Editor’s note: In the third part of a series on Safety Concept Vehicles, Jim Love looks at the history of the vehicles and why we so badly need them. Be sure to also check out the second part, “The evolution of Safety Concept Vehicles.”
By Jim Love
EMSafety.net
The second safety concept vehicle was so over the top and so successful that when it came time to discuss a third vehicle we wondered if we could top our previous success. As discussed in part one of this series, we began C1 by talking with and listening to field crews all across the country. As we considered how C3 would be built we returned to this approach — listening to the feedback and input of others. The criticism most often heard about C2 was that it was too costly, had too many gadgets and was not practical. We were challenged to build a vehicle that an end user could look at and say, “yeah that makes sense, I get that.”
The third safety vehicle
C3 was scaled back. It was built on a DR90 chassis or mini-mod. Gone was the hydraulic oxygen tank lift — but the point was made that there are opportunities to design vehicles that may reduce the chance of many types of injury not solely collision related. Also gone was the standing harness system from C2 that caused so much debate. Another significant change was that C3 was built on a Chevrolet rather than a Ford body. Providers who had never had the opportunity to evaluate a Chevy now had the opportunity to do so.
While we were discussing and designing the third safety vehicle, other manufacturers and service providers had built their own versions of safer vehicles — garnering some publicity and continuing the discussion as well as enhancing involvement and awareness. This practice continues today.
A critical need and desire was identified even before we built the first safety concept vehicle. In order to assure rear occupant safety we needed to be able to detect where rear-occupants were seated and whether or not they were belted and secure. Some felt that this was our greatest challenge and the most significant safety need. We tried different after-market products and seat manufacturers for the first two concept vehicles, but with no luck. Imagine not being able to deliver on this seemingly simple technology?
However, C3 was introduced with something that no other ambulance, by any manufacturer had accomplished. Every rear seating position was sensed, as were the corresponding safety belts. A logic circuit looked for weight above a minimum threshold in the varied seats. If this threshold were exceeded, the logic looked to see if the safety belts were fastened.
Seating status was displayed to the driver on the console. The driver knew which seat the medic or medics were in and whether or not they were secure, or if at any time the belt were removed. This was the first-ever on an ambulance — a true potential life-saver. Now the vehicle operator could remind the attendant to buckle up before taking off, or delay departure until the medic was able to apply the safety belt. They could alter their driving if, for some reason, the medic had to temporarily take off their belt to provide a needed intervention. C3 was also equipped with the Road Safety on-board computer and this new seating logic could be captured and exceptions reported. Management could intervene before a collision, before injury — perhaps even before death. When it comes to ambulance safety this was, in my opinion, perhaps the single greatest improvement in more than 25 years.
All the vehicles were equipped with cargo nets and recessed grab rails. Other head strike risks were recessed or removed. Every attempt was made to provide proper storage to eliminate the threat of any object from becoming a missile. And in every vehicle we focused on securing the medic while allowing them to care for the patient.
The public’s reaction
It was intriguing what the public was interested in — and actually bought. One popular item was the monitor holder — a great device that eliminated perhaps the most common on-board potential projectile. Another popular item was the ‘patient-on-board’ lights. These were a series of LED lights that ran around the vehicle at driver eye level. They were not a part of the emergency lighting system. Rather they were an extra set of lights, something different for the other drivers that said, “ambulance- please give us a little more room.” And people got that we need a correct harness, not a simple lap belt that rides up and offers little protection.
For years people in EMS from many corners of the planet saw and spoke of these vehicles. For years people in EMS from many corners of the planet talked about vehicle safety, vehicle design and the blending of the two. For years people in EMS from many corners of the planet understood that it’s possible to make a difference.
They say it takes a village to raise a child. It also takes an industry to create change. To deliver safer ambulances in the future we will need engineers, better regulation and the support of the automotive industry. We will also need the continued support from the end user. There is a cost to develop and display these vehicles but there is also a cost if we do nothing. If we do nothing the cause of safety will not be advanced and the cost in terms of human lives will continue at the same rate as in the past.
As a result of these efforts, collisions have been prevented and lives have been saved. People know to look for and to ask for safety enhancements.