Why are there so many tanker accidents?
I read with intrigue “Partnerships Help Create Joint Training/Prevention Facility” by Nyle Zikmund (Volunteers Corner, March 2007).
Several weeks ago in a nearby county, a 3,400-gallon, tandem-axle, custom-built tanker en route to a fire prevention seminar, for unknown reasons, veered into the oncoming lane, struck a car head-on, completely left the roadway, and overturned. Both firefighters in the tanker and the civilian driver were injured; the tanker was heavily damaged.
It seems that every other month we read of a bad accident involving a fire service water tanker. Two firefighters I worked with went to several conventions and seminars in the early 1970s. They told me back then (although our department has never had a tanker) that “tankers have come a long way in the past few years.”
If tankers have come a long way since 1971, why do they have such a poor record concerning accidents? Do tanker drivers forget about “all that load in the back,” or are tankers poorly designed? Many departments would like to acquire a tanker for large brush fires alongside interstate highways or forested parklands, but they don’t have the budget, the personnel, or the physical space to accommodate such a vehicle.
We in the fire service need to do much, much more about water tanker safety. A training facility with a driving simulator is a good place to start. Far too many tankers are involved in tragic, unnecessary accidents.
David Titus
Firefighter (Ret.)
Marietta, Georgia
Varied perspectives on “red lights and sirens”
Red Lights and Sirens: Marketing Tools” is an excellent approach. We in the New Zealand Fire Service treat all of our calls this way and respond under lights. Our public loves to hear us going about our work; and, as we say, “ Keeping them happy keeps us in a job.” This is just another tool in our “Public Relations” handbook. Ours is a national service with 2,000 paid professionals protecting about 4.5 million people out of 68 stations.
Mike Manning
Senior Firefighter, Rescue 56
Hastings Fire Station
New Zealand Fire Service
Mark Wallace’s “Red Lights and Sirens: Marketing Tools” (Fire Engineering, March 2007) expresses opinions that were obviously thought out very carefully by the author. While I am sure that his intentions were honorable, I believe that his opinions advocate potentially illegal actions. The thought that a fire department would place its image and marketing concerns ahead of safety and professional responsibility is almost incomprehensible.
Wallace expressed the belief that a fire department is justified in responding with red lights and siren to calls where there is no real emergency, because it is reassuring to the clients to hear that help is on the way and it also contributes to marketing the fire department’s image within the community. I believe that this marketing strategy would produce a totally negative reaction if the public became aware of it.
The 16 Firefighter Life Safety Initiatives developed three years ago by the first National Summit of Firefighter Life Safety were formulated as the basis of a strategic plan to reduce firefighter deaths. Initiative Number 11 states that “National standards for emergency response policies and procedures should be developed and championed.” The discussions that led to the development of this initiative were specifically directed toward reducing unnecessary and unwarranted emergency responses as a means of reducing firefighter fatalities and injuries.
There was almost unanimous agreement among the Summit participants that emergency response exposes firefighters, as well as the general public, to an increased risk of accidents and injuries. There was also a broad consensus of opinion that fire department vehicles respond with red lights and siren to a large number of incidents where emergency response is not truly justified. The Summit identified the need for consensus criteria to determine when emergency response is justified. Based on this initiative, many fire departments have adopted policies to reduce emergency responses by carefully defining the criteria that justify the use of warning lights and sirens. In addition, the Summit participants recommended the development of national guidelines to define appropriate policies and procedures for the operation of fire department vehicles when red lights and sirens are in use.
