On 2008-08-02 23:38:41 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4894d5ec@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-02 22:42:59 +0100, Andy Burns
said:

On 02/08/2008 22:35, Andy Hall wrote:

Would you still have the same opinion had it been you that had been the
patient in cardiac arrest with a few minutes before permanent brain
damage would have set in?

Presumably in this case having to stop after the accident negated the
time saved by speeding?

Only because a dog was involved.

Had you been the patient, what action would you have liked?


I'm sure you would have kids and other innocents run down to get to you.
However most would prefer the driver to take a bit more care.

We don't have the full details other than that there was plenty of
signaling that an emergency vehicle was approaching. This is not the
same as any old car driving along.

Answer the question. If you had been the patient, would you have
preferred the ambulance to get to you quickly or would you have
preferred to be dead?

On 2008-08-02 23:36:59 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4894d315@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-02 22:15:51 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Burns" wrote in message
et...
On 02/08/2008 18:43, dennis@home wrote:

I hope she learns from that!
It was her fault!

I couldn't think of a tactful way of saying it either.


I thought for a good few seconds and decided that tack would be wasted on TMH.
He probably thinks its good driving to run pets down.
I wonder if it was excess speed or just plain stupidity?

Would you still have the same opinion had it been you that had been the
patient in cardiac arrest with a few minutes before permanent brain
damage would have set in?

Ah....

Because the stupid ambulance driver had to stop for the accident they
caused as in this case?

Ah....

Maybe you will read the posts before making a fool of yourself next time?

So answer the question. If you had been the patient, what would you
want to happen? Dead dog or dead you?

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-08-02 23:06:38 +0100, Andy Burns
said:

On 02/08/2008 22:47, Andy Hall wrote:

Only because a dog was involved.

If it had been a toddler? If the dog had pulled its owner over? All
sounds a bit too close for comfort to me.

So what is the solution?

- More ambulances so that they can statistically be closer to locations
where there is an emergency?

They don't return to base after a call, they go to RVP's to await another
call. Thats why you see them on bridges etc.

Current solution is the FRU - Fast Respnse Unit, a Vauxhall Zapheria with a
crew of one, equipped fairly well but unable to transport patients.

- Separate lanes everywhere?

- Operate always within the speed limit?

Govmint target is 8 mins for a Cat A call, from the time of call, not the
time the control operator actually gets the address.

- Allow patients to die?

Not considered in the Govmint target, simply the reponse time, not the
patient outcome.


Do any of these guarantee that the dog or a toddler wouldn't have
been hit?

Alas not, ambulance personel are human.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

dennis@home coughed up some electrons that declared:



"Tim S" wrote in message
...
Andy Burns coughed up some electrons that declared:

On 02/08/2008 22:35, Andy Hall wrote:

Would you still have the same opinion had it been you that had been the
patient in cardiac arrest with a few minutes before permanent brain
damage would have set in?

Presumably in this case having to stop after the accident negated the
time saved by speeding?

I think the key issue here, unless one believes that ambulances should
have
a man with a red flag walking in front, is why was the woman with the dog
seemingly oblivious to blues n twos? It's highly unfortunately that her
dog
got run over, but my point stands...

Lets see..
how many blind people use the roads?

Generally have dogs who are specifically trained to pay attention and if
not, I don't think you'll find many who can miss the sirens.

how many deaf people use the roads?

Would be looking diligently (I have deaf people in my family, believe me,
they don't take a quick look then wander across with their head in a
newspaper.

how many kids use the roads?

Your only substantial point so far. I'm training my kids to stop, look and
listen to quote the old 1970's film.

Now do you sound foolish?

Seems I'm in good company.

OK - well legislate that all emergency vehicles maintain the speed limit no
matter what. Will you be happy on the day (and I hope you don't) need their
services?

completely oblivious. After a couple of police cars, you might generally
expect an ambulance or fire tender.

So why hadn't you moved over far enough?

Unless you've found a way to allow solid matter to pass through solid
matter, it was otherwise impossible. Next time I'll take photos just so I
can argue the toss with you dennis.

You may have the last word :-D

Cheers

Tim

On 02/08/2008 23:48, Andy Hall wrote:

So answer the question. If you had been the patient, what would you
want to happen? Dead dog or dead you?

