Well I certainly am no authority. You can actually google the question asked and there are some reasonable responses by folks who purport to know that go along the lines of: a) they don't it just seems that way, b) the fire trucks are dispatched from different locations and can get to the scene quicker and the fire fighters are paramedics anyway and can help out until the EMTs arrive, 3) if there is a remote chance of a fire, and there is no fire fighter dispatched then just think of the lawyers then....

About 15 years ago I worked on a contract for the LAFD for about 4 months, and the feeling from the city then seemed to be along the lines of the fire fighters mostly sit at the stations getting paid waiting for a fire. If that is still true, then there is no additional labor costs sending the firefighters along, only the wear and tear cost of having the trucks move, and yet no additional cost of wear and tear on the hoses, ladders, etc., plus the possible opportunity cost of having a crew out on one scene when they are needed somewhere else. So it may cost more, but not that much more since you're already paying for the crew.

Well sometimes the people injured need to be rescued. Who would be better with dealing with someone trapped in a collapsed building or car crash an EMT or a Fireperson.

When I was injured in a car accident once, when 911 was called, they sent the fire department's ambulance and a fire truck. The paramedics are really well-trained for medical emergencies, and the fire truck was there to make sure no one's vehicle burst into flames. They were awesome, professional, caring, and you better believe that when I got the ambulance bill I paid it in full! I think the fire department charged me approximately half what typical ambulance services in this area do.

Fire fighters are trained in first aid and their response times are typically shorter (10 minutes shorter in Toronto and there can be as much difference as an hour in rural areas). The idea in this case is not to save money but to save lives. Also in my area it costs less to send fire fighters who then determine if an ambulance is needed, they have the power to over-ride the EMS dispatcher and cancel the ambulance. You'd be surprised at how often they do.

My son was injured doing something stupid one time and I called the ambulance. They showed up with 5 police officers who called childrens services because it "might have been child abuse" and they could not comprehend that my 14 year old was perfectly capable of watching the other kids for 20 minutes till their dad got there.. I had 6 kids at the time and as I have said I homeschool. The threats and complications that followed have kept me from ever calling again.. When my husbands gall bladder ruptured last October he drove himself to the hospital rather than have that happen again... And funny enough all my kids hate cops and my husband forwards that "how to talk to the cops" video you have posted to everyone he knows.. We have known about for a while since we have family members who use pot to self medicate..

They didn't send a fire truck though. We have a volunteer fire department and they don't have money to waste rushing to every 911 call.

I think in addition to it not adding much to the cost of running the fire department, just giving the firefighters something possibly constructive to do would be a plus.

"Well sometimes the people injured need to be rescued. Who would be better with dealing with someone trapped in a collapsed building or car crash an EMT or a Fireperson."

This is a pattern of argumentation that is common and annoying. "If (hypothetical)[people are trapped] then (bad thing)[EMT cannot free them] so we should (spend public money)[send a fire crew as well]."

It might work on a rational level if some alternatives, and some numbers about probability of occurence, severity, cost, and competing demands for limited resources were included. But they never are. As is, the argument works only on the compassion level, and then only if you feel no compassion for those who had the people's money ripped from their selfish capitalist claws by the clear-eyed steely-jawed agents of the State. Ahem. Been listening to Tsarina Sebelius, it's catching.
--
phunctor

You're right phunctor, compassion has no role to play when determining the provision of emergency rescue services.

If you'll oblige us with your full name and address, SSN, and the job you hold, we can allow the firefighters to fill out the complete cost benefit analysis of saving your sorry ass before they roll.

My friend is a paramedic with a fire dept. They are highly trained in all types of emergency situations (she is even a rescue diver) and the reason is because there are so many firehouses that the fireman paramedics are usually closer to the scene.

She makes around $90,000 per year, but that is a typical salary for firefighters in my state. She probably makes that whether she's at an emergency or not.

A fear years ago a friend of my parents was asked why firefighters show up to all calls -- he is a retired fire chief.

He said that the main reason was that an ambulance is only crewed by 2 people. Often more people are required to safely move people - especially with all the obese people - like lift them onto a stretcher. They could still do other things as needed such as direct traffic or crowd control. Making an ambulance crew be 3 people was also considered, but that would be more expensive.

Other reasons included that firefighters can almost always get there sooner. It costs them little extra - just the gas (and I suppose the wear on the vehicle).