Wallace bases part of his argument on the assumption that emergency response should not increase the risk of accidents if the drivers of emergency vehicles exercise an appropriate level of caution and comply with all prescribed driving procedures. This is an invalid assumption; there is no question that emergency response increases the risk of accidents, even when all policies and procedures are followed. Every time we cross an intersection against a red light, exceed the speed limit, or exercise any of the exceptions from traffic laws permitted for emergency vehicles, we accept an increased level of risk of an accident en route. The increased risk is considered justifiable because the anticipated benefits of rapid response to the emergency are expected to exceed the increased risk exposure. That risk/benefit analysis is invalid if there is no true emergency. If there is no situation that would benefit from rapid response-no life to be saved, no injury or illness that will have more severe consequences if treatment is delayed, no fire that creates an imminent danger to lives and property-then there is no justification for emergency response.
Conscientiously following every safe emergency driving procedure cannot eliminate the increased risk inherent in every emergency response. Even if we could fully manage the actions of every fire department driver, we cannot control the actions and reactions of every other driver and pedestrian along the path we must travel to reach the scene of an incident.
When we operate a vehicle with red lights and siren, we expect all other drivers to see us and hear us coming and to move to the right and stop; we expect them to yield the right of way at intersections, even if they are looking at a green light; we expect pedestrians to refrain from crossing the street in front of an oncoming emergency vehicle, even if they are in a marked crosswalk with a signal light indicating it is safe to cross. We expect them all to do these things, yet we know that we cannot count on everyone else to do what is expected, so we train our drivers to anticipate and react appropriately to whatever those other drivers and pedestrians might do. The increased risk is always there, no matter how much we try to compensate for it.
We are also fooling ourselves if we think that we can manage all of our emergency vehicle drivers to conscientiously follow every emergency response rule 100 percent of the time, every time. Almost everyone makes a mistake once in awhile. If we make a simple mistake during emergency response, the potential consequences are more severe than they would be during nonemergency response.
Ideally, the microscopic quantity of adrenalin released when the red lights and siren are activated will cause us to be even more careful than usual, although most of us can name at least one firefighter who occasionally experiences an adrenalin rush that has the opposite effect. In reality, the sense of urgency consciously or subconsciously connected to the sound of a siren has the potential to encourage more risk instead of less risk, even within the most conscientious firefighter operating under the direct supervision of an extremely conscientious officer.
The motor vehicle laws in every state provide specific exceptions from the rules of the road that apply to emergency vehicles when responding to emergency incidents. The traffic laws also place a high level of responsibility on the emergency vehicle driver to exercise due regard for the safety of all other drivers. The legal justification for these provisions is based on the assumption that there is a valid emergency situation that is likely to benefit from faster response time. Using red lights and siren to respond to a situation known or believed to be a nonemergency negates the legal justification and probably creates increased civil liability if an accident does occur.
A written policy directing drivers to use red lights and siren when responding to nonurgent incidents is probably opening the door to a lawsuit if an accident occurs. It is one thing to state that the fire department policy is to respond in an emergency mode if there is a reasonable expectation that the situation is or could be a valid emergency; it is entirely different to advocate the use of red lights and siren to incidents believed to be nonurgent, as a marketing strategy. I think that a plaintiff’s attorney could take that policy to the bank.
In addition to the safety and liability issues, there are issues of public trust and convenience to consider. When we use red lights and sirens to obtain the right of way, we disrupt the flow of traffic. If we use preemption devices, we take traffic signals out of the programmed sequence intended (successfully or unsuccessfully) to facilitate efficient traffic flow through the community. Most cities hire traffic engineers to make the traffic flow more efficiently; they probably don’t expect their firefighters to work against that objective.
How many citizens who are caught in the traffic jam that results from an emergency vehicle’s passing through a major intersection during rush hour would be impressed to find out that we are en route to a place a bandage on a skinned knee and we are only using the lights and siren to make the public more aware of our dedication to their best interests? How likely would they be to yield the right of way next time if they knew we were just trying to impress them this time?
The siren sound that might be reassuring to the mother of little Johnny with the skinned knee is also heard by hundreds of other people in the community who could lose sleep over it, be upset by it, or simply find it stressful. Warning noise is acceptable if there is a justification for the emergency response; however, unnecessary noise is an environmental contaminant.