Dead dog every time, and don't stop afterwards!

But my point wasn't the relative value of human life over animal life,
rather could the ambulance driver have avoiding running it over if it
hadn't been a dog?

- If so then why not avoid the dog too and therefore avoid having to
stop after the accident?

- If not then why does the value of the life in the back of the
ambulance exceed that of anyone who happens to be unable to get out of
the way?

On 03/08/2008 01:33, The Medway Handyman wrote:

They don't return to base after a call, they go to RVP's to await another
call. Thats why you see them on bridges etc.

I've only just started to notice them doing that round here (Leicester)
I've noticed a paramedic often parks in the middle of a large busy
roundabout on the ring road.

Alas not, ambulance personel are human.

I hope you're not taking it personally on her behalf, did it shake her
up, or is it just part of the job?

Andy Hall wrote in
4894d5ec@qaanaaq

On 2008-08-02 22:42:59 +0100, Andy Burns
said:

On 02/08/2008 22:35, Andy Hall wrote:

Would you still have the same opinion had it been you that had been
the patient in cardiac arrest with a few minutes before permanent
brain damage would have set in?

Presumably in this case having to stop after the accident negated the
time saved by speeding?

Only because a dog was involved.


"...you must report the accident to the Police as soon as possible, but
within 24 hours. This is a legal requirement under the Road Traffic Act
1988"

Greater Manchester Police:

http://www.gmp.police.uk/mainsite/pages/dogs.htm

Given 24 hours, there may have been time to get the patient to the hospital
and still report the accident.

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

On 2008-08-03 10:25:04 +0100, Andy Burns
said:

On 02/08/2008 23:48, Andy Hall wrote:

So answer the question. If you had been the patient, what would you
want to happen? Dead dog or dead you?

Dead dog every time, and don't stop afterwards!

But my point wasn't the relative value of human life over animal life,
rather could the ambulance driver have avoiding running it over if it
hadn't been a dog?

- If so then why not avoid the dog too and therefore avoid having to
stop after the accident?

- If not then why does the value of the life in the back of the
ambulance exceed that of anyone who happens to be unable to get out of
the way?

Valid points.

The owner apparently did get out of the way but the dog didn't which
raises the question of whether the owner had the dog properly under
control.

I was really making a different point though.

- It's possible for somebody to be run over just by carelessly
stepping off of the pavement. Outcome can be death or injury from
that whether the vehicle is traveling at 30 or 60MPH. In a busy
High St. it's more likely to be lower speed.

- We do accept that emergency vehicles should be able to travel faster
than the rest of the traffic and to make a lot of noise to encourage it
to move out of the way as well as notifying pedestrians of the approach
of the vehicle. One doesn't often read of emegency service vehicle
drivers having problems or being criticised if they do.


Essentially, we want to have emergency backup quickly because tomorrow
we may be having a problem. Therefore we have to accept that there
is a higher level of risk when vehicles move quickly. The operators
do attempt to train the drivers to do a good driving job.

We could choose to say that emergency drivers must follow all traffic
law at all times. This might reduce accident rates a little.
However, it would make a much larger impact on outcome at emergencies.
On balance, we choose to take that risk and so we really can't then
criticise the driver if something happens when they have followed their
training and procedures properly.

On 2008-08-03 10:40:29 +0100, "PeterMcC" said:

Andy Hall wrote in
4894d5ec@qaanaaq

On 2008-08-02 22:42:59 +0100, Andy Burns
said:

On 02/08/2008 22:35, Andy Hall wrote:

Would you still have the same opinion had it been you that had been
the patient in cardiac arrest with a few minutes before permanent
brain damage would have set in?

Presumably in this case having to stop after the accident negated the
time saved by speeding?

Only because a dog was involved.


"...you must report the accident to the Police as soon as possible, but
within 24 hours. This is a legal requirement under the Road Traffic Act
1988"

Greater Manchester Police:

http://www.gmp.police.uk/mainsite/pages/dogs.htm

Given 24 hours, there may have been time to get the patient to the hospital
and still report the accident.

This is all fine when one is sat at a computer keyboard with the
benefit of time and a coffee.


It's a touch harder when one is making split second decisions with
life/death implications.

