Sturdier Cars Making Rescues Harder

southpawboston · Mar 20, 2008

lodonal65 said:
Wow! This whole article and responses have really opened my eyes.
I never thought my "safe" vehicle could one day be not so safe when it comes to the aftermath of a crash.

except that the statistics show that the alternative (the "unsafe" car) would mean that you'd be dead before the rescue team even arrives

i'll take me "safe" car over the alternative anyday.

Kabes · Mar 20, 2008

southpawboston said:
i don't think it's accurate or fair to say that safer cars "don't mean a d*mn thing" if you can't get the person out before they die. the safer car can mean the difference between the person in the accident being stable and safely waiting for rescue personnel to cut them out, versus being dead already when the rescue personnel arrive. in that scenario, the jaws of life "don't mean a d*mn thing" because the passengers were DOA (or, for you emergency responders, "DRT"). the safer car does a better job at injury and death *prevention* in the first place. statistically, people are safer and there are fewer fatalities because cars are safer, not because people are getting extracted from their cars any better. so even with the extraction technology remaining the same, less people are dying. it is the cars' safer designs that are to thank for that, not the jaws of life.

also, car makers may have the expertise in designing safe cars with newer technologies, but they are not necessarily experts in tool designs. they shouldn't be responsible for designing or making the tools to extract people. leave that up to the tool companies. however, i do feel it is the responsibility of the car makers to provide the technical data to the tool companies about what types of material exist on different parts of the car, and what types of forces might be required to cut different parts of the car apart. basically, they should make that data available to the tool companies so that they can develop the proper tools.

but why should the car makers have to foot the bill for such tools? the job of the car maker is to make cars, and to make them SAFE during an accident. once the accident has happened and the car has protected its occupants, its job is done.

should the developers who build the houses we live in be responsible for funding the fire departments? after all, if it weren't for our houses, we wouldn't be risking death if there's a fire. (let's add in the plumbers, the electricians, carpenters, and masons into the responsibility mix, since they all had a hand in building the house). that's ridiculous. the responsibility has to end somewhere.

Neither one of us is down playing the importance of safer cars. Our point is even the safest cafe is not full proof. Accidents (sometimes bad ones) can, will, and do happen. Surely we can agree on that?

Yes, a safer car means a better change of surviving a crash and of having few, less severe injuries! I totally agree. I'm all for people being safe and avoiding pain, injuries and death.

I don't expect the automotive industry to develop the new tool but they should contribute to it and provide the information (as you stated) Developers/Builders aren't inventing new products that make it nearly impossible for a fire fighter to do his/her job. In fact there is a trend for housing materials to be less flamable not more. They should take vehicles that have been crash tested and run extrication tests on them. They should contribute funds towards making tools that will allow people from being extricated from the vehicles they manufacture.

If you disagree with that then please tell me where you think the funding should come from. A creative solution must be found because the truth remains that most fire departments in this country are struggling to meet minimum requirements. There is simply no budget to buy new extrication equipment.

My mother died when I was 18. I began my career as a paramedic because I wanted to give others the chance of life. It is distressing to those of us who have chosen this career path to show up to work determined to do our best to save the lives of those who are experiencing an emergency only have our hands tied behind our backs because we don't have tools that are advanced enough to do the job.

Jeanum · Mar 20, 2008

In our litigious world, if nothing else, the responsibility shouldn't stop once the vehicle manufacturer has produced a sturdier/safer/crash worthier vehicle for the consumer. It certainly would be advantageous for vehicle manufacturers to broaden their safety focus to coordinate and promote development of appropriate extrication tools for first responders, be it in terms of providing funding or subsidizing equipment for first responder groups, or technical info. to tool makers. It would be in the car maker's best interest to do so in our sue happy world where a plaintiff's legal representation would inevitably follow any litigation chain right back to the vehicle manufacturer involved. It's how our at times unsavory legal system works: follow the money, and the biggest fish involved in any crash is almost inevitably the automaker who produced the vehicle(s) involved.

Insurance companies should also be motivated to contribute to such an effort, from a dollars and sense standpoint in terms of medical costs arising from crash situations. It should ultimately be a collaborative win-win scenario rather than an adversarial one, similar to the progress in recent years to develop and promote vehicles with more safety bells and whistles and improved crash scores. :twocents:

Morganthe · Mar 20, 2008

Kabes said:
It is totally irresponsible of auto manufacturers to put cars on the market that they haven't tested in extrication scenarios.

It should be the auto manufacturers responsibility to provide funding to develop new and improved tools for extrication and to fund grants so fire departments can afford them and provide the training to use them.

It is nice to hear that the auto manufacturers are developing safer vehicles. I just don't think their responsibility stops there.

Kabes said:
The auto industry knows well before the fire department what is coming as far as safety upgrades. They already have a source of money. Yes, they will raise the price tag on vehicles. I would gladly pay the extra money.
....
Who should pay for the equipment and training necessary to save your life because the current equipment won't work because your car was made more safe?

The whole idea here ISN'T to slow down the production of safer cars, it IS to have the equipment needed to save your life when the safest car wasn't safe enough.

Oh Yikes, I can't agree at all with your idea of that the automakers are irresponsible or should pay for testing PLUS extrication equipment for the entire country. That's just insane. Especially since our US automakers are very vulnerable to going out of business entirely. Those are good jobs lost forever.

Darker 2008 for America's Automakers NYT art. Free Reg. Req.

The way that auto executives here have been talking, 2008 will be a bad year to sell cars and trucks in the United States. Every time one company predicts how the industry will fare, another seems to come up with an even more dismal number.
Most forecasts now come in ranging from 15.5 to 15.9 million vehicles, an estimate that would mark the worst year for sales in the United States since at least 1998.

