Safety – Lack of Judgment
Written by Gordon on June 6th, 2008
Hello again. Gordon Graham here with my monthly contribution to this great website. I sincerely hope this finds you and your family doing well – and if you have kids I hope that you have great vacation plans for the summer. Of course I hope that all of you have a great vacation – you certainly deserve it, but for some reason vacation with the kids is always something special. I remember those days fondly – both as a kid and as a Dad when our kids were young. So please enjoy your vacation and please be safe.
And speaking of safe – let me spend some time on that issue today with you. There are so many “safety” concerns that I have regarding your profession – and frankly I am ignorant of all the strategies and tactics that must be employed on any given fireground or other emergency incident to make sure that personnel don’t get hurt. I know nothing about structure fires, and I know nothing about confined space rescues. I know just enough about HazMat to remember the binocular rule – “if you can see it without your binoculars, you are too close!” But I am very familiar with the vehicle operations issues, and it pains me to see how many nasty consequences occur in this area of concern. And frankly – way too many of these tragedies could have been avoided if the involved people would have just paid a little bit more attention to what they are doing.
The number two cause of death in your profession – almost every year – is traffic collisions- note I shy away from the word accidents. If you ever listen to the police radio you will know that LAPD uses the term “T/A” when referring to these vehicle events, and the CHP uses the term “T/C” – a slight difference you say – but in reality it is a significant difference. “Accident” means “unplanned or unexpected” event – while collision is broader – and I am convinced that many of these traffic related events are not accidents – but they are all collisions. And too many of these “collisions” occur in route to calls – many times with red lights and sirens activated. And many of these collisions occur at the intersection of two roadways. And I don’t think that any of these collisions involve personnel who “intended” on getting involved in a collision.
I see that there is a proposal in Sacramento to change the law regarding the criminal prosecution of public safety personnel for behavior that occurs in the course and scope of employment unless there is some provable level of intent. The genesis of this bill (and in my opinion this bill is DOA and has less chance of going anywhere than I have in winning the Lotto and I don’t buy tickets because that is an unacceptable level of risk) was the criminal prosecution of fire service personnel for on duty traffic collisions that resulted in injury or death. If you take a look around America, there are at least fifteen firefighters currently being criminally prosecuted for duty related traffic collisions – sometimes involving third parties – and sometimes involving co-workers who were hurt or killed. Now take the time to think that one through just a bit. For at least fifteen of your peers, they started off their shift one day with the intent to do a good job throughout the day and night – or more and more often now –days and nights – and ended up getting involved in a collision that will forever change their life.
And the “consequences” are not limited to “injury” or “criminal prosecution”. I have talked at length to first responders around America who have told me that the “injury” and “criminal” issues will ultimately pass – but knowing that you injured or killed a co-worker or third party will live forever. And I am probably really boring you now, but I had a recent conversation with a fellow (a retired cop) who had a role in the death of another officer thirty-five years ago and while “the event” (and it was just poor judgment) ended up with the criminal review (no charges were filed) and the lawsuit (which was settled by his employer) he told me that every day – EVERY DAY – that when he wakes up the event from thirty-five years ago is the first thing on his mind – and every day he thinks about all the other things he could have done to prevent the event from occurring.
And I suspect that the number of firefighters in trouble might increase by one soon with the recent intersection collision in Texas between a piece of Dallas fire apparatus and a Bentley automobile owned by the number one traffic collision Plaintiff lawyer in the Lone Star State. My mother used to tell me to never make anyone angry who buys ink by the barrel. And I will follow up with this similar statement. For all my firefighter (and cop) friends, please don’t run any red traffic lights in route to or from a call, and particularly a red light and T-bone someone driving a $300K car who files traffic related lawsuits for a living.
But back to my focus today – traffic collisions. In an earlier life I had the opportunity to investigate many fire apparatus (and other vehicles owned by fire departments) collisions. And I can’t think of even one of them that was caused by a lack of skill. Firefighters (and other first responders) as a rule have a high level of skill in vehicle operations. To get through the Academy and to be selected to drive an “authorized emergency vehicle” requires a high level of skill – and while this might not be true in every single public safety agency around America – I know it is true in Los Angeles and surrounding areas in Southern California. First Responders have the skill side of the vehicle operations equation.
Now all the “skill” in the world is not going to prevent a fire vehicle from being rear-ended by some idiot, or being struck by an impaired driver or getting involved in some collision where the other party was clearly at fault – acting like an idiot. But too many of these “collisions” end up with “Party One” (the driver found at fault) being the involved firefighter or other apparatus operator.
I can tell you with certainty that every single traffic collision I have ever investigated where the firefighter was “Party One” was “caused” by a lack of sound professional judgment. To be fair there were many “subgroups” in this “lack of judgment” category including speed too fast for conditions present, inattention, failure to yield, not being aware of roadway idiosyncrasies, distractions, tunnel vision, cognitive lock, and of course the 800 lb. gorilla that no one wants to talk about honestly in our respective professions – fatigue.
Whether the involved “collision” occurred while the vehicle was moving forward or backward, turning left or right, going up the hill or down the hill, or going fast or going slow, it was always the “lack of judgment” that was linked to the collision. I don’t have all the answers on the judgment thing – and certainly I have fallen prey to “bad judgment” in vehicle operations. And I have had my share of “close calls” (see www.firefighterclosecalls.com for some thoughts on this issue in your profession) – and near misses (see www.firefighternearmiss.com) for some thoughts on this issue. And I have been involved in some minor collisions and some major ones. And the ones where I was at fault – it was always a judgment issue – and with me it was primarily “speed too fast for conditions”.
Have you taken the time to analyze your close calls and near misses? If enough of these occur, sooner or later you will have the collision – and once that occurs the gravity of the event oftentimes gets down to “luck”. And risk managers don’t like to rely on luck. So the next time you go back to work, perhaps you can sit down with some of your peers and talk about the close calls and near misses and minor events and identify what went wrong and put together some ideas to prevent them from going wrong again. And as long as you are at it, why don’t you get a copy of your department policy manual and take a look at the sections that cover vehicle operations. You can’t follow policy if you don’t know policy – so make sure you know the policies that apply to this high-risk aspect of your job.
And going back to paragraph one of this piece, take this knowledge you picked up at work – and share it with your significant other – and with your kids. Giving them these “memory markers” is a great thing to do – and who knows – it may even help them out in the short and long run. And you will be able to enjoy more vacations together.
I look forward to being with you again next month. Until then, if you ever need anything you can get to me at www.Lexipol.com or gordongraham@earthlink.net. Take care, stay safe and please enjoy your time off this summer.
Gordon Graham
I agree with your article regarding “Lack of Judgement.” One area that also should be included in this broad category is age of the drivers. Our Department has seen a large turnover during the last 5 years. The age of our Department members is getting much younger. We now have members who are less that 21 years of age, who are entrusted to operate large apparatus under adverse conditions. Our training in apparatus operation has increased quite a bit. But I don’t think that still compensates for the “some” of the younger operators. Insurance companies charge much higher rates for younger drivers for a reason.
Thanks for your articles. They are always enlightening.
Bassanio Peters
posted on June 9th, 2008 at 10:12 am