Andy Hall wrote in
48957f17@qaanaaq

On 2008-08-03 10:40:29 +0100, "PeterMcC" said:

Andy Hall wrote in
4894d5ec@qaanaaq

On 2008-08-02 22:42:59 +0100, Andy Burns
said:

On 02/08/2008 22:35, Andy Hall wrote:

Would you still have the same opinion had it been you that had
been the patient in cardiac arrest with a few minutes before
permanent brain damage would have set in?

Presumably in this case having to stop after the accident negated
the time saved by speeding?

Only because a dog was involved.


"...you must report the accident to the Police as soon as possible,
but within 24 hours. This is a legal requirement under the Road
Traffic Act 1988"

Greater Manchester Police:

http://www.gmp.police.uk/mainsite/pages/dogs.htm

Given 24 hours, there may have been time to get the patient to the
hospital and still report the accident.

This is all fine when one is sat at a computer keyboard with the
benefit of time and a coffee.

It's a touch harder when one is making split second decisions with
life/death implications.

My apologies -I'm sure that you're absolutely right. I had hoped that the
information might have been helpful - it certainly wasn't meant to be point
scoring.

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

Andy Burns wrote:
On 03/08/2008 01:33, The Medway Handyman wrote:

They don't return to base after a call, they go to RVP's to await
another call. Thats why you see them on bridges etc.

I've only just started to notice them doing that round here
(Leicester) I've noticed a paramedic often parks in the middle of a
large busy roundabout on the ring road.

Saves time & fuel. She did her fast track course in Leicester with EMAS,
lived in Saxby Street.

Alas not, ambulance personel are human.

I hope you're not taking it personally on her behalf, did it shake her
up, or is it just part of the job?

Compared to what she encounters on a daily basis it was nothing. Bex & her
crewmate actually thought it was funny - they develop a rather black sense
of humour in that job.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

PeterMcC wrote:
Andy Hall wrote in
4894d5ec@qaanaaq

On 2008-08-02 22:42:59 +0100, Andy Burns
said:

On 02/08/2008 22:35, Andy Hall wrote:

Would you still have the same opinion had it been you that had been
the patient in cardiac arrest with a few minutes before permanent
brain damage would have set in?

Presumably in this case having to stop after the accident negated
the time saved by speeding?

Only because a dog was involved.


"...you must report the accident to the Police as soon as possible,
but within 24 hours. This is a legal requirement under the Road
Traffic Act 1988"

Greater Manchester Police:

http://www.gmp.police.uk/mainsite/pages/dogs.htm

Given 24 hours, there may have been time to get the patient to the
hospital and still report the accident.

Its LAS policy to report immediately & use another truck - don't know why.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Andy Burns wrote:
On 02/08/2008 23:48, Andy Hall wrote:

So answer the question. If you had been the patient, what would you
want to happen? Dead dog or dead you?

Dead dog every time, and don't stop afterwards!

But my point wasn't the relative value of human life over animal life,
rather could the ambulance driver have avoiding running it over if it
hadn't been a dog?

Not in this instance.

- If so then why not avoid the dog too and therefore avoid having to
stop after the accident?

The particular Zebra crossing was one of those staggered ones with a central
island & barriers, not possible to swerve.

- If not then why does the value of the life in the back of the
ambulance exceed that of anyone who happens to be unable to get out of
the way?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Andy Hall wrote:

Essentially, we want to have emergency backup quickly because tomorrow
we may be having a problem. Therefore we have to accept that there
is a higher level of risk when vehicles move quickly. The operators
do attempt to train the drivers to do a good driving job.

Oddly, you have to pass your PSV licence (at your expense) in order to get
employed by LAS, very little specific on the job training as far as driving
goes. They do a few days on skid pan & stuff, but thats about it.

Bex has recently started on the FRU's (fast respose units) which use 1.8
Vauxhall Zafira's, quite a quick car. They get one shift's worth of
training.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 10:47:18 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2008-08-03 10:25:04 +0100, Andy Burns
said:

On 02/08/2008 23:48, Andy Hall wrote:

So answer the question. If you had been the patient, what would you
want to happen? Dead dog or dead you?

Dead dog every time, and don't stop afterwards!

But my point wasn't the relative value of human life over animal life,
rather could the ambulance driver have avoiding running it over if it
hadn't been a dog?

