Pedestrian struck 400 yards from fire station, fire department and EMS show up in force...20 minutes later

what Ive heard (and seen) is that .....

-When someone is hit by a car, its better to send as much help as you can, including trained fire personel that have tools like the jaws of life in case someone is trapped under a car, train or whatever. The more serious the call, the more fire trucks they send. Usually a person struck by a car will send two fire companies just in case that person is trapped under a car. That can be a frightening scene that really does need a lot of help.

-The trucks go with the firemen, so that if an actual fire call comes in during the medical, the firemen just leave the medical and go to the fire. And trust me, those guys get boners for fires. They will leave any medical call for a fire. (once EMS is there of course).

-Many firemen are trained EMTs so they are valuble on these calls. And as I mentioned above, they bring the actual trucks just in case a fire actually comes in during the medical.

-As for the response time...Im sure its a communication issue. When that bell rings at the fire station for anything, they don't waste any time. Ill be the first one to bash the scams that the fire department likes to use, but one thing they dont do is waste time when a call goes out. Thats my experience anyway around firehouses.

-On the other hand, fire departments love stats. They love to tell you how many calls they went to during a year, even though maybe .2 percent of them are actual fires.

-I think the city of Lawrence just stopped the policy of sending firetrucks to medicals actually. It was a cost saving measure. They would probably still send them to pedestrian crashes though.

when you started watching the clock. Sometimes everyone just assumes that someone else called (especially with rent-a-cops or other apparently responsible types present) I can't see any harm in calling again.
But if 911 had been called at 6:25, and reasonably coherent information relayed to the call-taker, I agree that the response time was piss-poor. Also, for a hit-and-run it sounds like they should have sent the cops as well.

I am a Boston Firefighter, and will gladly provide answers and rebuttal to your usual baseless, ridiculous rant.

However, I will also begin by asking why it is always necessary to come on here and bash the public services of the City of Boston. I have seen you come on here multiple times since I have been visiting Universal Hub and spout ridiculous nothings about how bad the emergency services in the City of Boston are. Most of the time, you make misinformed statements about something you really have no clue about, although you purport to know exactly what you are talking about. Although it is a free country and you are afforded the right to speak your mind, I agree with the other comment poster that your wacky "breaking news, emergency services are SO bad" posts are getting very old and tiresome.

1. It is clearly obvious based on your initial information that somebody did NOT call 911 as previously thought. I can GUARANTEE that if somebody had called 911 at the time that was told to you, by a third party might I add, that it would NOT have taken 20 minutes for two stationed fire companies, 2 blocks away, to respond. I do not know why campus police may not have called 911, but it is obvious from your information that a game of "Whose on first?" was being played. I can see the progress of a 911 call, from beginning to end, and I know for a cold fact that as soon as a 911 call is received, and it is routed to the appropriate agency, and especially if it involves the fire department, that a 20 minute response time is not even incorrect; it's absolutely absurd. It is blatantly clear that everybody on scene was misinformed, and 911 was not contacted.

2. It is normal procedure in the fire department to send 2 fire companies (engine AND ladder) to all motor vehicle accident calls, including any that involve struck pedestrians. A motor vehicle accident is NOT just considered a "medical" call in the view of the Boston Fire Department. If you would kindly choose to think with logic for a second, and perhaps remember a time that you perhaps witnessed the aftermath of a motor vehicle accident, you know that every accident is different and can involve a never ending list of possible scenarios for us when we arrive on scene. As well, a person calling to report said accident CANNOT be replied upon to provide accurate information as to what really happened, because everybody interprets things differently. So, we may get a call for a simple accident, arrive on scene and find that 3 people are trapped and one car is beginning to smoke. Now, you have 3 victims and a fire. Do you think that the 4 firefighters that have just arrived in 1 truck would be able to handle this situation adequately? NO. This would require those 3 victims to be extricated and boarded, perhaps use of the jaws if there is entrapment, and as well an engine company with water to put the fire out. Add spilled hazardous fluids from 2 vehicles to that, and it is clear (and I hope, clear to YOU) that 2 companies are needed at the majority of confirmed motor vehicle accidents. Ladder and rescue companies are the only ones who are equipped to carry jaws (with only a few exceptions citywide) so both companies are required to respond. Even if it is an accident with slight damage, and 1 or 2 victims, both companies each have a different responsibility with the ultimate goal being patient care and scene safety.

