Near Miss. Video from Engine Responding and a Close Call. How many have you had??

[Hoser]

Watch the video. Be Safe Out there to many Drivers doing everything but Driving.


Near miss: Impatient motorist almost collides with Hoover firetruck (video) | al.com

 

[CrownVic97]

What a friggin' dumb@$$...

 

[rick h.]

What He ^^^^^^ said

 

[TritonBoulder47]

We get the ALL the time up here in my area... There are few people that are very courteous (like the person that pulled over early), but most are in such a hurry to go no where, it ridiculous...


I've had many like this in my time as a driver... I also love the retards that are the vehicle directly in front of the apparatus and see the people in front of them pull over, so they go around them and go another 1/4 mile down the road before pulling over for the apparatus... :duh:

 

[WS224]

Regardless of near-miss or not, it was a miss, so what did they stop for?


Per the original question, probably 5 or 6 close calls. Two or three confirmed hits while driving, three or four confirmed hits while the Officer - all minor. Not bad for around 20,000 responses.

 

[TritonBoulder47]

Regardless of near-miss or not, it was a miss, so what did they stop for?

A quote from the article...

Firefighters stopped the truck to make sure everyone was OK and to make sure they didn't lose a wheel in the ditch.

 

[ISU_Cyclone]

Why would they have lost a wheel in the ditch? Looks like they just drove onto the grass...hopefully the wheels stay on for that.

 

[TritonBoulder47]

Why would they have lost a wheel in the ditch? Looks like they just drove onto the grass...hopefully the wheels stay on for that.

by "ditch" I'm assuming they mean the drainage tunnel that runs under that side road... You can clearly see the truck jump up right before it stops...

 

[Flashguy]

"Make sure they didn't lose a wheel" could mean checking the tires, hubcaps, side wall...they did the right thing. Plus they were going to a medical and fire engines don't like getting to medical calls too quickly. :haha:

 

[FireEMSPolice]

Hit a Honda CR-V and you remove the idiot driver and the vehicle from the road.


Glad it turned out well. F'ing people man!

 

[jswwjw]

If you were clearing an intersection code 3 and there was an accident would you drive away? I think they did a good community service by stopping and making sure the other driver was ok.


You get more with sugar than sh*t..

 

[WS224]

If you were clearing an intersection code 3 and there was an accident would you drive away? I think they did a good community service by stopping and making sure the other driver was ok.

You get more with sugar than sh*t..

1. This wasn't an accident, there was no contact.


2. Yes - if we were going through an intersection and there was an accident and we weren't in it, we would continue on the call we were already going on and radio the accident in.

 

[Tlauden]

Shouldn't it be a near-hit. A near miss implies they almost missed it..... Never understood the near miss term, we use it on the railroad a lot..

 

[tvsjr]

2. Yes - if we were going through an intersection and there was an accident and we weren't in it, we would continue on the call we were already going on and radio the accident in.

No, you wouldn't... or at least I hope you wouldn't. The right answer is "we would use common sense". If you're running on the 4th fire alarm at the same location and there's a rollover accident in the intersection with multiple ejections, you would stop. If it's a 2-car fender-bender and you're running on a structure with people trapped, you continue on. If you're involved in the wreck, either directly or as a causative factor/non-contact vehicle, you stop.


In this case, the DE did right by stopping. They went off-road and were concerned about damage to the apparatus, and they likely weren't sure if they made contact with the idiot's vehicle or not. It's just a shame there wasn't any LEO following them. Several of our deputies/troopers like to follow us when possible on calls... when we get people failing to yield or otherwise acting moronically, they are in a great position to stop and have a chat with the offender. Maybe even give them some paperwork to remember their poor behavior by.


And, to respond to the OP, in 6 years of volunteer service and over 1,000 runs driving I've had:


1 wreck - a driver who was most likely under the influence (hasn't been to trial yet, felony warrant issued for DWI 3rd) struck us while blocking traffic on a highway. $55K of damage to an F-750 medium duty rescue.


1 near miss - 4 teenagers in a small car pulled out in front of me from a side street while returning from a call in our 1250/2000 tanker/pumper. Between the air horns, liberal application of the brakes (nothing like feeling 38,000lbs. sliding around), and some aggressive steering I was able to miss them. Had they been any slower, I would have impacted the front passenger door... I don't really like thinking about what would have happened in that instance, but it wouldn't have been good.


And, of course, various other things torn up. Scratches on brush trucks, a few flat tires, a damaged extension ladder (backed into a tree - pedals were very close together and my hoof got both simultaneously - d'oh!), etc.

 

[WS224]

No, you wouldn't... or at least I hope you wouldn't. The right answer is "we would use common sense". If you're running on the 4th fire alarm at the same location and there's a rollover accident in the intersection with multiple ejections, you would stop. If it's a 2-car fender-bender and you're running on a structure with people trapped, you continue on. If you're involved in the wreck, either directly or as a causative factor/non-contact vehicle, you stop.

In this case, the DE did right by stopping. They went off-road and were concerned about damage to the apparatus, and they likely weren't sure if they made contact with the idiot's vehicle or not. It's just a shame there wasn't any LEO following them. Several of our deputies/troopers like to follow us when possible on calls... when we get people failing to yield or otherwise acting moronically, they are in a great position to stop and have a chat with the offender. Maybe even give them some paperwork to remember their poor behavior by.


And, to respond to the OP, in 6 years of volunteer service and over 1,000 runs driving I've had:


1 wreck - a driver who was most likely under the influence (hasn't been to trial yet, felony warrant issued for DWI 3rd) struck us while blocking traffic on a highway. $55K of damage to an F-750 medium duty rescue.


1 near miss - 4 teenagers in a small car pulled out in front of me from a side street while returning from a call in our 1250/2000 tanker/pumper. Between the air horns, liberal application of the brakes (nothing like feeling 38,000lbs. sliding around), and some aggressive steering I was able to miss them. Had they been any slower, I would have impacted the front passenger door... I don't really like thinking about what would have happened in that instance, but it wouldn't have been good.


And, of course, various other things torn up. Scratches on brush trucks, a few flat tires, a damaged extension ladder (backed into a tree - pedals were very close together and my hoof got both simultaneously - d'oh!), etc.

I'll see if I cam make it clearer:


If we are involved in the accident, we WILL stop. If we are not involved in the accident, we WILL NOT stop.

 

[Travelin Man]

If we are involved in the accident, we WILL stop. If we are not involved in the accident, we WILL NOT stop.

Is this department policy or your policy?

 

[DJIceman97]

Next traffic logged on the radio was... "Dispatch, can you send us PD and four new sets of underwear?"

 

[WS224]

Is this department policy or your policy?

Department. They consider the person who already called as having priority and to not continue to be a neglect of duty. I understand it can be argued the other way as well, but is currently the policy under which we operate.


They are also very specific about City limits. If you are dispatched and it ends up being beyond the City limits, you notify the proper agency and return to service.

 

[tvsjr]

Department. They consider the person who already called as having priority and to not continue to be a neglect of duty. I understand it can be argued the other way as well, but is currently the policy under which we operate.

They are also very specific about City limits. If you are dispatched and it ends up being beyond the City limits, you notify the proper agency and return to service.

Well, that's dumb as hell. So if you're dispatched on a structure fire and it's 3 houses outside the city limits, you clear up and go home? If you're running on a non-emergency call and witness something with an immediate threat to life or property, you ignore it? I suspect the community would call that neglect.


There's a reason that there has been a trend to start using the term SOG rather than SOP. Guidelines, not policy... the world isn't black and white and common sense must be involved. Typically, departments with such rigid policies for the troops suffer a lack of common sense at the top.

 

[WS224]

Well, that's dumb as hell. So if you're dispatched on a structure fire and it's 3 houses outside the city limits, you clear up and go home? If you're running on a non-emergency call and witness something with an immediate threat to life or property, you ignore it? I suspect the community would call that neglect.

There's a reason that there has been a trend to start using the term SOG rather than SOP. Guidelines, not policy... the world isn't black and white and common sense must be involved. Typically, departments with such rigid policies for the troops suffer a lack of common sense at the top.

For the most part, I concur but I would point out the following:


1. We don't run non-emergency calls per se.


2. It's not that there are not occasional variances of policy by an individual, but if the department may try to hang you depending on who you are.


3. As far as a house on fire 3 houses out of the City - of course the firefighter in me would want to report on the scene and put it out. Administratively however I do get that people inside the City pay taxes to recieve the service so I would be providing most likely a better service to someone who doesn't pay for it and would no longer be available to the people who were paying for it.


4. Your last sentence nailed it - there is no room in my department for common sense. Everything is in black and white and if you deviate from it, you may be okay, but you may also get your ass handed to you from the Administration.

 

[WS224]

I'll further clarify our City limit policy as it can actually vary - the policy I referenced above is for areas of the City that also share the State boundary - so not only are people on the other side of the line not in the City, they are in another State.


If it is a section of the City where the other side is in the same state, but another municipality or the county, we are to report the correct location, and have our dispatchers ask that jurisdiction if they want us to provide mutual aid. During that time we may take "limited action". This is a much easier policy to work in because that will always say yes, operate under mutual aid and if they don't, you Canale the argument that putting the fire out was the easiest "limited action" you could perform to ensure life safety for any potential victims and ourselves.

 

[jswwjw]

If you ignore a possible injury or are a probably part of an accident you should stop. My original comments was that good practices (just as the officer did) is good practice.


I would stop.


Just my opinion.

 

[tvsjr]

4. Your last sentence nailed it - there is no room in my department for common sense. Everything is in black and white and if you deviate from it, you may be okay, but you may also get your ass handed to you from the Administration.

It almost sounded like these were your ideas at first... if it's a brain-dead administration, then you don't have much choice (as long as you want to stay employed). I'm not sure I could survive in that sort of environment...

 

[WS224]

It almost sounded like these were your ideas at first... if it's a brain-dead administration, then you don't have much choice (as long as you want to stay employed). I'm not sure I could survive in that sort of environment...

It's a bummer.....