- If so then why not avoid the dog too and therefore avoid having to
stop after the accident?

- If not then why does the value of the life in the back of the
ambulance exceed that of anyone who happens to be unable to get out of
the way?

Valid points.

The owner apparently did get out of the way but the dog didn't which
raises the question of whether the owner had the dog properly under
control.

Clearly not. What's puzzling is that the dog was on a lead, so at the
very least it should have been 'at heel'. Even if it wasn't, it should
have been yanked out of the way. Any other such behaviour on a public
highway is just plain dangerous.
I suppose it's reasonable for the driver of the ambulance to make the
assumption that if the owner has heard and reacted to the siren,
they'd ensure the dog would as well.

Then again it's perhaps a variation on the theme of mums standing at
the side of the road with a pushchair in front of them, and the
pushchair protruding a foot or so onto the carriageway. Seen than
plenty of times.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...
dennis@home wrote:
"Andy Burns" wrote in message
et...
On 02/08/2008 18:43, dennis@home wrote:

I hope she learns from that!
It was her fault!

I couldn't think of a tactful way of saying it either.


I thought for a good few seconds and decided that tack would be
wasted on TMH.

It would be Dennis, I'm not a horse.

He probably thinks its good driving to run pets down.
I wonder if it was excess speed or just plain stupidity?

Prabably stupidity Dennis. London Ambulance deliberately recruit stupid
people, then train them extensively to become even more stupid.

It probably runs in the family.


Wouldn't have been excess speed, no reason to go fast with a critical
cardiac arrest patient in the back, all the time in the world.

Changing the story again?
You said they were on their way to an incident, so why were they taking a
cardiac arrest victim there?
As it happens there is less reason to go fast with a cardiac victim in the
back than when going there.
They should have started the treatment and its rather hard to continue when
the ambulance is being chucked about.
You really are on a loser here so why not give up?


Out of your head on glue again Dennis?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4894e422@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-02 23:36:59 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4894d315@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-02 22:15:51 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Burns" wrote in message
et...
On 02/08/2008 18:43, dennis@home wrote:

I hope she learns from that!
It was her fault!

I couldn't think of a tactful way of saying it either.


I thought for a good few seconds and decided that tack would be wasted
on TMH.
He probably thinks its good driving to run pets down.
I wonder if it was excess speed or just plain stupidity?

Would you still have the same opinion had it been you that had been the
patient in cardiac arrest with a few minutes before permanent brain
damage would have set in?

Ah....

Because the stupid ambulance driver had to stop for the accident they
caused as in this case?

Ah....

Maybe you will read the posts before making a fool of yourself next time?

So answer the question. If you had been the patient, what would you want
to happen? Dead dog or dead you?

It was a dead dog this time, next time it might be a pushchair.
Do you want ambulance drivers running people down to get there faster?
They should have avoided the dog, they didn't so it shows a problem that
needs rectifying, either by training or by replacement.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:48957ea6@qaanaaq...

On balance, we choose to take that risk and so we really can't then
criticise the driver if something happens when they have followed their
training and procedures properly.


*If* they were properly trained then its time to look at the training.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...
Andy Hall wrote:

Essentially, we want to have emergency backup quickly because tomorrow
we may be having a problem. Therefore we have to accept that there
is a higher level of risk when vehicles move quickly. The operators
do attempt to train the drivers to do a good driving job.

Oddly, you have to pass your PSV licence (at your expense) in order to get
employed by LAS, very little specific on the job training as far as
driving goes. They do a few days on skid pan & stuff, but thats about it.

Bex has recently started on the FRU's (fast respose units) which use 1.8
Vauxhall Zafira's, quite a quick car. They get one shift's worth of
training.

Are you saying the training is inadequate?

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...
Andy Burns wrote:
On 02/08/2008 23:48, Andy Hall wrote:

So answer the question. If you had been the patient, what would you
want to happen? Dead dog or dead you?

Dead dog every time, and don't stop afterwards!

But my point wasn't the relative value of human life over animal life,
rather could the ambulance driver have avoiding running it over if it
hadn't been a dog?

Not in this instance.

- If so then why not avoid the dog too and therefore avoid having to
stop after the accident?

The particular Zebra crossing was one of those staggered ones with a
central island & barriers, not possible to swerve.

