "I don't care how many burn injuries you had last year". Of course not because that would involve more than reading a book or or hanging around a burn tower. Did you get your helmet cooked just right in there? Keep to the training ground - I don't think you would like the real world much. Facts matter out here.

GeorgeWendtCFI

08-27-2005, 06:11 PM

Golly gee George, you actually got to watch a live burn? Cool! Just as I said, you have no answers to real questions, just more theories based on watching another dept test things. "I don't care how many burn injuries you had last year". Of course not because that would involve more than reading a book or or hanging around a burn tower. Did you get your helmet cooked just right in there? Keep to the training ground - I don't think you would like the real world much. Facts matter out here.

Golly gee, I didn't get to watch a live burn. I got to watch the testingh that they do, got to speak with and (here might be anovel approach for you) actutally learn something from the techs doing the testing.

I have far more knowledge of the real world, buddy, than you would ever care to experience.

PS: Dude, Backdraft was just a movie. It wasn't real. Take it down a peg, OK?

cowtown

08-27-2005, 08:00 PM

Emberxx,

I had the impression from your post that you were advocating that level of restriction. We are facing some pressure here to change our driving policies and I get a little "out there" when this subject comes up :D .

ChicagoFF

08-27-2005, 11:39 PM

Golly gee, I didn't get to watch a live burn. I got to watch the testingh that they do, got to speak with and (here might be anovel approach for you) actutally learn something from the techs doing the testing.

I have far more knowledge of the real world, buddy, than you would ever care to experience.

PS: Dude, Backdraft was just a movie. It wasn't real. Take it down a peg, OK?

Come back when you have some answers to the questions and not just some stories about your field trip.

P.S. Did you really get to talk to the techs and some real NYC firemen??? Wow

erics99

08-28-2005, 12:43 AM

ChicagoFF, for your info, this George guy happens to be a cop. I guess he vollies on ths side however. And of course he has the answers to everything.

CaptainGonzo

08-28-2005, 08:30 AM

ChicagoFF..

FYI ... George is a cop, a volunteer FF and certified fire investigator with years of experience in all three fields. Contrary to what Erics99 stated in another one of his :rolleyes: "brilliant" :rolleyes: posts... he doesn't claim to know everything.

Is he opinionated? Yes. As are the majority of the active members of these forums.

Oaky..to bring this thread back on topic..

In todays lawsuit happy world, we have to cover our arses. If that means sounding the warning devices at 0300 on a snowy evening with no traffic, so be it. If it means we have to stop at red lights and proceed with caution, so be it. If we get into an accident with the rig, and injure our own people, what good are we in doing our job?

Don't think for a minute that the Chicago PD wouldn't cite a Chicago FF in a traffic violation while responding to a call. As it is, all it would take is a phone call from the Mayor ( if I am not mistaken, does not like firefighters at all) to the Police Commish to start the ball rolling... and the game of politics begin...

ChicagoFF

08-28-2005, 11:30 AM

ChicagoFF..
Is he opinionated? Yes. As are the majority of the active members of these forums.

Oaky..to bring this thread back on topic..

In todays lawsuit happy world, we have to cover our arses. If that means sounding the warning devices at 0300 on a snowy evening with no traffic, so be it. If it means we have to stop at red lights and proceed with caution, so be it. If we get into an accident with the rig, and injure our own people, what good are we in doing our job?

Don't think for a minute that the Chicago PD wouldn't cite a Chicago FF in a traffic violation while responding to a call. As it is, all it would take is a phone call from the Mayor ( if I am not mistaken, does not like firefighters at all) to the Police Commish to start the ball rolling... and the game of politics begin...