As much as Wallace may honestly believe that red lights and sirens are good marketing tools, irresponsible behavior is never justifiable. Fire chiefs should be working toward reducing unnecessary risks by decreasing unnecessary emergency responses. Policies should realistically differentiate between situations where rapid response is likely to produce a more positive outcome and situations where an extra minute or two will not make any difference. We should try to impress the citizens with our professionalism.
J. Gordon Routley
Chief (Ret.), Shreveport, Louisiana
Firefighter Health and Safety Consultant
Liaison Director-IAFC Safety, Health and Survival Section
Mark Wallace responds: I value Routley’s opinion and point of view. In hindsight, I should have written more about the initial safety considerations effectively pointed out instead of relying on a few bullet points. I believed that the initial caveats would be built into the subsequent considerations of this marketing concept by its readers. Based on the comments, it is clear that that was not the case. As correctly pointed out, my marketing considerations have been carefully thought out, discussed, and evaluated. In fact, I use the same considerations as have been written so articulately.
We, however, have differing conclusions (neither is wrong). I believe that two basic schools of thought are that we can’t be as safe if we turn on our lights and sirens during an emergency response or that we have to have as much safety built into our emergency response driving as we have with our nonemergency response driving. Both are valid positions; the difference is based on the competence, culture, and supervision within various departments. If a department’s drivers can’t maintain the same effective outcomes when they are operating red lights and sirens during a response as when responding without red lights and siren, they should not respond in the manner that exposes the crews and the public to the increased risks. I knew when submitting my article (and as is indicated in its first sentence) that there would be differences of opinion about this marketing concept. Having this discussion, therefore, is a great outcome.
By reviewing as many fire department-involved motor vehicle accidents as possible, with the full range of consequences possible, I found that three factors were the most common proximate causes. First was driving too fast for the conditions; second was collisions while backing the apparatus; and third was proceeding with the false assumption that people see you and will act to get out of your way or otherwise yield as you proceed through traffic. So our personnel should slow down, always have a backer, and don’t assume they have the right of way-ever. Further, they should never move until everyone has buckled up. At the same time, the operation of red lights and sirens was not found as the proximate cause of any of the accidents I have reviewed. That may not be the case in other localities. (I try to review every line-of-duty death as well as many motor vehicle accidents with lesser consequences and pass the information along to all members within my department.)
Another factor is that of how fire department personnel go about the business of responding to emergencies-i.e., its philosophy of operations. Department culture plays a role. Proper supervision is another critical factor. Self-discipline and experience are yet other key factors. Trained, professional (career and volunteer), self-disciplined, and properly supervised drivers must be required to and must consistently respond to emergencies while operating equipment with the same level of safety they would if driving without operating emergency equipment. Equipping apparatus with effective, sound-limiting headsets is also a safety factor that protects personnel from the effects of siren noise over time.
The use of red lights and sirens does not give our drivers license to drive in a manner that jeopardizes their safety or the safety of others. Department members must understand that arriving safely on the scene of an incident without causing harm along the way is more important than driving fast. They simply should not be allowed to drive unless they can consistently arrive on-scene safely and without creating additional incidents while en route. Effective drivers drive defensively and never assume that others will act appropriately to prevent accidents or yield the right of way or pull to the right and stop as our apparatus approaches them while responding to emergency incidents. We can never assume that we have the right of way to proceed through traffic until we are certain that the other drivers give us the right of way. “Everyone Goes Home” cannot just be a slogan on a wristband. Our personnel must live this by their behaviors, every day, every call, every kind of action.
In addition to authorizing emergency response units to respond to reported emergencies using red lights and sirens, we must rely on the judgment of the drivers and on effective supervision by the officer in the right seat-70, 80, or even 90 percent success as a standard of this performance is not good enough. Our expectation should be that we arrive safely 100 percent of the time.
When a 911 call is received and the dispatcher gathers the information about the call, that information should be provided to the emergency responders so that they can begin their size-up and respond effectively. As often as not, the reported information is inaccurate. As additional information is obtained and provided to the response units, appropriate decisions can be made, and officers should be authorized to use their discretion on how to proceed. If seemingly reliable information is received indicating that a call is a false alarm, an alarm malfunction, or some other nonemergency/noninjury incident, it is then a responsible action to switch off the lights and sirens. The crew still must proceed safely to the given address just to be sure. All too often, we find a house full of smoke, a person embarrassed to be having a heart attack, or simply difficulty with an alarm system with which we can assist. As often as the real situation is found to be a nonemergency incident, we find that it really is an appropriate emergency response call. Within the past week, my department responded to a reported minor injury at a sports complex that in reality was a serious closed head injury; the injured child was flown to a trauma center.
The legality of emergency responses is a local or state-by-state issue. It should go without saying that we must follow the laws governing fire department emergency response and the use of red lights and siren. Again, I could have made that point more specifically in my article. Most laws provide that while operating both red lights and sirens, you may take actions that would otherwise be illegal, such as reasonably exceeding the speed limits, moving through an intersection while the traffic light is still red, or driving for a limited distance the wrong way on a one-way street. The laws do not, however, say that you have to violate these traffic laws. In most cases, it simply doesn’t make sense to do so, and the risk far outweighs the few seconds saved. Driving at excessive speeds for the conditions, failure to ensure that the other drivers give you the right of way, assuming that everyone will pull to the right and stop to get out of your way as you approach, and other such safety violations are not acceptable.
We market our department to the people in our communities in all that we do. Those we serve develop their personal perceptions on such things as professionalism, compassion, trust, honesty, and integrity-i.e., our core values-from their view of our actions. They decide what their perceptions are; we don’t. Each contact or observation is a moment of truth for their perception development. Giving them the perception that we don’t care is as bad as creating the perception that sirens must be connected to the accelerator pedal on fire engines or that we risk our lives needlessly.
Our goals should be to provide high-quality service and ensure that “Everyone Goes Home.” Mine is most certainly. The marketing strategy of my article is intended to meet both goals. Whether others accept or reject the point I make is not within my control. I focused on but did not provide enough information about the second and equally important goal. As a life-long learner, I strive to learn more and consider differing perspectives every day. I appreciate the insights and comments.
Fire Engineering’s new format, layout garners compliments
The layout and format of the March 2007 issue of Fire Engineering were super. It is the best issue so far in layout, design, and quality of articles. I look forward to reading future issues. I am a subscriber.
Philip Levy
Atlanta, Georgia
I “love” Fire Engineering’s new look. Keep up the good work.
Rick Mosher
Merriam (KS) Fire Department
Seeks info on SCBA, APR respirators for applied research project
I am a currently enrolled in the Ohio Fire Executive program and have started working on my applied research project. The topic for my project is SCBA and increasing firefighter compliance to wear it until outside of the contaminated atmosphere. In addition to the information pertaining to when-if at all-firefighters may remove their SCBA during overhaul, my project will cover fiefighter attitudes, knowledge base, fire department policies and procedures, and real-life operations.
I would appreciate it if Fire Engineering readers would share with me their department policies and operational procedures. I would also like to hear from departments that supply APR respirators to their members and the criteria for wearing them. My e-mail address is NurseRescue@aol.com; my phone number is (440) 338-6161, ext. 211.
James Bell
Lieutenant
Russell Fire-Rescue Department
Novelty, Ohio
Editor’s note: In Eric Bachman’s article “Prepare to Ensure a Sufficient Water Suppy” (Fire Engineering, April 2007), on page 236, the sentence “Dr. Hickey, an ISO representative, and a Pennsylvania State Fire Academy instructor … verified the times” should read “Larry E. Maynard, ALCM, CFPS, CPCU, senior field representative, Insurance Services Office, Inc … verified the times.”