So it was entirely the drivers fault.
I hope the police prosecute!

On 2008-08-03 15:29:14 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:

So answer the question. If you had been the patient, what would you
want to happen? Dead dog or dead you?

It was a dead dog this time, next time it might be a pushchair.

It could be. For example, somebody could be nattering to a friend and
step out into the road with pushchair without looking. It's more
likely that some arbitrary car would have knockd the whole lot flying
than an ambulance


Do you want ambulance drivers running people down to get there faster?

No, but I do want them to get there quickly. It would appear that
people are generally supportive of emergency vehicles going faster than
the normal speed limit and for other vehicles and pedestrians to make
way for them.


They should have avoided the dog, they didn't so it shows a problem
that needs rectifying, either by training or by replacement.

The dog can be replaced, that's true. It could be trained, as could
the owner.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4894e379@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-02 23:38:41 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4894d5ec@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-02 22:42:59 +0100, Andy Burns
said:

On 02/08/2008 22:35, Andy Hall wrote:

Would you still have the same opinion had it been you that had been
the patient in cardiac arrest with a few minutes before permanent
brain damage would have set in?

Presumably in this case having to stop after the accident negated the
time saved by speeding?

Only because a dog was involved.

Had you been the patient, what action would you have liked?


I'm sure you would have kids and other innocents run down to get to you.
However most would prefer the driver to take a bit more care.

We don't have the full details other than that there was plenty of
signaling that an emergency vehicle was approaching. This is not the
same as any old car driving along.

Yes it is.
Ambulance drivers have the same if not more duty of care as any other
driver.


Answer the question. If you had been the patient, would you have
preferred the ambulance to get to you quickly or would you have preferred
to be dead?

*You* appear to prefer killing people, that's the important thing here.
We now know you value your life above others.

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
On 03/08/2008 01:33, The Medway Handyman wrote:

They don't return to base after a call, they go to RVP's to await another
call. Thats why you see them on bridges etc.

I've only just started to notice them doing that round here (Leicester)
I've noticed a paramedic often parks in the middle of a large busy
roundabout on the ring road.

They have started doing the same with the fire engines around here.
That's a part of what the last strike was about, crews moving about so they
were in the best place should there be a fire. Its hard to sleep if you
aren't in the station.
The ambulances have been doing it for at least a year and it works very
well.

On 2008-08-03 15:32:58 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:48957ea6@qaanaaq...

On balance, we choose to take that risk and so we really can't then
criticise the driver if something happens when they have followed their
training and procedures properly.


*If* they were properly trained then its time to look at the training.

For the dog owner, absolutely. Let's hope that if they get another
that they will arrange training for the dog and for themselves.

On 2008-08-03 15:41:01 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4894e379@qaanaaq...

We don't have the full details other than that there was plenty of
signaling that an emergency vehicle was approaching. This is not the
same as any old car driving along.

Yes it is.
Ambulance drivers have the same if not more duty of care as any other driver.

I completely agree. As I said, this is not the same as any old car
driving along.

However, no amount of care can address the issue of a dog not properly
under control.





Answer the question. If you had been the patient, would you have
preferred the ambulance to get to you quickly or would you have
preferred to be dead?

*You* appear to prefer killing people, that's the important thing here.

No I don't. The important thing here is that you have unrealistic
expectations and would like to have your cake and eat it.


We now know you value your life above others.

If that question is asked of anybody and an *honest* answer is given,
we all value our lives above others in the final analysis. It's
known as self preservation.

dennis@home wrote:

He probably thinks its good driving to run pets down.
I wonder if it was excess speed or just plain stupidity?

Prabably stupidity Dennis. London Ambulance deliberately recruit
stupid people, then train them extensively to become even more
stupid.

It probably runs in the family.


Wouldn't have been excess speed, no reason to go fast with a critical
cardiac arrest patient in the back, all the time in the world.

Changing the story again?

Whoosh! I was being sarcastic Dennis, please try to pay attention.

You said they were on their way to an incident, so why were they
taking a cardiac arrest victim there?

Which bit of the following leads you to believe that?

"she had to radio control for another ambulance to collect the cardiac
arrest patient in the back of her truck - who fortunately survived".

As it happens there is less reason to go fast with a cardiac victim
in the back than when going there.

Oh, and you would know all about that would you?

They should have started the treatment and its rather hard to
continue when the ambulance is being chucked about.

Ambulance crews don't 'treat' cardiac arrest patients, their mandate is to
stabilise the patient e.g. stop him/her from croaking until they can get
them to A&E where they can be treated properly.

You really are on a loser here so why not give up?

I should take up smoking Dennis - it improves your concentration & protects
against Parkinson's disease.

"Symptoms of dementia associated with Parkinson's disease vary from person
to person. The most common are memory loss and loss of the ability to reason
and to carry out normal everyday tasks. The person may become obsessional
and there may be a loss of emotional control, with sudden outbursts of anger
or distress"

Sounds just like you doesn't it?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 14:46:37 UTC, "dennis@home"
wrote:

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
On 03/08/2008 01:33, The Medway Handyman wrote:

They don't return to base after a call, they go to RVP's to await another
call. Thats why you see them on bridges etc.

I've only just started to notice them doing that round here (Leicester)
I've noticed a paramedic often parks in the middle of a large busy
roundabout on the ring road.

They have started doing the same with the fire engines around here.
That's a part of what the last strike was about, crews moving about so they
were in the best place should there be a fire. Its hard to sleep if you
aren't in the station.
The ambulances have been doing it for at least a year and it works very
well.

They've been doing it for at least ten years here.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-08-03 15:29:14 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:

So answer the question. If you had been the patient, what would you
want to happen? Dead dog or dead you?

It was a dead dog this time, next time it might be a pushchair.

It could be. For example, somebody could be nattering to a friend and
step out into the road with pushchair without looking. It's more
likely that some arbitrary car would have knockd the whole lot flying
than an ambulance


Stuff nattering to a friend - engrossed in a mobile conversation, phone
stuck to ear, and not taking *any* notice of their environment. That
is what seems to be happening more and more. The startle they show if
they do notice a car (and driver) waiting is, IMHO, proof of their
inattention.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

On 2008-08-03 16:17:12 +0100, Rod said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-08-03 15:29:14 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:

So answer the question. If you had been the patient, what would you
want to happen? Dead dog or dead you?

It was a dead dog this time, next time it might be a pushchair.

It could be. For example, somebody could be nattering to a friend and
step out into the road with pushchair without looking. It's more
likely that some arbitrary car would have knockd the whole lot flying
than an ambulance


Stuff nattering to a friend - engrossed in a mobile conversation, phone
stuck to ear, and not taking *any* notice of their environment. That
is what seems to be happening more and more. The startle they show if
they do notice a car (and driver) waiting is, IMHO, proof of their
inattention.

Darwin, then....

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-08-03 16:17:12 +0100, Rod said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-08-03 15:29:14 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:

So answer the question. If you had been the patient, what would
you want to happen? Dead dog or dead you?

It was a dead dog this time, next time it might be a pushchair.

It could be. For example, somebody could be nattering to a friend
and step out into the road with pushchair without looking. It's
more likely that some arbitrary car would have knockd the whole lot
flying than an ambulance


Stuff nattering to a friend - engrossed in a mobile conversation,
phone stuck to ear, and not taking *any* notice of their
environment. That is what seems to be happening more and more. The
startle they show if they do notice a car (and driver) waiting is,
IMHO, proof of their inattention.

Darwin, then....


Can you say that about the dog? :-)

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

Owain wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
PeterMcC wrote:
Given 24 hours, there may have been time to get the patient to the
hospital and still report the accident.
Its LAS policy to report immediately & use another truck - don't
know why.

(a) because the ambulance personnel may be distracted/traumatised by
such an incident, which puts their patient and other road users at
increased risk
(b) because the newspaper headline "ambulance killed my dog and didn't
stop" is more embarrassing than "ambulance killed my dog"
(c) because the personnel might think they had hit a dog, but had
actually hit a child
(d) because the vehicle might have been damaged

?

Makes sense to me.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4895c2ff@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-03 15:29:14 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:

So answer the question. If you had been the patient, what would you
want to happen? Dead dog or dead you?

It was a dead dog this time, next time it might be a pushchair.

