Recently Doctors with the Journal of Emergency Medical Services (JEMS) opined that a Code 3 Response (with Lights and Siren) does NOT save overall response time and is unsafe.
I have over 20 yrs operating different types of Emergency Vehicles, including an engineering background), and I disagree with the JEMS Opinion, (as these Medical Professional are outside their scope of expertise).
The Case Against EMS Red Lights and Siren Responses
There are several engineering factors that the Layperson fails to take into consideration when evaluating current LED Emergency Warning Lights, (somethimes refered to Signal Variabilty);
1) The Photometics of Fixed LED Lightheads (non moving)are significantly different from the original Rotating Incandescent/Halogen Sealed Beams;
2) The coverage areas are also different, as the Rotating Lighthead has the potential of covering 360 degrees, while the Fixed LED Lighthead can cover 180 degrees at best;
3) The Flash Rate, Flash Duration and Flash Intensity are significantly different;
4) The LEDs produce a different type and color of light output that effects the interpretation of the light by a person.
In the late 1970's numerous scientific studies were conducted on the then current day emergency warning systems. Photometrics, Optomolgy and Physical all came into play in an attempt to determine which warning lights were most effective.
IMHO besides the inadequacies of LED Warning Systems, the problems we have with Civilian vs Emergency Vehicle Accidents are multifaceted including, but not limited to;
1) Today's Drivers are mostly self-taught and have ingrained bad driving habits. Most Drivers have no concept of Defensive Driving;
2) Today's Drivers between the ages of 15 to 40 have the attention span of an OCD-4 Year-Old in a Candy Store;
3) 80-90% of these Drivers are also operating an Electronic Device while driving.
4) In Arizona, the State Police determined that approximately >70% of Drivers age 18-40 were driving under the influence of Marijuana.
These factors significantly effect Situational Awareness and Reaction Times. Yet no one is addresses these driver safety issues.
Here are the Photometic Studies I'm referring to;
NIST Psycho- physical Tests of the Conspicuities of Emergency Vehicle Warning Lights 1979
NIJ NAT'L INST. OF STAND & TECH Publication 480-37 Reference NBS Publl - cations 1 I i •QC 100 ,U57 NO. ^80-37 1981 Emergency Vehicle Warning Systems
I have over 20 yrs operating different types of Emergency Vehicles, including an engineering background), and I disagree with the JEMS Opinion, (as these Medical Professional are outside their scope of expertise).
The Case Against EMS Red Lights and Siren Responses
There are several engineering factors that the Layperson fails to take into consideration when evaluating current LED Emergency Warning Lights, (somethimes refered to Signal Variabilty);
1) The Photometics of Fixed LED Lightheads (non moving)are significantly different from the original Rotating Incandescent/Halogen Sealed Beams;
2) The coverage areas are also different, as the Rotating Lighthead has the potential of covering 360 degrees, while the Fixed LED Lighthead can cover 180 degrees at best;
3) The Flash Rate, Flash Duration and Flash Intensity are significantly different;
4) The LEDs produce a different type and color of light output that effects the interpretation of the light by a person.
In the late 1970's numerous scientific studies were conducted on the then current day emergency warning systems. Photometrics, Optomolgy and Physical all came into play in an attempt to determine which warning lights were most effective.
IMHO besides the inadequacies of LED Warning Systems, the problems we have with Civilian vs Emergency Vehicle Accidents are multifaceted including, but not limited to;
1) Today's Drivers are mostly self-taught and have ingrained bad driving habits. Most Drivers have no concept of Defensive Driving;
2) Today's Drivers between the ages of 15 to 40 have the attention span of an OCD-4 Year-Old in a Candy Store;
3) 80-90% of these Drivers are also operating an Electronic Device while driving.
4) In Arizona, the State Police determined that approximately >70% of Drivers age 18-40 were driving under the influence of Marijuana.
These factors significantly effect Situational Awareness and Reaction Times. Yet no one is addresses these driver safety issues.
Here are the Photometic Studies I'm referring to;
NIST Psycho- physical Tests of the Conspicuities of Emergency Vehicle Warning Lights 1979
NIJ NAT'L INST. OF STAND & TECH Publication 480-37 Reference NBS Publl - cations 1 I i •QC 100 ,U57 NO. ^80-37 1981 Emergency Vehicle Warning Systems
Last edited: