I wonder who she'll call in an emergency?

[Old Frightful]

https://news.sky.com/story/woman-arrested-over-angry-note-to-ambulance-11257411

[Niels]

It is absolutely selfish beyond belief and I hope that she gets a just sentence. 

I've been in an ambulance when someone was at risk and I was so grateful to the motorists who moved aside to give a quick journey.

It just staggers belief that someone could have no empathy. It isn't normal behaviour. 

[Old Frightful]

Indeed.

I had an appointment on a Saturday morning a few months back and needed to meet someone at 9am. I walked out the door about 8.40am to find an ambulance blocking the street. At first I did think they could have parked a little more considerately to leave enough room for folk to get past but when I saw them trundling one of the neighbours out with all sorts of tubes and breathing apparatus attached to him, I realised that life really is too short.

[Derwent]

The woman is obviously an idiot with little empathy for anyone, but arrested for it seems a bit OTT. 

[gingerjon]

19 minutes ago, Derwent said:

The woman is obviously an idiot with little empathy for anyone, but arrested for it seems a bit OTT. 

I suspect the arrest was for " The crew was also allegedly subjected to verbal abuse during the incident."

[Dave T]

I'm certainly not sympathising with this woman, but it would be interesting to know whether they parked like complete idiots. There are idiots in every profession and that doesnt exclude ambulance drivers.

We live in an apt block and it is not unusual for cars to be blocked in by supermarket delivery drivers, couriers, bin wagons etc. and it can be very frustrating when you cant move for 15 to 20 mins. The bin wagon on a Sunday drives up flower beds, in effect churning up our garden just to make things slightly easier for them. 

It is not unusual for people driving for a living to behave inconsiderately so a touch more detail woild be interesting here. We havent had issues with ambulances to be fair.

Of course some people are just angry idiots!

 

[Mark S]

Another example of how self entitled we are becoming. She would be the first to kick off if she had to wait more than 30 seconds for an ambulance.

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, Mark S said:

Another example of how self entitled we are becoming. She would be the first to kick off if she had to wait more than 30 seconds for an ambulance.

Unless you know her this post literally has no substance.

[Derwent]

3 hours ago, gingerjon said:

I suspect the arrest was for " The crew was also allegedly subjected to verbal abuse during the incident."

Even so, calling somebody a few names seems to be a heinous crime these days. I keep hearing about how the boys in blue are massively under resourced and stretched to breaking point yet they can spare the time to deal with stuff like this. The reaction to this kind of stuff is completely OTT. I read yesterday where a man who made threats of violence on Facebook was actually jailed for longer than someone who had actually physically committed GBH on someone, both men sentenced on the same day in the same court building (different trials). I mean when did society become so screwed up that words are now more punishable than deeds ?

[gingerjon]

Just now, Derwent said:

Even so, calling somebody a few names seems to be a heinous crime these days. I keep hearing about how the boys in blue are massively under resourced and stretched to breaking point yet they can spare the time to deal with stuff like this. The reaction to this kind of stuff is completely OTT. I read yesterday where a man who made threats of violence on Facebook was actually jailed for longer than someone who had actually physically committed GBH on someone, both men sentenced on the same day in the same court building (different trials). I mean when did society become so screwed up that words are now more punishable than deeds ?

I don't know the details of the incident beyond what was in the link but I have no issue with someone yelling abuse at an ambulance crew getting charged with a public order offence because that's what it is.

As for the threats on Facebook. Who knows? I seem to remember somebody got 18 months for stealing a bottle of water during the Tottenham riots. There's a lot wrong with how we sentence people.

[Just Browny]

18 minutes ago, Derwent said:

Even so, calling somebody a few names seems to be a heinous crime these days. I keep hearing about how the boys in blue are massively under resourced and stretched to breaking point yet they can spare the time to deal with stuff like this. The reaction to this kind of stuff is completely OTT. I read yesterday where a man who made threats of violence on Facebook was actually jailed for longer than someone who had actually physically committed GBH on someone, both men sentenced on the same day in the same court building (different trials). I mean when did society become so screwed up that words are now more punishable than deeds ?

If you want a thread on people being arrested for abuse on Facebook, start one.