The would not send an engine if it was the last one in the station unless it really looked necessary.

You all may have seen in the news earlier this week about a young woman who died in a house fire. Her parents escaped but left her and her little brothers behind. She was around 500 pounds. Two firefighters were unable to get her out in time, and were injured in the process. The timing couldn't be worse, we just had staffing cuts to our city fire department, reducing the number of rescuers per truck.

Well sorrrry Phunctor! I was giving one reason on why to send the fire truck with ambulance but I do agree with Walter. I would do a break down of ambulance responses I believe MOST would be of the little old lady having a heart attack variety. Sending a fire truck would be silly so I think some rationality should be add to the mix. Looks like it is as Nicky commented.

It's crazy.

Then send them out EVERY time. Imagine all the fuel and wear and tear. After all, L.A. comprises 469 square miles and four million people, so you're going to get these calls every day.

I know, from talking to a County / USC doctor, that in many cases it's a "found down," i.e., a drunk or drug addict who's just found in a gutter. No jaws of life required. No team of eight.

I think the fire fighters just want somewhere to go, and something to do. It's got to be more fun to zoom down streets with the siren going than to stay back at the station and put dog food on one another's plates, triggering multi-million dollar litigation settlements.

P.S. Thanks again for the vote, Amy! It's an honor. Plus, we earned the right to say, "Don't blame me, man!"

Because a panicky 911 caller may have left out some important information. They generally send a cop as well, from what I've seen. You wouldn't want the ambulance to get to the scene and find out they can't do anything because the person is trapped somewhere.

It probably is also good training for them to practice the response time and driving the truck. Rather than have them drive somewhere imaginary, or in circles, have them go somewhere specific.

Would you rather have firemen waiting around all day, getting lazy, and not having as good a response time when there IS a need for them?

We were in Basel yesterday and a lady had a stroke, and the ambulance was super slow coming. My husband commented at length about how better trained the Americans are for emergencies. (IE, at a big event like the one we were at, there would already be an ambulance there hanging around waiting)/

Wow, usually I don't post here and just read, but I have to respond to this. My brother-in-law is a firefighter. He was out fighting an enormous fire one day before his wedding and part of his ear is burned in his wedding photos because his helmet melted into it. He's been on wildfire lines, and more than once he's spent 10 hours straight fighting gas line fires to keep them from spreading.

These are the people who have dedicated their entire lives to saving people. If you're in an emergency, a horrific car accident, or a fire, these are the people that will save your life. Many across the country are volunteers. It's incredibly disrespectful and outright disgusting to talk about these brave men and women "zooming around for fun" and "putting dog food on each other's plates".

If you want to talk about waste, cutting emergency services is a horrendously bad place to do it. It's much, MUCH better for firefighters to show up to the scene of an emergency and not be needed, for them to be needed and not be there. It only takes one emergency for this to be worth it.

And you're complaining about them wasting fuel, and nothing else? Fire trucks have to be at the scene of the crime in five minutes or less, and a delay increase of 30 seconds is considered catastrophic. I know a lot of people who drive for four hours every single day on the government dime, which burns much much MUCH more fuel than the fire department could ever do. And don't get me started about the menagerie of trucks that drive across the country every day.

There are a PLETHORA of other government services that are MUCH more wasteful and disruptive to commuters than this. Like... utility companies ripping up streets. None of them ever talk to each other. You can have one company hired to install water lines. They come in, tear up the road, and then repave it. A week later, the gas company comes in and puts in lines. They also tear up the road, then repave it. There's a heavily traveled road near me that's been torn up no less than twenty times in the last year. Isn't that more wasteful than burning a tiny amount of fuel?

I'm all for getting rid of waste, but this is something that would (not could, WOULD) cost people's lives at a very negligible savings. Start cutting somewhere else.

"b) the fire trucks are dispatched from different locations and can get to the scene quicker and the fire fighters are paramedics anyway and can help out until the EMTs arrive,"

Bingo. You are guaranteed to live within so much distance of a fire station in a city. No such guarantee on an ambulance.

An added plus, from my fireman realtor friend, is that it keeps them busy and in practice. They are at the station anyway, the truck HAS to be taken out every day, so past a little extra gas, there is no cost at all.

Interesting commentary
http://streetbonersandtvcarnage.com/blog/the-price-of-bravery/