3. Sending two fire companies does not "hurt our precious fire coverage." The sarcastic manner in which you mock the necessity of fire coverage in the city makes me absolutely sick. For many years before you arrived to earth, the Boston Fire Department has had a coverage system that ensures adequate coverage for the entire city regardless of what other incidents might be going on. It has worked FAR before you, and will far after you as well. Even if there are multiple fires in the city at once (a scenario which did occur very early in 2009), ALL calls, be it for fires, accidents, or medical assistance, would be answered in the same timely manner.

4. One commenter stated that the fire department has no problem blocking the road, and I tell you that you are damn right when you say that. The only exception to this is moving the apparatus past or away from an medical call that involves EMS to ensure they have quick patient contact: something which you clearly stated was done tonight. I will ABSOLUTELY place my fire apparatus wherever I see fit to properly respond to the call, and especially place it across the road to protect not only myself but the other emergency responders on the scene with me. I am not interested in the fact that one has to be home by 8 to see American Idol, and is upset that the silly fire trucks are blocking the road because some idiot hit a parked car. I am interested in providing the most safety possible to the personnel on scene and especially the victim as well. If you are wondering why, then, fire engines must block the street when responding to, say, a fire alarm activation, well then I invite you to attempt to parallel park a piece of fire apparatus here in Boston.

I don't know what point in time, or why, you began to have toxic feelings for those who are only here to help, but I hope you eventually find inner peace with yourself. It appears to me that somebody did not call 911, and that once it was called, that all emergency services responded in a timely manner, treated the victim, and that no wrong doing was present, no matter how much you would like that to be the case.

In typical fashion, Brett has written an idiotic, unwarranted statement about fire response, and everyone has taken the opportunity to use that thread as a forum for bashing the fire union, bringing up drug testing etc, which were not even remotely issues in this case. Problems with the fire union and a question of unit response time are two completely separate subjects, and yet, as usual, since this is a post about the fire department, mutiple (mostly anonymous!) posters have turned this into a BFD Union sucks thread.

Your "how dare you question the decisions made by brave Firefighters" attitude is a familiar one

RozzieGal, with the exception of stating, very honestly, that I will place the fire apparatus wherever I see fit for the necessity and safety of the incident, as is both my job and duty, I made no conveyance of such an attitude in my post. I will be the first to admit that no one, including firefighters, police officers, EMT's, or other public safety officials are perfect, do make mistakes, and are subject to the same scrutiny when such mistakes are made. However, it is fact that yes, I will place the apparatus, and ANY firefighter would, wherever it is necessary for the safety of victims and emergency personnel. The contention of one commenter that firefighters will place their trucks and block traffic anywhere was the basis for my saying this. As well, any hostility in this post was not toward anybody questioning me or my job. It was toward Brett for writing something in a very sarcastic manner that was widely baseless and false.

And SwirlyGrrl, I asked BRETT a simple question as to why it is necessary for almost every one of his posts to be something anti-public service. I was not giving you or anybody else an example of any "attitude" that demonstrates why Boston has "so many" problems with public safety that other cities don't. Brett has the right to question or scrutinize anything he wants; however, when have you seen him come on here and write anything remotely coherent when questioning public service? The fact that he did not see any response for "20 minutes" means that 911 and city services failed? Or could it perhaps mean that, well, maybe someone just didn't call? My attitude was toward him, and his rants, and nothing else. Does Brett has the right to question public services, while I do not have the right to question what his problem is? I have just as much right to question him as he does to question public service. As well, for your information, I do often ask how and try my best to better serve the public, as that is my passion and duty. However, when somebody writes something that I know is false while being absolute certain that his information is correct, without any way of verifying it, I am afforded the right to correct and as well give my opinions to and about that person. Being a civil servant does not strip me of those rights.

It is sad that one fire department related post, no matter what it be about, has to turn into union bashing and drug testing talk. I answered questions and countered falsities uttered by Brett, and I am blasted by anonymous posters for being a member of an "irresponsible" fire union.

Typical Brett fashion. Apparently his goal has been reached.