Apparatus Accidents: Focus on Intersection Safety
Training Notebook
Picture, if you will, the following scenario: Two units responding to a fire are communicating with a fire alarm dispatcher.
Dispatcher: “Attention all units responding to Box 125. We have reports of people trapped at the reported location.
“Ladder 99?”
“Acknowledged.”
“Ladder 100?”
“Acknowledged.”
Thirty seconds later, the following exchange of radio messages takes place:
“L 99 to Dispatcher. We have been involved in a major accident at Avenue Z and First Street and are unable to continue to Box 125.”
“L 100 to Dispatcher. We have been involved in a major accident at Avenue Z and First Street and are unable to continue to Box 125. In addition, we have several members injured.”
Does this sound humorous? Can you deduce who collided? It is not humorous because the two ladder trucks responding to Box 125 collided with each other at Avenue Z and First Street. To add frustration to injury, they are the only two ladder trucks responding to a location, with reports of people trapped. Not only will there be a delay in arriving to assist possible trapped occupants (while additional ladder companies are called from more distant locations), the fire department has already incurred several injuries without even reaching the fire scene.
This incident is not completely fictional. With some minor changes, it describes an actual occurrence. Fortunately, the final outcome was not as disastrous as it could have been. There were no lives lost, either at the fire or as a result of the collision. As a matter of fact, the reports of people trapped were erroneous. The fire department injuries were relatively minor, except for one man who was catapulted from the apparatus and subsequently retired on disability.
If the results of this incident had been more serious, the lives of many people would have changed dramatically. One can imagine the chain of events that would forever alter the lives of disabled members or relatives of those killed. This also applies to the potential fire victims, who were forced to leap from flames because neither ladder truck arrived.
A less important aspect of this incident, but one still worth considering, is that the media could have had a real field day. We can picture a graphic scene of citizens sprawled on the sidewalk after jumping from windows, while the next scene shows the two responding ladder trucks in various positions of disarray several blocks away. We might even hear statements (although conjecture) that had rescuers arrived, the victims would have been saved. This can be carried on and on, but I think the message is clear.
Using this incident as a basis for a discussion on apparatus accidents, I would like to zero in on intersection accidents in particular. We must realize the extreme danger involved when we race to alarms. Those who feel that we must slow down only at red lights, stop signs, etc., are playing Russian roulette. The only way to gain speed is to have quicker turnouts and constant training to reduce time wasted on the fireground. We must not try to make up time by increasing the pressure on the gas pedal.
How fast we approach and travel through intersections must depend on prevailing conditions. When a traffic signal is against us and we have limited vision to either side, the only prudent action is to stop and make sure that other traffic is yielding so we can proceed safely. The visual and audible devices on our trucks should never replace safe driving operations. They should be considered as aids and only aids to the professional driver. They alert other drivers that we are responding to an emergency and must be granted the right-of-way.
We, in turn, take action based on the reaction of other drivers to our warnings. We don’t assume that they see or hear us.
Due to the many vehicles with air conditioning, loud stereos, and highquality soundproofing, many times they don’t hear us. There are many reasons why they often do not see us.
TRAINING NOTEBOOK
Photo courtesy of FDNY Photo Unit
I am zeroing in on intersection accidents in this article because they have a high potential for deaths and serious injuries, and we have the ability to reduce them. I will cite a New York City experience to illustrate this.
Effective December 12, 1968, our department adopted the following regulation: “When responding to an alarm, stop before entering an intersection against a red light, stop sign, or yield sign to assure that the right-of-way is yielded by all intersection traffic.”
Over a nine-year period, before this regulation went into effect, we had eight civilians and one firefighter killed at intersections. During the nine years after the regulation became effective, one civilian and no firefighters were killed. The nine-year period was selected because there was no viable Safety Division before this period, and therefore records are not reliable.
A major point relative to these statistics is the total number of responses made. During the nine years before the regulation, there were 1,238,524 responses. During the nine-year period after the regulation took effect, there were 2,993,855 responses. There is no doubt in my mind that without our regulation there would have been more deaths and injuries since our exposure was almost three times as great during the second nine-year period.
Another important factor to consider is that the driving public generally does not yield to fire apparatus. Anyone in the fire service during this 18year period can attest to the public’s lack of compliance with this practice.
One interesting result of the study was that intersection accidents remained at 37% of our total accident record for both nine-year periods. However, the injury rate compiled for intersection accidents fell from 19.5% of the total to only 7% for the period following the regulation.
This can probably be attributed to two factors: lower approach speeds at controlled intersections, resulting in reduced collision impact, and lower acceleration speed through these same intersections after a stop.
As evidence that intersection accidents have the potential to cause injury, here are some of our statistics for 1984. These accidents were 48.5% of the total and caused 73.3% of the injuries. In other words, it takes almost three times as many other types of accidents to cause any injury.
Of course, statistics can be manipulated. However, no matter how you manipulate the above statistics, you cannot change the fact that intersections are a very real hazard. You must agree that the chance of two ladder trucks colliding and producing the introductory scenario is greater at an intersection than at any other location.
