Hacker News Reader

Comment by mkmk | Hacker News Reader

> Alternatively, L&S [lights and siren] response increases the chance of an EMS vehicle crash by 50% and almost triples the chance of crash during patient transport

Wow.

View on HN

Another stat which is not particularly helpful out of context. Per mile driven, per per job, per hour of service? Are there any external factors that might influence this (e.g. are a significant proportion of these ambulances getting hit by drunk drivers at night time).

I also don’t see a break down of lights OR sirens (not sure in the US, but in Europe often at night, emergency vehicles operate without sirens unless the driver believes it necessary).

There’s also a statement that the majority of these accidents happen at intersections and traffic signals, but does not consider that it is likely the number would be higher without lights and sirens, and instead likely this is caused by emergency vehicles operating outside the normal of driving.

I am not an expert in this, and these 14 groups surely seem to be, but the statement’s statistics don’t do much to help support their argument.

Your point is valid, but it’s an interesting note that the document in the linked page reads like a summary, which it probably is. It’s probably the case here, as with most summaries, that some detail has been omitted for brevity.

I wonder if those statistics are covered in more detail in the actual studies being referenced.

I wonder if this has to do with the insanely bright LED lights used on emergency vehicles now. I can't imagine being in a car at night and having photosensitivity for migraines or even worse epilepsy. it's so bright on some I can't focus on driving.

What id really like to know is if this was studied before LED strobes and to compare it specifically for that.

It's mostly other drivers over reacting to be if help?

I don't have any special sensitivity to light that I'm aware of, at least in any other aspect of daily life, but I can't even look in the general direction of emergency vehicles with all lights blazing at night, and it presents a real hazard for me when trying to navigate around them.

I don't think they consider how dazzling the lights can be. Some municipalities seem to be aware of this, but others aren't.

I also find them dazzling and have to avert my eyes. It's hard to imagine that looking away is helping with safety.

So, better outcome to drive to hospital instead of calling for ambulance.

I can’t tell if you’re being facetious so apologies if this went over my head, but no, almost certainly not, but the stats in the article don’t give enough context to make that decision.

Wouldn't it depend on injury, your location, and local knowledge of the area? A simple broken arm 8km from the hospital where I am means call a friend - ambulances are allocated by severity and life-threatening-ness. You may be way down the list of priorities.

I think basically my internal heuristic is “do I need someone to come HERE to help fix this?”

If the answer is no, then maybe call a friend.

> drive to hospital instead of calling for ambulance

When some hospitals reach their capacity, they'll instruct ambulances to go to another hospital, which could be a worse hospital or much further away. If you're able to drive yourself or get someone to drive you, you can go to the closer/better hospital, and it's my understanding that they cannot turn you away if it's an emergency.

Ambulance admission vs 'Walking injured' admission have different triage queues though, so by taking yourself to hospital to avoid 'going to a bad hospital' you're almost certainly nerfing your care.

They can’t turn you away at emergency, but they can force you to wait an unbounded time to be seen if their triage screening puts you behind other patients and there is enough flow of patients that triage higher to consume their capacity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com