It might be a mess partly of their own making -- gambling that oil prices would never rise high enough that us Americans NEED better fuel efficient vehicles. But it's here. I know I don't want to lose any more jobs to overseas workers through American corporations who make so much more money by evading the US government. Let's not give them an excuse to do so.

I don't know who exactly should pay for all this, but automakers will pass it along the line to the consumer who, these days, cannot really afford higher vehicle prices in the first place. It's not irresponsible of them. It's pure economics.

jmho.
And thanks to the OP for posting the article

fyrfightermomma · Mar 20, 2008

southpawboston said:
should the developers who build the houses we live in be responsible for funding the fire departments? after all, if it weren't for our houses, we wouldn't be risking death if there's a fire. (let's add in the plumbers, the electricians, carpenters, and masons into the responsibility mix, since they all had a hand in building the house). that's ridiculous. the responsibility has to end somewhere.

Except house developers aren't making it HARDER for us to do our job and fight fires...in most cases they are making it easier (less flammable materials, sprinkler systems etc.) Car makers are.

I agree with PP's that its not the car manuf. responsibility to PAY for the equipment and training...that just is not gonna happen...but I do think they have the responsiblity to share their info and technology with us and with tool companies and work with them in developing tools that can quickly cut people out....it may cost a little bit on their part, but definately wouldnt put them out of business. I think they atleast have that responsiblity.

After all this, who wants to bet I am going to get a car accident tonight and have to fume my way through it lol

Kabes · Mar 20, 2008

By funding I didn't mean to pay for these things completely. i would like to see them start the effort (provide some financial resources) and put their weight behind raising the total necessary to make it happen.

Judi · Mar 21, 2008

Eviesmama said:
LOL...you mean people have turnout gear that is newer than 1995????? I think mine is about that old! hehe My husbands "newest" truck on his department (a full time department) is from 1990....NFPA standards are trucks should be replaced after 15 yrs...kinda funny that their newest is what is considered too old

No, we have old turnouts. We are two upgrades behind. I finally got some that fit me, after being with the department for 4 years. I got brand new ones! My old ones, then go to someone else. Our duty rig is from like 1985, with no head rest, lap only. The tender is about the same age.

fyrfightermomma · Mar 21, 2008

Judi said:
No, we have old turnouts. We are two upgrades behind. I finally got some that fit me, after being with the department for 4 years. I got brand new ones! My old ones, then go to someone else. Our duty rig is from like 1985, with no head rest, lap only. The tender is about the same age.

Awww....thats horrible! I shouldnt complain then. While my DH is on a not so rich full time department... they have horrible equipment (in fact their ladder truck's ladder doesnt work and is from 1982) and I am on a more afluenent paid on call department. What I find odd though, is we are considered as having "lots of money" in the fire service circle.

The scary thing?? We still have tons of outdated equipment, old bunker gear, we just replaced our refurbished 1960 something pumper. If we who are considered "rich" have old equipment, trucks, and not up to date stuff, I just cant imagine the departments that honestly dont have the funds.

Its scary, since we are ALL expected to go into the same fires....whether you are the richest department in the world and have the best and greatest equipment or the poorest and barely have appropriate protective clothing...somethings not right about that

southpawboston · Mar 21, 2008

Kabes said:
They should take vehicles that have been crash tested and run extrication tests on them.

actually they do. in japan's NCAP tests, at least, one of the rankings is how difficult it is to open the driver's and passenger's doors. i'm sure they do that in most countries' crash tests, but it's just not published. the cost of crash testing is so high that i'm sure they extract as much data as possible... we just don't see most of it.

however, a standardized crash test does not usually leave the car in a condition where you would need extraction tools. most accidents that require extraction tools are far more severe than any standardized crash test.

southpawboston · Mar 21, 2008

Jeanum said:
Insurance companies should also be motivated to contribute to such an effort, from a dollars and sense standpoint in terms of medical costs arising from crash situations.

BINGO! you win the biggest rep-worthy post of the week!

the insurance companies are the ones who have to pay out in response to injury and death claims, and they're the ones who fund IIHS. :thumbsup: they're also the ones who rake in billions in profit and have very deep pockets. they're contribution to extraction technologies/funding will only pay for itself over and over again in the long run (by reducing claim payouts).

Judi · Mar 21, 2008

There are department in Oregon that have less than us. When we finally got new SCBAs. our old ones went to a department than had stuff older than our stuff and didn't have enough for their whole department!

Kabes · Mar 21, 2008

southpawboston said:
actually they do. in japan's NCAP tests, at least, one of the rankings is how difficult it is to open the driver's and passenger's doors. i'm sure they do that in most countries' crash tests, but it's just not published. the cost of crash testing is so high that i'm sure they extract as much data as possible... we just don't see most of it.

however, a standardized crash test does not usually leave the car in a condition where you would need extraction tools. most accidents that require extraction tools are far more severe than any standardized crash test.

Good info. re: Japan. They can still cut the tops off those crash tested vehicles with the current tool to see how long it takes. And use them to try out new tools on.

I agree, insurance companies should be stepping up to the plate on this one too!

safeinthecar · Mar 25, 2008

Sounds like an excellent topic for the Lifesavers Conference.

Sturdier Cars Making Rescues Harder

southpawboston

New member

Kabes

New member

Jeanum

Admin - CPS Technician Emeritus

Morganthe

New member

fyrfightermomma

New member

Kabes

New member

Judi

CPST/Firefighter

fyrfightermomma

New member

southpawboston

New member

southpawboston

New member

Judi

CPST/Firefighter

Kabes

New member

safeinthecar

Moderator - CPS Technician

Car-Seat.Org Facebook Group

Sponsors

Forum statistics