Opinionated - fine. But he is always the one to start with name calling (which I don't mind personally) and his arrogance knows no bounds. You are opinionated, Jacktee is opinionated, I'm opinionated - but I've never seen you guys throwing out the insults like George. When a guy is that arrogant and all knowing, but only cites books or tests and never wants to talk about practical, real world applications, it makes you wonder. I ask a series of relevant, important questions after he brought up the subject of pants and called me stupid and arrogant blah blah blah, and what is his answer? I watched a test being conducted. Like I said, I don't mind being called names, but it would be nice if he had ANYTHING other than that to offer to the discussion.

Back on topic.....

I don't believe you will ever see a cop issue a ticket to a department rig responding to a call. I base this on no one being able to recall even one incident in the last thirty years and I asked several cops in the last few days as well. You are absolutely right about the mayor and his feelings for us but that would be a radical shift in policy and I don't think even he would try it. Try to change our shifts perhaps, but never hinder our operations. As I have stated from the beginning, I don't think it is practical to come to a complete stop at every light and stop sign - thats all. If everyone will read back, I never said you should blow through with no consideration for traffic. As others have stated, a two minute response usually gets twisted into a 20 minute response by the public if there is a problem. On the side of town I work there would be trouble (and has been in a run or two) if the people thought that our responses were being delayed so I don't see that political pot being stirred any time soon regardless of the mayors feeling for us.

BD6413

08-28-2005, 11:49 AM

I've had the chance to read what little bit of information was in the article......I'll agree not alot of info but enough to open everyones eyes....I hope.

It can't be stressed enough that even though we operate emergency vehicles we are not imune to traffic laws. In order for this apparatus operator to have hit an opposing vehicle and killing the occupants I'm sure he was moving at a decent clip. That's un-called for. I don't care what type of incident was being responded to it wasn't the operators emergency and he should've been using due regard for traffic safety.

Now on the other hand I'm sure the lights and siren were activated and we all know people are oblivious to us in response to emergencies and perhaps the oposing driver never herd the siren {...we'll never know will we ?} - There are of course two sides to this issue and we know what we know so far {Keep in mind I've only read the orginal article and not all of these posts}

I feel charges against the apparatus operator are in order if he's found guilty of this. We'd all expect charges filed against another driver if they hit one of our apparatus and killed fellow brothers or sisters wouldn't we ?

We're not all perfect out there including me.....I've blown lights and stop signs in the past and thank-god nothing was coming through. But this makes me think and hopefully this is something all Firefighters / EMS / Police Personnel can learn from.

GeorgeWendtCFI

08-29-2005, 01:00 AM

Opinionated - fine. But he is always the one to start with name calling (which I don't mind personally) and his arrogance knows no bounds. You are opinionated, Jacktee is opinionated, I'm opinionated - but I've never seen you guys throwing out the insults like George. When a guy is that arrogant and all knowing, but only cites books or tests and never wants to talk about practical, real world applications, it makes you wonder. I ask a series of relevant, important questions after he brought up the subject of pants and called me stupid and arrogant blah blah blah, and what is his answer? I watched a test being conducted. Like I said, I don't mind being called names, but it would be nice if he had ANYTHING other than that to offer to the discussion.

Back on topic.....

I don't believe you will ever see a cop issue a ticket to a department rig responding to a call. I base this on no one being able to recall even one incident in the last thirty years and I asked several cops in the last few days as well. You are absolutely right about the mayor and his feelings for us but that would be a radical shift in policy and I don't think even he would try it. Try to change our shifts perhaps, but never hinder our operations. As I have stated from the beginning, I don't think it is practical to come to a complete stop at every light and stop sign - thats all. If everyone will read back, I never said you should blow through with no consideration for traffic. As others have stated, a two minute response usually gets twisted into a 20 minute response by the public if there is a problem. On the side of town I work there would be trouble (and has been in a run or two) if the people thought that our responses were being delayed so I don't see that political pot being stirred any time soon regardless of the mayors feeling for us.

Did I call the big, bad big city fireman a nasty name? Ohhhhh. Poor little fireman.