It could be. For example, somebody could be nattering to a friend and
step out into the road with pushchair without looking. It's more
likely that some arbitrary car would have knockd the whole lot flying than
an ambulance

Why do you keep trying to justify bad driving?
Even an emergency vehicle is required to be able to stop before they hit
something.
The fact that the dog was there and the driver didn't allow enough room to
stop shows that the driver is not very good.
You can try and change the facts but anyone can look them up on Google so it
makes you appear rather silly.



Do you want ambulance drivers running people down to get there faster?

No, but I do want them to get there quickly. It would appear that people
are generally supportive of emergency vehicles going faster than the
normal speed limit and for other vehicles and pedestrians to make way for
them.


They should have avoided the dog, they didn't so it shows a problem that
needs rectifying, either by training or by replacement.

The dog can be replaced, that's true. It could be trained, as could the
owner.

You are still trying to blame the drivers error on someone else! Why?

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4895c7aa@qaanaaq...
On 2008-08-03 15:41:01 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4894e379@qaanaaq...

We don't have the full details other than that there was plenty of
signaling that an emergency vehicle was approaching. This is not the
same as any old car driving along.

Yes it is.
Ambulance drivers have the same if not more duty of care as any other
driver.

I completely agree. As I said, this is not the same as any old car
driving along.

However, no amount of care can address the issue of a dog not properly
under control.





Answer the question. If you had been the patient, would you have
preferred the ambulance to get to you quickly or would you have
preferred to be dead?

*You* appear to prefer killing people, that's the important thing here.

No I don't. The important thing here is that you have unrealistic
expectations and would like to have your cake and eat it.


We now know you value your life above others.

If that question is asked of anybody and an *honest* answer is given, we
all value our lives above others in the final analysis. It's known as
self preservation.



That says more about you than you think.

"Owain" wrote in message
...
The Medway Handyman wrote:
PeterMcC wrote:
Given 24 hours, there may have been time to get the patient to the
hospital and still report the accident.
Its LAS policy to report immediately & use another truck - don't know
why.

(a) because the ambulance personnel may be distracted/traumatised by such
an incident, which puts their patient and other road users at increased
risk

According to TMH they probably had to stop because they were laughing too
much.
Probably ran the dog down on purpose too just for a lark.
After all he did say they have dark humor.

(b) because the newspaper headline "ambulance killed my dog and didn't
stop" is more embarrassing than "ambulance killed my dog"
(c) because the personnel might think they had hit a dog, but had actually
hit a child
(d) because the vehicle might have been damaged


?

Owain

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...
dennis@home wrote:

He probably thinks its good driving to run pets down.
I wonder if it was excess speed or just plain stupidity?

Prabably stupidity Dennis. London Ambulance deliberately recruit
stupid people, then train them extensively to become even more
stupid.

It probably runs in the family.


Wouldn't have been excess speed, no reason to go fast with a critical
cardiac arrest patient in the back, all the time in the world.

Changing the story again?

Whoosh! I was being sarcastic Dennis, please try to pay attention.

You said they were on their way to an incident, so why were they
taking a cardiac arrest victim there?

Which bit of the following leads you to believe that?

"she had to radio control for another ambulance to collect the cardiac
arrest patient in the back of her truck - who fortunately survived".

As it happens there is less reason to go fast with a cardiac victim
in the back than when going there.

Oh, and you would know all about that would you?

I know more than you think.


They should have started the treatment and its rather hard to
continue when the ambulance is being chucked about.

Ambulance crews don't 'treat' cardiac arrest patients, their mandate is to
stabilise the patient e.g. stop him/her from croaking until they can get
them to A&E where they can be treated properly.

Get some proper paramedics then!
The sooner you administer the drugs the better the prospects.
The drive back could kill the patent however fast they drive.


You really are on a loser here so why not give up?

I should take up smoking Dennis - it improves your concentration &
protects against Parkinson's disease.

"Symptoms of dementia associated with Parkinson's disease vary from person
to person. The most common are memory loss and loss of the ability to
reason and to carry out normal everyday tasks. The person may become
obsessional and there may be a loss of emotional control, with sudden
outbursts of anger or distress"

Sounds just like you doesn't it?

It sure sounds like you.

On 2008-08-03 20:02:02 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:

Why do you keep trying to justify bad driving?

