Do you fasten your seatbelt for every journey?.....really?......I don't

optimus_primera

stevemcol wrote: »

your second equation describes two cars crashing seperately into a wall, not a combined collision. The speeds need to be combined before squaring.

but if one car hits first, then isn't the wall then weakened before the 2nd car hits it? and more importantly, does the owner of the wall mind you testing your theories on it ??? lol

stevemcol

We are allowed to say RTA by the way. It's just the police, feeling someone must always be to blame, who changed it to RTC. Probably cost £50K for a consultancy to come up with it.

Torry_Quine

I worked in A & E before wearing a seatbelt was compulsory and have seen what can happen when you don't. When you have seen someone go headfirst through a windscreen you won't ever think twice about wearing one again.

Flyboy152

stevemcol wrote: »

We are allowed to say RTA by the way. It's just the police, feeling someone must always be to blame, who changed it to RTC. Probably cost £50K for a consultancy to come up with it.

You are seriously not suggesting it is a politically motivated phrase, are you?

Gandalfthesecond

bigjl wrote: »

NO, can you assess an RTC, consider all the relevant info given to you as you approach the vehicles by the witnesses that are screaming and shouting, then make a decision based on "mechanism of injury" and then be able to prioritise the patients in an intial triage based on what info you have gained in the 30 seconds you have to come to a decision?


You are, as I already stated, performing in the good tradition ot the MSE Forum, moving something that into cour comforrt zone, and by doing so trying to prove that you can !!!! higher up the wall than anybody else.


You can head off down the geeks forum if you want to be a smart !!!!, the simple facts are you are introducing all kinds of irrelevance into the thread to try and show yourself to be the top dog, mr I know it all due to be able to quote physics and dynamics.


I see your type all the time, in the real world, flapping and panicking and asking me for help.


You are trying to take a gun to a knife fight too quote Clarkson.


You are unable to understand what I mean by "mechanism of injury" so have introduced another issue to the thread.


You neither want to leanr or allow others to learn on this forum, just try and show yourself to be billy big !!!!!!!!.


When you are assessing an incident, in this case we are discussing an RTC, you don't stop to consider the NCAP ratings, what strength steel has been used, which car has deformed and why, you don't consider lots of things that will be considered at a later stage.

In other words all your theoretical mumbo jumbo, it isn't relevant at the time of an RTC and isn't relevant in this thread.

If the thread was to discuss the exact science behind the crash and its effects on the body, then we would all head down to MIRA and have a theoretical jawbone.

But this is a thread about usage of seatbelts.

Now go down your nearest Hospital and try and speak to one of the Basics Dr's or a HEMS Dr if you live near a large city.

Their training is broadly similar, Pre-Hospital Trauma, but they do the Gucci stuff like RSI and we only crack the chest with tuff cuts under their instruction.

We do however assess the scene in a similar way.

Anybody that has been involved in an RTC with a stationary object such as a wall at 60mph is considered to have a similar "mechanism of injury" as the occupants of a either car when they are in collision whilst both doing 30mph.

Not sure why this is confusing to somebody that likes to talk up how clever he is.

The angle of the collision is also considered, as is the mass of each vehicle and where the vehicles have actually made contact with each other.

Now why exactly are you continuing to introduce irrelevances into the thread?

Your point is as reletive to this therad as my asking you what exemptions an Ambulance can claim en route to a 999 call. That has nothing to do with this thread either.

I take it you know what being pedantic is?


Or is the actual issue that you are a member of the Polo mint carrying Johnnies? And have been upset by an Ambulance crew telling you to wind your neck in, is that it?

If you can't see why

pe·dan·tic


–adjective

1. ostentatious in one's learning.
2. overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, especially in teaching.
3. bigjl.;)

stevemcol

Flyboy152 wrote: »

You are seriously not suggesting it is a politically motivated phrase, are you?

I just get irritated, in all walks of life, when people, usually senior management, feel they need to make their mark by changing a phrase that everyone uses and is widely understood. RTA to RTC, Personnel to Human Resources, Casualty to Accident and Emergency, Fireman to Firefighter, Ambulance Driver to Paramedic...........

.......Marathon to Snickers, Jif to Cif.....

Well you get the idea with that.