OK, buddy. Here's an asnwer, but it probably won't be the one you want. I have been in turnout pants as many times as you have. As a fire investigator, we always wore them on scene. Of course, I haven't worn them in working fires as much as a grizzled old big city fireman like you, but I have enough experience to know exactly what I am talking about.

There is a flaw in turnout pants that causes a considerable number of injuries. That flaw is in the knee pad. The NFPa test for this area is in a non-compressed, dry state. The problem comes in when the pants are used in actual fire situations-they are compressed by the weight of the fire fighter kneeling on them (this reduces the insulating capability) and they get wet (water conducts heat). Of course you already knew this, being as how you are such an expert in the real world.

The testing going on at NIST at the time I was there involved finding ways to improve the knee pad area of the ensemble in order to prevent this type of injury. The actual burn injury rate on the knees was amazingly high-although I cannot cite an exact figure for you at this moment. And of course you will jump to your key board and type "ah ha! I told you so. Turnout pants suck"! Well, actually, the pants still tested higher-alot higher-than regular pants or the rubber boot.

As to your comments about a CPD member not giving tickets to a fire apparatus...you are trying to rewrite history because that is not what you said. I would probably agree with you that in most cases, most cops would not give most fire fighters a summons for a moving violation in an apparatus. But that is not what we are talking about.

We are talking post-accident here. Most cops would give most fire fighters a summons if that fire fighter caused a crash (we police types don't call them "accidents") that involved injury, death or major property damage. That is a different animal. I know that I would absolutely hand out that summons if it were me.

You also shot your face off about the civilian walking away with a pile of paper-regardless if he was at fault. Most cops are not stupid enough to issue undeserved citations to a motorist who was not at fault and was either injured or sustained property damage as a result of the careless driving of a city owned vehicle. At least around here, they call that "Official Misconduct".

So you are right again-facts matter out here in the real world. I hope your facts are right. That would mean that the CFD has not had an apparatus involved crash that caused injury, death or serious property damage. Thatwould be a very good thing.

Like I said, I hope your facts are correct.

GeorgeWendtCFI

08-29-2005, 01:02 AM

ChicagoFF, for your info, this George guy happens to be a cop. I guess he vollies on ths side however. And of course he has the answers to everything.

I don't have the answers for everything, Skippy. But I do have the answer for the question:

"Who is the biggest idiot on these forums?"

Answer: You.

erics99

08-30-2005, 03:54 AM

I don't have the answers for everything, Skippy. But I do have the answer for the question:

"Who is the biggest idiot on these forums?"

Answer: You.

You are nothing more than an arrogant cop. Go figure, the most cocky ******* on the forum is a cop. This is a firefighter forum. I'll give a brother from Chicago credibility over some pig anyday of the week. Oh yea, you're a fire investigator. :rolleyes:

I'm done with the insults, got nothing more to say to you.

(edit for spelling)

GeorgeWendtCFI

08-30-2005, 04:44 AM

You are nothing more than an arrogant cop. Go figure, the most cocky ******* on the forum is a cop. This is a firefighter forum. I'll give a bother from Chicago credibility over some pig anyday of the week. Oh yea, you're a fire investigator. :rolleyes:

I'm done with the insults, got nothing more to say to you.

Couple things...

1. You're right, he is a bother.
2. The term "pig" went out with the 60's (you nlearned about them in history class, right Skippy?)
3. I have more time putting my boots on in fires than you have in the department.
4. If you're such a tough guy, why don't you email me at wendtcfi@optonline.net and we can continue this discussion off forum?

Ack8236

08-30-2005, 11:01 AM

ChicagoFF..

Is he opinionated? Yes. As are the majority of the active members of these forums.

Opinionated is one thing, being a total "Richard" about it is another. There is a core of "respected" members here that do a lot of posting. I'm sure there is a lot of experience and knowledge that you and others could share and discuss, that would broaden others' careers. The atmosphere some create does not allow that to happen. We are in a field where almost every call can be something unique and different. Someone with one year may have experienced something someone with 20 years has never seen. Around here though, "new guys" and "probies" are almost immediately dismissed and degraded. Anyone with a difference of opinion, that doesn't bow down to the ones with "crust", is met with insults and one-upmanship(I ate more smoke than you, neener, neener!). This thread has been another fine example of this attitude and another reason I, and probably a few others, rarely like to post here.

CaptainGonzo

08-30-2005, 04:28 PM

You are nothing more than an arrogant cop. Go figure, the most cocky ******* on the forum is a cop. This is a firefighter forum. I'll give a brother from Chicago credibility over some pig anyday of the week. Oh yea, you're a fire investigator. :rolleyes:

I'm done with the insults, got nothing more to say to you.

(edit for spelling)

Erics99... you have shown your true colors.

George may be opinionated, and a tad brash at times. but I would have no problem whatsoever going in on a fire with him. You on the other hand.. well let's just say that if I saw you on my fireground on the wrong side of the fire line tape, I would ask the guys with pride, integrity and guts (You'll figure it out, smart guy) to physically remove you and have you arrested for interfering with my fireground ops.

The vast majority of your posts here do nothing but "talk trash". That may ne fine out on your playground, but here, be prepared to back up your statements.

GeorgeWendtCFI

08-30-2005, 05:02 PM

Erics99... you have shown your true colors.

George may be opinionated, and a tad brash at times. but I would have no problem whatsoever going in on a fire with him. You on the other hand.. well let's just say that if I saw you on my fireground on the wrong side of the fire line tape, I would ask the guys with pride, integrity and guts (I'll figure it out, smart guy) to physically remove you and have you arrested for interfering with my fireground ops.

The vast majority of your posts here do nothing but "talk trash". That may ne fine out on your playground, but here, be prepared to back up your statements.

Here's a shock for you...he didn't email me.

Thanks. A "tad brash"? That's like saying Shaq is a "tad large".

F52Westside

08-30-2005, 07:15 PM

Quote - "This exemption shall not however protect the driver of the vehicle from the consequences of a reckless disregard of the safety of others." -

The above from "MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE (EXCERPT) Act 300 of 1949
257.632 Exemption from speed limitations; police vehicles, fire department or fire patrol vehicles, and ambulances; conditions."

P.A. 300 of 1949 - Sec. 257.632 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=mcl-257-632&highlight=)

You can only help some one if you can get there. There are way to many clueless wonders out there on there phones and not paying any attention to what is going on in the world around them.

EGH

CaptainGonzo

08-30-2005, 09:11 PM

Here's a shock for you...he didn't email me.

Thanks. A "tad brash"? That's like saying Shaq is a "tad large".

I'm not surprised.. I doubt he has the testicular fortitude to do so!

ChiefReason

09-01-2005, 11:21 PM

Anyone with a difference of opinion, that doesn't bow down to the ones with "crust", is met with insults and one-upmanship(I ate more smoke than you, neener, neener!). This thread has been another fine example of this attitude and another reason I, and probably a few others, rarely like to post here.
As a rule, I don't think anyone here with "crust" has a problem with a difference of opinion, but when someone states something as fact, when in fact, that have no facts to back up what they state, some will challenge it.
As a matter of fact, I have stated many opinions in these forums and have rarely been insulted or one-upped!
Coming here occasionally doesn't guarantee instant credibility. That is gained through exchanging your thoughts with the rest of us. That's how we get to know you; that, in turn, develops trust which lends to the credibility of what you say.
Now; if you don't care about any of that, there is always the Off-Duty Forums, where BS is trowelled out by the bushel.
I don't make this stuff up. It's just the way it is.
We try to help those who ask for it. We'll offer assistance to those who need it.
But, when someone comes into a thread and won't listen to reason, we can't just simply ignore it. We have a duty to set the record straight...for the kids.
For God's sake; it's for the kids!
CR