I'm not. You don't know that there was. Let's say that you're
driving along past parked cars and you come to a zebra crossing and an
uncontrolled dog runs out at the last minute - literally as you get to
the crossing - 1m in front of you. There is no way to avoid an
accident resulting from that.


Even an emergency vehicle is required to be able to stop before they
hit something.
The fact that the dog was there and the driver didn't allow enough room
to stop shows that the driver is not very good.

That would depend on how far away the dog was when it ran into the road




Do you want ambulance drivers running people down to get there faster?

No, but I do want them to get there quickly. It would appear that
people are generally supportive of emergency vehicles going faster than
the normal speed limit and for other vehicles and pedestrians to make
way for them.


They should have avoided the dog, they didn't so it shows a problem
that needs rectifying, either by training or by replacement.

The dog can be replaced, that's true. It could be trained, as could
the owner.

You are still trying to blame the drivers error on someone else! Why?

Because it may well not be the driver's error.

On 2008-08-03 20:05:36 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4895c7aa@qaanaaq...

If that question is asked of anybody and an *honest* answer is given,
we all value our lives above others in the final analysis. It's
known as self preservation.



That says more about you than you think.

It says the same about everyone who is honest.

dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...
dennis@home wrote:

He probably thinks its good driving to run pets down.
I wonder if it was excess speed or just plain stupidity?

Prabably stupidity Dennis. London Ambulance deliberately recruit
stupid people, then train them extensively to become even more
stupid.

It probably runs in the family.


Wouldn't have been excess speed, no reason to go fast with a
critical cardiac arrest patient in the back, all the time in the
world.

Changing the story again?

Whoosh! I was being sarcastic Dennis, please try to pay attention.

You said they were on their way to an incident, so why were they
taking a cardiac arrest victim there?

Which bit of the following leads you to believe that?

"she had to radio control for another ambulance to collect the
cardiac arrest patient in the back of her truck - who fortunately
survived".
As it happens there is less reason to go fast with a cardiac victim
in the back than when going there.

Oh, and you would know all about that would you?

I know more than you think.


They should have started the treatment and its rather hard to
continue when the ambulance is being chucked about.

Ambulance crews don't 'treat' cardiac arrest patients, their mandate
is to stabilise the patient e.g. stop him/her from croaking until
they can get them to A&E where they can be treated properly.

Get some proper paramedics then!

That frankly is highly insulting to a dedicated & caring bunch of people who
spend years training and work long, antisocial hours for relatively little
reward.

You are a very sad man. I don't think I'm alone in forming that opinion.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-08-02 23:06:38 +0100, Andy Burns
said:

On 02/08/2008 22:47, Andy Hall wrote:

Only because a dog was involved.

If it had been a toddler? If the dog had pulled its owner over? All
sounds a bit too close for comfort to me.

So what is the solution?

- More ambulances so that they can statistically be closer to locations
where there is an emergency?

They don't return to base after a call, they go to RVP's to await another
call. Thats why you see them on bridges etc.

I wish they would not wait on motorway bridges. When you are doing over a
ton you think it is a speed camera as you approach the bridge.

Adam

On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 20:09:51 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"Owain" wrote in message
...
The Medway Handyman wrote:
PeterMcC wrote:
Given 24 hours, there may have been time to get the patient to the
hospital and still report the accident.
Its LAS policy to report immediately & use another truck - don't know
why.

(a) because the ambulance personnel may be distracted/traumatised by such
an incident, which puts their patient and other road users at increased
risk

According to TMH they probably had to stop because they were laughing too
much.
Probably ran the dog down on purpose too just for a lark.
After all he did say they have dark humor.

It's a well-known fact ( at least by those who've given the matter any
thought at all ) that those people who have what we might call 'morbid
jobs' develop a correspondingly morbid sense of humour.
It's a perfectly natural and healthy human reaction to the high levels
of emotional stress that are associated with such professions, and
will be found in any trade that deals with the human condition in
extremis - such as undertakers, emergency services personnel,
sewermen, health workers and those in the armed forces.
That people are offended by it or fail to grasp the concept of 'dark
humor'(sic) within the proper context simply means they have no
understanding of the rigours of the job in question.

Thus the next time you find yourself in hospital having your piles
dealt with you can be pretty sure that someone on the staff will have
a laugh at your expense afterwards - and, frankly, who can blame them?

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk