|
Having read the thread regarding cyclist and RTA's. I would like to pass on this very important information. I recently discovered after a local campaign regarding fire station closures. That Road Traffic Accidents no longer exist (RTA's). The emergency services in keeping with political correctness now have re-named RTA's to RTC's (Road Traffic Collisions). Fire services throught the country are currently implementing strategic plans and integrated risk management plans. To do this they need to utilise the fire service emergency toolkit computer model (FSEC). Why is this important because the FSEC computer does not recognise RTC's it would be overwhelmed. Again you ask why is this so important. Because you are 7x more likely to die in an RTC than an urban dwelling fire. So be reminded when they review the strategic plan in your area and the disposition of resources ask the question why RTC's are not included in FSEC. I do believe that one fire brigade has thrown the FSEC toolkit out.
Edited by Pugugly on 04/06/2009 at 00:49
|
What is FSEC please? Fire Service Emergency C?????. Certainly the NHS designation, for casualty management, is now RTC
|
|
|
"fire service emergency toolkit computer model (FSEC)."
Never heard of this. And I'm in the fire service. Which Brigade are you referring to? And yes, in London we are still mobilised to RTAs.
|
|
Driving on the M4/5/6 last Friday I noticed the number of "incidents" causing lane closures and diversions. Not a single "accident".
|
The terminology RTA's and RTC's runs in tandem and it matters not which one is used. Everyone in that game knows what the meaning is. It will take a while for RTC to become the terminology of choice.
The reason it was changed was an 'Accident' can assume no one is to blame, whereas a 'Collision' does not. Many accidents/collisions are caused by poor driving and it is therefore important to establish this to try to prevent it happening again, by either punishing the transgressor or publishing penalties to others in the hope they'll take heed and be more careful.
Edited by Westpig on 03/06/2009 at 12:55
|
The reason it was changed was an 'Accident' can assume no one is to blame whereas a 'Collision' does not. Many accidents/collisions are caused by poor driving and it is therefore important to establish this to try to prevent it happening again by either punishing the transgressor or publishing penalties to others in the hope they'll take heed and be more careful.
You mean, regardless of what happened, someone needs to be blamed and punished.
|
You mean regardless of what happened someone needs to be blamed and punished.
no not at all....i meant "have a good look to see if someone needs to be blamed and punished"...you won't know unless you look....and many do need punishment.
You'd be amazed how many people thoroughly neglect their cars, then wonder why something goes wrong. Have a look at some of the tyres o/s a tyre fitting outfit...the ones down to the metal, let alone the canvas.
Then there's the low life that drive like absolute morons...we've all seen them. Why should they get away with it?
|
Something that happens by accident is in a completely different frame of reference from something that happens by design or intent.
So, someone can neglect a car but they don't intend to cause harm to themselves or anyone else if and when an accident occurs, though there may be greater risk of an accident.
But neglect of a vehicle is already covered in statute: it's against the law to drive with defective tyres, brakes, lights etc.
So where's the benefit in the re-naming of accident as collision? I'd have said it's just another example of authorities pretending they're doing something and using up resources that could be used to, say, take defective cars off the road.
|
|
|
A collision has to involve 2 (or more) moving objects, both of which suffer "pain" - co-lidere. If one is stationary, or suffers no damage, it is not a collision.
Thus the giant crater in Siberia in 1908 resulted from a collision with a meteorite, but the Titanic hit an iceberg. Two vessels can only be on a collision course if both are moving.
|
A collision has to involve 2 (or more) moving objects both of which suffer "pain" - co-lidere. If one is stationary or suffers no damage it is not a collision. Thus the giant crater in Siberia in 1908 resulted from a collision with a meteorite
dont tell the old bill, they will re-open the case looking for someone to blame
|
I don't think Cliff's right. A collision is a violent meeting of objects. They don't both (or all) have to be in motion.
If he were right, wp would be wrong when he says RTA and RTC are effectively the same thing. On Cliff's account two moving cars hitting one another would be a collision, but a moving car hitting a lamp-post would be an accident.
It's all a bit absurd, isn't it? So if time, energy and money are being spent on such a re-naming it's a waste.
|
An accident is an incident that happens unexpectedly.
Only a deliberate act would not warrant an accident category.
The emegency services seem to be adopting the collision tag because they wrongly think that an accident takes the burden of blame away from one of the parties invovled in an incident.It doesn't.
