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

stevemcol

Interesting discussion FlyBoy and I don't think we'll find any middle ground. I don't think any reasonable person actually cares about their own job title; I know I don't. Having said that I'm in awe at the length of some of the email signatures I come across; generally not from reasonable people I hasten to add.

Cyclonbri1 is more on my frequency (we don't say wavelength anymore, I got the memo).

Strider590

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SWAG6mqXXQ

sniper666

Yup every journy, ok am bit slow at it sometimes may have traveled 50yards before its done but yeah everytime.

bigjl

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.

No, the Police, Ambulance and Fire Brigade have called them RTC's for several years now, actualy I think it was the Fire Brigade that went first in London with the RTC terminology.

bigjl

Gandalfthesecond wrote: »

pe·dan·tic


–adjective

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

This is from the person that has helped move a thread from wearing a seatbelt to some kind of physics lesson.

Listen if you don't understand that the ability of a car to deform and how much is irrelevant in the initial assessment and triage at the scene of a multi behicle collision.

These things, as I have already pointed out, are irrelevant in estimating a "mechanism of injury", you don't need to know how rigid the car was prior to the accident. Or how it deforms.

I could look out the textbook we used in basic training a decade or so ago and have a look, but from memory it was kept simple, but did focus on speed and mass and their relation to the accident, but obviously in most cases assumptions must be made to expedite what needs to be done, is a Mondeo exactly the same mass as a Passat, no, but you assume they weight the same, otherwise you would be ponitficating all day and not doing their job.

But you seem unable or unwilling to realise that when two cars hit head on then the patients must be treated as though they have suffered the maximum amount of force possible, not the least, not the exact accurate figure, but an estimate, which is done in a few seconds. Therefore if two cars are both doing 30mpg and hit head on the forces are assumed to be the same as that in a car hitting a wall or stationary car at 60mph.

Can you seriously not see why the extra stuff that is being added in is irrelevant?

Obviously there will be things which are non standard, there will be higher forces in an accident when one vehicle is a standard car and one is a bus.

If you have a problem with the way the Emergency Service personnel are trained in the UK and in fact most of the world then I suggest you study medicine for about 6 years, become a trauma surgeon, maybe work on HEMS or do 10 years as a BASICS Dr in a large City.

Then you can happily rewrite the textbooks that we use.

Including as much irrelevant info as possible, maybe using some form of slide rule perhaps, or a PDA, you could then input the exact weights, speed, direction etc and work out exactly what you think is needed.

Though do it quick because by the time you have done this the professionals will have already have priorotised the most seriously injured, had them extricated by the brickheads and already be at hospital getting their second CT scan done.

Must be rough when knowing all kind of stuff is proved irrelevant in most situations that don't involve being inside a laboratory.

Gandalfthesecond

bigjl wrote: »

This is from the person that has helped move a thread from wearing a seatbelt to some kind of physics lesson.

Listen if you don't understand that the ability of a car to deform and how much is irrelevant in the initial assessment and triage at the scene of a multi behicle collision.

These things, as I have already pointed out, are irrelevant in estimating a "mechanism of injury", you don't need to know how rigid the car was prior to the accident.

But you seem unable or unwilling to realise that when two cars hit head on then the patients must be treated as though they have suffered the maximum amount of force possible, not the least, not the exact accurate figure, but an estimate, which is done in a few seconds. Therefore if two cars are both doing 30mpg and hit head on the forces are assumed to be the same as that in a car hitting a wall or stationary car at 60mph.

Can you seriously not see why the extra stuff that is being added in is irrelevant?

Obviously there will be things which are non standard, there will be higher forces in an accident when one vehicle is a standard car and one is a bus.

If you have a problem with the way the Emergency Service personnel are trained in the UK and in fact most of the world then I suggest you study medicine for about 6 years, become a trauma surgeon, maybe work on HEMS or do 10 years as a BASICS Dr in a large City.

Then you can happily rewrite the textbooks that we use.

Including as much irrelevant info as possible, maybe using some form of slide rule perhaps, or a PDA, you could then input the exact weights, speed, direction etc and work out exactly what you think is needed.

Though do it quick because by the time you have done this the professionals will have already have priorotised the most seriously injured, had them extricated by the brickheads and already be at hospital getting their second CT scan done.

Must be rough when knowing all kind of stuff is proved irrelevant in most situations that don't involve being inside a laboratory.

Your changing your arguement now, a wall has become a car. You work for the ambulace service but then again maybe you do recons on the side.

stevemcol

bigjl wrote: »

No, the Police, Ambulance and Fire Brigade have called them RTC's for several years now, actualy I think it was the Fire Brigade that went first in London with the RTC terminology.

No I believe it was the Police though I accept it was years ago. RTA could provide an implied defence in a court case. However, the Road Traffic Act doesn't recognise RTC. Apparently there's a move in favour of RTI.

There's nothing wrong with a bit of thread creap if the subject is interesting. And if car body deformation wasn't important, manufacturers wouldn't seek to achieve it.

bigjl

stevemcol wrote: »

Interesting discussion FlyBoy and I don't think we'll find any middle ground. I don't think any reasonable person actually cares about their own job title; I know I don't.

I assume that you don't get people comparing you to an unskilled driver that takes people home from hospital after an outpatient appt, that have done a FAW course, had a CRB check, had their driving licence photocopied andd sent on their way.

Especially annoying when you can do things such as IV lines, IM and SubCut injections, obtain IO access, give fluids, treat all kinds of different life threatening conditions, give nebulised drugs, carry out and diagnose a STEMI from a 12 lead ECG, interpret it then take the patient right past A/E to a Cath Lab for treatment, shock pulseless VT and VF and manually shock fine VF, which to most people looks like asystole, intubate, use LMA's, wander round the place carrying Controlled Drugs which you can then give to patients without asking an adult or anything.

Be fully registered with the HPC in the same way as a Physio Therapist or an ODP.

Study for a Foundation Degree or with one more year a BSc Honours. After we pushed for years for better training.

Make clinical decisions without supervision, sometimes under a bus or in the street, maybe even in a tunnel on 7/7.
Recognise adult death and so not starting resusitation, stop resusitation without input from a Dr if you feel there is nothing more to be done.

Then visit Coroners Court as a professional witness, and The Old Bailey aswell sometimes. Note the number of Paras that attended the 7/7 enquiry.

Then have some !!!! call you an "Ambulance Driver"

Do you think a Senior PhysioTherapist -who are very skilled practitioners also educated to degree level- would like to be called a masseuse?


I think it depends what your job is.

If you where a maintenance engineer with a BEng in Mech Eng would you like to be called a bin man just because you maintained the machines at a recycling plant.

Maybe you might think we are being a bit petty.


No, not really, but the most annoying thing is when a Johnny or private PTS Ambulance Driver gets called a Paramedic, before I qualified I corrected people and advised them that I was still an EMT.

There is no shame in being an Ambulance Driver, but after several years of training I would like to be given my proper title thanks.

I would never address a Sister as Nurse for example, even though they are clinically the same on mosy cases, the Sister is a senior grade and deserves to have their seniority acknowledged.

bigjl

stevemcol wrote: »

No I believe it was the Police though I accept it was years ago. RTA could provide an implied defence in a court case. However, the Road Traffic Act doesn't recognise RTC. Apparently there's a move in favour of RTI.

There's nothing wrong with a bit of thread creap if the subject is interesting. And if car body deformation wasn't important, manufacturers wouldn't seek to achieve it.

The LFB first used the term RTC several years before the Met and LAS, can't speak for the rest of the country, but that is how things changed in my part of London. Though I don't think the use of RTA was official, I think that might be why the change was brought in officially, I wouldn't be surprised if the correct term was RTI all along and that RTA was just adopted as agreed terminology.

But yes I think I heard of somebody trying to defend a case using the defence the Police said it was an accident.

They are trying to stop Ambulance staff and A/E staff from using the term suspended for a patient in Cardiac Arrest, CA was always the official term but somehow when you blue a patient into hospital it seems nicer to use the phrase suspended when the relatives can here you, it doesn't seem as final somehow.


Car body deformation is not relevant to the subject of the thread and was only introduced by some spanner trying to be a smart !!!! as he didn't understand the term "mechanism of injury" so decided to be a smart !!!!.

This thread went daft when I stated that the "mechanism of injury" in a head-on crash between two cars travelling at 30 mph is broadly the same as the "mechanism of injury" in a car doing 60mph and hitting a stationary car or wall.

And before captain pedantic quotes my previous post I haven't gone back to check as I have a life.

Then some people thought it was necessary to babble on about levels of deformation etc, then some other boring crap.

Still doesn't change the fact that unless you have hours to spend doing exact calculations then assumptions have to be made.

There are too many variables in car deformation for anybody to consider on scene.

Who cares if there is slighty less forces exerted on somebodies aorta in a new Renault than would be in a twenty yr old Fiat.

These things are interesting to work out later, and most certainly would be considered by the Coroner, as the Police can forensically examine the computers attached to the airbags etc to work out speed using the info recorded on there, and actually use it to press charges.

All this lovely theory is completely irrelevant to my statement, and my statement is as true now as it was when i posted it up the first time.

Note for some that have problems, I used the word "broadly", meaning not exactly, or that there is some element of estimation involved.

Gandalfthesecond

bigjl wrote: »

The LFB first used the term RTC several years before the Met and LAS, can't speak for the rest of the country, but that is how things changed in my part of London. Though I don't think the use of RTA was official, I think that might be why the change was brought in officially, I wouldn't be surprised if the correct term was RTI all along and that RTA was just adopted as agreed terminology.

But yes I think I heard of somebody trying to defend a case using the defence the Police said it was an accident.

They are trying to stop Ambulance staff and A/E staff from using the term suspended for a patient in Cardiac Arrest, CA was always the official term but somehow when you blue a patient into hospital it seems nicer to use the phrase suspended when the relatives can here you, it doesn't seem as final somehow.


Car body deformation is not relevant to the subject of the thread and was only introduced by some spanner trying to be a smart !!!! as he didn't understand the term "mechanism of injury" so decided to be a smart !!!!.

This thread went daft when I stated that the "mechanism of injury" in a head-on crash between two cars travelling at 30 mph is broadly the same as the "mechanism of injury" in a car doing 60mph and hitting a stationary car or wall.

And before captain pedantic quotes my previous post I haven't gone back to check as I have a life.

Then some people thought it was necessary to babble on about levels of deformation etc, then some other boring crap.

Still doesn't change the fact that unless you have hours to spend doing exact calculations then assumptions have to be made.

There are too many variables in car deformation for anybody to consider on scene.

Who cares if there is slighty less forces exerted on somebodies aorta in a new Renault than would be in a twenty yr old Fiat.

These things are interesting to work out later, and most certainly would be considered by the Coroner, as the Police can forensically examine the computers attached to the airbags etc to work out speed using the info recorded on there, and actually use it to press charges.

All this lovely theory is completely irrelevant to my statement, and my statement is as true now as it was when i posted it up the first time.

Note for some that have problems, I used the word "broadly", meaning not exactly, or that there is some element of estimation involved.

But too much time to post on here.