Flyboy152

stevemcol wrote: »

I just get irritated, in all walks of life, when people, usually senior management, feel they need to make their mark by changing a phrase that everyone uses and is widely understood. RTA to RTC, Personnel to Human Resources, Casualty to Accident and Emergency, Fireman to Firefighter, Ambulance Driver to Paramedic...........

.......Marathon to Snickers, Jif to Cif.....

Well you get the idea with that.

Although I agree with you on the change of names for no reason, many of what you have quoted was not inappropriate:

"Casualty" was a bit anachronistic. "Accident and Emergency" was more descriptive and is now changing to the shorter "Emergency Department."

"Fireman," I am sure you will agree does kind of exclude large part of the workforce.

"Ambulance Driver" does tend to belittle the professional achievements and high qualifications attained by paramedics.

"Personnel," again, it doesn't fully describe what the department actually does.

But, "Road Traffic Accident," to "Road Traffic Collision," was very necessary. Calling it an accident assumes that no one was to blame, there is, in nearly every case, someone to blame (notwithstanding a rock slide, earthquake, flood etc.). Calling it an "accident," kind of absolves all parties.

Snickers on the other hand.........GRRRRRRRRRRRRR. It doesn't actually mean anything.

stevemcol

The previous nomenclature may not have been totally accurate but had been around long enough to be understood and draw the necessary associations. Changing names to be seen to move with the times adds no value and actually costs money in reprinting signs, stationary, contracts etc.
If being an Ambulance Driver belittles, how do you feel about being a Human Resource? Has changing from RTA to RTC affected the accident (sorry collision) rate in any way? When changing from Casualty to Accident and Emergency, why couldn't they get it right first time? And I imagine most female Firemen would find their job title quite amusing. WPC was very precise but they got rid of that as well.

Now I'm off to buy a roll of Bounty, sorry Plenty.

Flyboy152

stevemcol wrote: »

The previous nomenclature may not have been totally accurate but had been around long enough to be understood and draw the necessary associations. Changing names to be seen to move with the times adds no value and actually costs money in reprinting signs, stationary, contracts etc.
If being an Ambulance Driver belittles, how do you feel about being a Human Resource? Has changing from RTA to RTC affected the accident (sorry collision) rate in any way? When changing from Casualty to Accident and Emergency, why couldn't they get it right first time? And I imagine most female Firemen would find their job title quite amusing. WPC was very precise but they got rid of that as well.

Now I'm off to buy a roll of Bounty, sorry Plenty.

And it is attitudes such as this that proves the anachronisms. I know many paramedics who dread the term "ambulance driver." It consigns them to nothing more than over qualified taxi drivers. An ambulance driver, a role which still exists, is a person who drives an ambulance, nothing more. And up until fairly recently, that is exactly what they did. They would transport accident victims to hospital, with no more skill than that of an office first aider. They wore suits with peaked hats and did little to improve survivability rates (apologies to former "ambulance drivers," I know that the commitment was there, but the training was severely lacking). Since the nineteen eighties, paramedics have had better and improving training. There are also different specialist paramedics and even those who travel in helicopters (can hardly call them "ambulance drivers," can we?). Paramedics who treat burns victims and traffic collision victims. Those who accompany mountain rescue teams and coast guard and lifeboat crews. "Ambulance Driver," hardly befits their contribution, does it.

Most female Firefighters I know, hate the term "Fireman" (and as far as I know, so do most male firefighters). It ignores the very valuable and equal contribution they make to the service.

Woman Police Officer; another archaic term, from a thankfully, long gone era. It set female police officers apart from their male colleagues and suggested their efforts were somewhat less regarded than their male counterparts'.

As for Accident versus Collision; no it didn't improve the incident rate, but it sure as heck took the "no blame" culture away, from the minds of those whose job it was to apportion culpability.

cyclonebri1

stevemcol wrote: »

We are allowed to say RTA by the way. It's just the police, feeling someone must always be to blame, who changed it to RTC. Probably cost £50K for a consultancy to come up with it.

Don't forget RTI (incident). That actually makes more sense to me as I'm pretty sure all "accidents" are'nt accidental.;)

Can't ever see me explaining to my grandsons that it now "Firefighter Sam":rotfl:

The whole political correctness issue when you remove racism from the equation is to be honest pathetic. Fact is politically correct or incorrect, viryually anything you say is going to offend someone:A