I see the point of using collision but why fix something that aint broke.
Agree with Optimist, a waste of time.
|
RTA's No longer exist >>
Old news - that is from November 2007 at least:
tinyurl.com/o3cnwe
[ links to www.police999.com/index.php? Police Acronym Database. ]
RTA Road Traffic Accident
RTC Road Traffic Collision
Apparently there's no such thing as an accident any more, someone is always to blame.
|
|
Some program I was watching a few days ago (Traffic Cops or a clone) had a PC refer to a RTI, as in Road Traffic Incident.
|
Totally agree. However i don't want to sound like the profit of doom. Did you know that many fire control centres are going to be closed and 8 regional created to serve the whole country. Resulting in many fire control staff redundancies, possibly lack of local knowledge. Why fix something that aint broke eh. But remember RTA's don't exist.
|
I know nothing about this situation but am not surprised that things need to change. The world has changed, and in particular in the area of despatching field staff there are vastly improved communications, satnav, CCTV - all kinds of developments which probably mean that local knowledge is much less important and make regionalisation more possible.
While it may not be broken, there are probably large savings to be made on duplicated roles, unnecessary office space and all the overheads that go with that. While I am not an advocate of downsizing for it's own sake, I don't think that stuff should stay the same just to keep the unions happy.
Wasn't there a huge dispute in the last few years over modernising the fire service, which involved giving employees inflation busting pay rises in return promises or am I dreaming?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spood the abbreviation FSEC is the intials of the Fire Service Emergency Model. This is a computer generated toolkit, that is used in helping The Fire & Rescue service analize data. For instance when they are doing the strategic plan or Integrated risk management. Humberside Fire & Rescue service used the data from FSEC to determine the disposition of resources in their current strategic plan (disposition of resources in our case ment station closures and putting retained crews instead of wholetime crews). amazingly FSEC does not include RTC's and as you are aware you are 7x more likely to be killed in an RTC than in an urban dwelling fire. West Yorkshire Brigade threw FSEC out saying it was unworkable, but other forces have used it. For more info ask the FBU. It is because of this that i learnt RTA's no longer exist. This has turned into a good thread though very interesting posts.
|
|
|
|
|
Great Britain is going acronym mad. In most cases there's no need for it. It's just laziness.
|
I'll have to beg to differ re some of the above. There's a difference between a completely unforeseen happening e.g. cow jumps over hedge and you can't possibly stop your car in time...or someone wilfully neglects their car and has an accident/collision on a wet road due to a completely bald tyre.
The first one couln't have reasonably been foreseen. The second could easily have been prevented, but for someone's laziness. Why shouldn't they cop some blame.
|
I was taught a collision involved moving objects.
Thus two moving cars could collide, but a car could only hit a tree.
I've just looked at the two dictionaries on my desk, and one says a collision must involve moving objects and the other says simply: "The striking of one body against another."
There's no doubt the increasing adoption by the emergency services of 'RTC' has coincided with a huge increase in the number of prosecutions which result from, er, RTCs.
|
|
|
|
Great Britain is going acronym mad. In most cases there's no need for it. It's just laziness.
IMHO i tend to agree
|
Linking back to Brentus initial post - isn't it the case that there is nothing in law requiring the Fire service to assist with RTC's? That they do so, and have done so for some time, doesn't mean that they have to take account of accidents when making their strategic plans.
Spood - do you know the answer?
|
woodster,
The old Fire services act 1947 only specified provisions for firefighting.
The revised Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 section addressed this incorporating additional rescue duties.
"22. Section 8 places a duty on fire and rescue authorities to make provision for rescuing persons from road traffic accidents and for dealing with the aftermath of such accidents."
And MLC. We still get sent on "RTA" shouts in the LFB, even though I refer to them as RTCs when speaking to LAS and MPS personnel.
|
|
|
|
|
"The emergency services in keeping with political correctness now have re-named RTA's to RTC's (Road Traffic Collisions). "
My Force stopped calling them RTA's about seven years ago.
|
|
we havent got a simon snorkeler anymore due to cuts so if you live on the 10th floor or above you might as well put your will in a fireproof box now
|
|
Thread locked pending a response from the OP to an e-mail that has been sent to him about a possible breach of forum's policy.
|
|
|
|