This one is about people abusing paramedics while they go about performing their duties, saving peoples' lives. It is never acceptable and shouldn't be trivialised.

[ckn]

It's the whole way society treat ambulances these days.  I'm fed up of seeing blue light ambulances on dual carriageways where people WILL NOT get out of the way.  Is it because the drivers don't want to give up their precious place or delay themselves by a second or two?  Even then, people on single carriageways who don't take easy options to get out of the way. 

People who panic a bit and do daft things like stop in the middle of the road are different, they're not doing it deliberately.  They just need a sigh and hope they stay still so the professional driver can get round them.

On the subject in question, unless it's life threatening then any delay caused by a blue light ambulance is acceptable.  The crew have no time to observe the niceties of finding a perfect parking slot that inconveniences no-one while the patient is waiting on life-saving attention.

[Just Browny]

39 minutes ago, ckn said:

It's the whole way society treat ambulances these days.  I'm fed up of seeing blue light ambulances on dual carriageways where people WILL NOT get out of the way.  Is it because the drivers don't want to give up their precious place or delay themselves by a second or two?  Even then, people on single carriageways who don't take easy options to get out of the way. 

People who panic a bit and do daft things like stop in the middle of the road are different, they're not doing it deliberately.  They just need a sigh and hope they stay still so the professional driver can get round them.

On the subject in question, unless it's life threatening then any delay caused by a blue light ambulance is acceptable.  The crew have no time to observe the niceties of finding a perfect parking slot that inconveniences no-one while the patient is waiting on life-saving attention.

Spot on. And actually a 'perfect parking spot' for an ambulance might well be the one that allows it to get away quickest, not the one that is most convenient for the neighbours.

[Old Frightful]

On the subject of ambulances and people giving way, I was returning from working out of town a few years back, driving down the M62  at around 65mph. I was in the inside lane and an ambulance went past in the right hand lane (not the middle lane) doing what I would estimate as around 70mph as they were only marginally faster than me. It had blue lights showing but even though the middle lane was mainly empty it stayed in the right hand lane. Now, anyone who regularly travels down a motorway knows the average speed is usually in excess of 70mph with 80mph probably nearer the mark. Due to the ambulance's position, it wasn't long before there was a considerable queue of cars trying to decide whether to undertake or not. Eventually, one driver decided to and that led to around a dozen doing so before they were out of my sight.

How would people assess the ambulance driver's actions in this case? Obviously the car drivers cutting up the inside were at fault but could any blame be attributed to the ambulance driver? Had they observed lane discipline then everyone could have carried on in their own merry way and the ambulance wouldn't have been held up anyway. Perhaps the ambulance had a 70mph speed limiter on board although I have no idea if this was the case.

 

[ckn]

3 minutes ago, Old Frightful said:

On the subject of ambulances and people giving way, I was returning from working out of town a few years back, driving down the M62  at around 65mph. I was in the inside lane and an ambulance went past in the right hand lane (not the middle lane) doing what I would estimate as around 70mph as they were only marginally faster than me. It had blue lights showing but even though the middle lane was mainly empty it stayed in the right hand lane. Now, anyone who regularly travels down a motorway knows the average speed is usually in excess of 70mph with 80mph probably nearer the mark. Due to the ambulance's position, it wasn't long before there was a considerable queue of cars trying to decide whether to undertake or not. Eventually, one driver decided to and that led to around a dozen doing so before they were out of my sight.

How would people assess the ambulance driver's actions in this case? Obviously the car drivers cutting up the inside were at fault but could any blame be attributed to the ambulance driver? Had they observed lane discipline then everyone could have carried on in their own merry way and the ambulance wouldn't have been held up anyway. Perhaps the ambulance had a 70mph speed limiter on board although I have no idea if this was the case.

 

The problem there is that the driver probably has had plenty of experience of sitting in the middle lane and people not letting him out to overtake.  If he sits in the right hand lane then he has complete access to the fast lane without having to wonder if the numpties will let him out.

Additionally, you have to think of the patient.  The paramedic may have told the driver to minimise swerves or unnecessary corners meaning that staying in a single motorway lane means smooth driving, minimising both lane changes and speed changes.

Ambulances CAN go over 70mph but they have to have a damn good reason for it.  They technically break the law by doing it and would have to rely on being able to talk their way out of any conviction.

[Derwent]

1 hour ago, Just Browny said:

If you want a thread on people being arrested for abuse on Facebook, start one.

This one is about people abusing paramedics while they go about performing their duties, saving peoples' lives. It is never acceptable and shouldn't be trivialised.

Who has said what she did was acceptable ? But there is a huge difference between what is unacceptable and what plod should be using their time on.

[Dave T]

9 hours ago, ckn said:

 

On the subject in question, unless it's life threatening then any delay caused by a blue light ambulance is acceptable.  The crew have no time to observe the niceties of finding a perfect parking slot that inconveniences no-one while the patient is waiting on life-saving attention.

And this is where it would be good if there was more information on this one. We have no idea whether the ambulance was parked like a twit ie. right up from a huge space (non-emergency drivers do it so no reason to assume that people with a blue light won't).

We also do not know why the woman so was so irate - she could just be a nob, or she could have had a real problem caused by the delay (if she was even blocked in - we don't know that!).

I assume as part of their training they are told to park appropriately, I assume that this case will be looked at and this will be decided, because under no circumstances should any emergency services get a free pass - that leads to abuse.

[Robin Evans]

Under no circumstances???

If life may be at risk I wouldn't give a toss where they park their van if it savesa few seconds ..... which could be crucial.....

Not your best comment cocker

[Old Frightful]

3 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

Under no circumstances???

If life may be at risk I wouldn't give a toss where they park their van if it savesa few seconds ..... which could be crucial.....

Not your best comment cocker

I'm guessing Dave meant carte blanche to park anywhere under any circumstances, hence abuse.

[ckn]

For context, many US paramedic crews have to wear body armour because they get shot at over things like this. 

[Dave T]

39 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

Under no circumstances???

If life may be at risk I wouldn't give a toss where they park their van if it savesa few seconds ..... which could be crucial.....

Not your best comment cocker

Old Frightful clarified my point for me, apologies if clumsy.

Park where appropriate rather than a free pass is my point. A free pass would absolutely be abused. Where appropriate would mean that if there was an investigation the driver would have to justify their decision.

As per my post, I assume that is already the case as they dont all park inappropriately as standard.

[Niels]

But their main purpose is to save lives, not worry or justify where they park. 

Sorry to be dramatic but I saw a paramedic revive someone close whose heart had stopped in our bedroom. 

After that I realised that every second is vital. 

[gingerjon]

8 hours ago, Dave T said:

Old Frightful clarified my point for me, apologies if clumsy.

Park where appropriate rather than a free pass is my point. A free pass would absolutely be abused. Where appropriate would mean that if there was an investigation the driver would have to justify their decision.

As per my post, I assume that is already the case as they dont all park inappropriately as standard.

I've just checked this and ambulances are subject to the same rules as the rest of us unless they can prove that they broke those rules in order to respond properly to an emergency. Which I know is obvious but is at least an example of a point of law matching what we all think is the law.

In law, the onus does seem to be on the ambulance crew to show it was an emergency they were responding to.

[Dave T]

34 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I've just checked this and ambulances are subject to the same rules as the rest of us unless they can prove that they broke those rules in order to respond properly to an emergency. Which I know is obvious but is at least an example of a point of law matching what we all think is the law.

In law, the onus does seem to be on the ambulance crew to show it was an emergency they were responding to.

Thanks GJ, that matches what I think should be the case rather than a free pass.

[Dave T]

7 hours ago, Niels said:

But their main purpose is to save lives, not worry or justify where they park. 

Sorry to be dramatic but I saw a paramedic revive someone close whose heart had stopped in our bedroom. 

After that I realised that every second is vital. 

I agree. However i did a quick search and from reading a report around 10% of ambulance callouts are genuine life threatening cases although around 40% can be classified as that. 

As for this case, we have no idea whether they were on an urgent case, parked appropriately. 

I think it is always good when we see/hear about seemingly crazy behaviour to try and understand why, it may just be that she is crazy, but there has been nothing else disclosed here that I can see.