Hey, there! Log in / Register
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Sheesh!! What's wrong with this picture, folks?
What the hell's going on here?
Seriously....two fire engine crashes in a week?!? Something's definitely wrong with this picture! The maintenance of these fire trucks needs to be looked into and rectified. Two firetruck crashes and one fatility are too many, imho.
a perfect storm
Seriously....two fire engine crashes in a week?!?
Well, no- two ladders and a third which I don't remember the type of. Three total if the union is to believed- there was that truck that "went out of control" and scrunched a white ford explorer. The weird part was that the photos were horribly yellow- they looked like they were twenty years old. Maybe the two are the same incident- I thought the second one happened in the lot of the maintenance facility, not on mass ave.
Isn't it weird that we've got crashes in the days immediately following a fatal crash? Remember the bullshit the union was up to during the contract re-negotiations? Didn't the fliers have a picture of a mushroom cloud over Boston?
Especially in a corrupt city like Boston with such an old-boys network as the fire department, in the wake of a beloved member dying because of perceived pervasive maintenance problems....let's all stop and scratch our heads as to what might be really going on here post-fatal-crash.
So what you're saying is ...
A union member may have deliberately crashed a ladder truck?
I said it's a possibility worth considering
Especially given that the union is now threatening to sue Menino/the city, etc. Things are really charged, and I'd bet union officials are either genuinely furious and have declared 'war' on BFD/Menino, or they're opportunistic. Either way- instead of letting the public and media simmer on their own, they're stoking the fire continuously before the man's been put in the ground, and the phrase "you doth protest to much" comes to mind.
Coincidence that the fleet is seeing 3 major failures in less than THREE DAYS, and they've pretty much been one each day. Friday, Sat or Sun (I forget which) and now today?
Also, there is no such thing as a "turbo fuel injector." However- diesel engines are regulated by fuel, not air, so a stuck fuel injector could cause unintended acceleration. Diesels do also have the minor problem of not having ignition systems, so what stops them is fuel being cut off...
Lastly, in almost every vehicle on the planet the capability of the brakes vastly outclass the capabilities of the engine. Your engine may take anywhere from 6 to 10 seconds to bring your car up to 60mph, but the brakes can stop the car much, much faster. There's also something on the transmission called "neutral". (And by the way, since UHub is full of people who can't read or understand context, I'm not saying the first crash was intentional or driver error/negligence.)
I doubt it
I really don't think they crashed the trucks on purpose.
so, I have a theory. What's yours?
I really don't think they crashed the trucks on purpose.
I think it's unlikely too, but I acknowledge the possibility and the motivation.
Also, keep in mind that the cars that have been damaged looked pretty bad, but were hit at very low speeds. The trucks weigh so much that even at low speed, they still pack quite a whallop.
Driver taps the gas, t-bones a parked SUV. Nobody's hurt, but you get some nice photos to show to the press at your next press conference. Interesting that there weren't any photos of the fire truck- just the car that it hit.
Lastly: does anyone else find it sad that the same union that is so desperately concerned about it's members safety, now...fought tooth and nail to the bitter end against drug testing?
Trucks with bad maintenance? GASP, horrible, let's spend millions! Firefighters drunk and coked up going into burning buildings with their "brothers", placing themselves and others in greater danger? We don't need to do anything about that...
Are you familiar with collective bargaining?
The firefighters keep claiming the drug-testing issue is that they want something in exchange for giving up on that. Whether that's right or not is, perhaps another issue, but I'm not sure it rises to the level of union members condoning coked-up firefighters going into burning buildings.
I Think the Union is Right on this One
Drug testing is not respectful, and is something new that is being asked of them.
They're entitled to ask for something in return.
was the driver tested? I wonder...
Drug testing is not respectful, and is something new that is being asked of them.
It's being "asked" of them because they've demonstrated themselves unable to handle not boozing/coking it up on the job.
Funny how they love the hero tag and to be put up on a pedestal, until it comes to not having self-destructive, job-impairing (and thus life-endangering for them, their "brothers", and the public they help) problems.
Now, come to think of it...why haven't we heard anything about whether the drivers in any of these crashes have been tested for drugs? It's not unpredicented for a fire truck driver in MA to be drunk.
Should we also confine all
Should we also confine all of greater Boston to their homes because "they" have demonstrated that "they" commit street robberies?
You do realize the Suffolk County District Attorney's office ...
Is investigating the crash, right?
Boston police and Suffolk County prosecutors are conducting an investigation to rule out any criminal activity.
Regarding Drug testing:
I definitely oppose the indiscriminate use of such a policy as drug testing, but, if somebody is really suspected of being constantly high on drugs, such as cocaine, etc., because his/her performance on the job is constantly impaired, then they really should be tested. If the person in question is found to be impaired by such drugs as cocaine, etc., then s/he should either be forced to enter into some sort of substance-abuse treatment program, or face permanent dismissal.
Zero tolerance for on-the-job impairment
Or even ever impaired on the job. It seems like the T has a stricter policy on these things.
So why shouldn't the fire department?
So why shouldn't the fire department have a stricter policy on such things also? Isn't the safety of workers and their comrades just as important?
but, if somebody is really
That is pretty much the drug and alcohol testing policy agreed on by the city and the union. Also all firefighters in thier first year on the job, firefighters returning from vacation and drivers involved in an accident in a department vehicle are all subject to testing. If any firefighter is found to be dirty then they are subject to testing at will.
Often overlooked or not told or avoided all together, is that the union offered testing in the previous contract negotiation but the city claimed the policy was adequate (or they didn't want to have the burden of paying $75 a test).
so safety is a bargaining point?
The firefighters keep claiming the drug-testing issue is that they want something in exchange for giving up on that.
...and the major fault with that premise was that they were glossing over their already being at a bargaining disadvantage because their members weren't keeping clean on the job time and time again.
That aside- having the assurance that our firefighters aren't coked up means they should get something in return? I suppose then the city should get something in return from the union for lots of new fire trucks? How about drug testing? :)
It sounds as if
the Boston Fire Department may have gone derelict on the inspection and maintenance of their fire trucks and the net result of this kind of negligence have finally started to rear its ugly head.
Follow the $$$
Also remember that union Fire Dept. personnel is responsible for most of the day-to-day maintenance of these fire trucks. More $ for "maintenance" of equipment, more $ in the wallets of firefighters and ultimately more $ for the union through union dues.
Regular maintenance of the fire engines is important.
It's probably cheaper to have the necessary maintenance and additional union dues and/or replacement of parts (such as brakes, etc.) if and when needed than it is to have to pay for the funeral/burial-creamatorial expenses of somebody who gets killed needlessly due to poor brakes, or whatever.
Not necessarily..
It's not necessarily cheaper if the fire department personnel aren't properly trained or equiped to handle the maintenance.
No.
It's cheaper to have department maintenance personnel who're properly trained and equipped to do the necessary preventive maintenance, as well as repairs if and when necessary.
No theory
Sorry, I don't have any theory. I just thought that it was unlikely they crashed on purpose, so I guess my theory would be that the crashes were accidental, no brilliant insights from me!
they're stoking the fire
Or on the other hand they could act as if nothing is wrong. Just let a death of one of thier own go over without answers?
Not the case. The brakes in larger trucks are subject to over heat and to fail. The term used is "sudden and catastrophic" failure. That is why highways on steep grades have a runaway truck lane. Neutral will only allow the truck to roll freely. Down shifting will allow the engine to absorb some energy and slowing the vehicle, but it will not stop it.
It's certainly curious...
Just look at how difficult and worrisome it was the first day that a civilian construction flagger took charge from the police at a job site...you know, what with all the cops in their civilian cars going the wrong way through the construction site and standing in the road protesting and all...
Rather than claim that the Jan 1, Friday, and yesterday's accidents were symptoms of our entire fire department fleet getting ready to explode out from under our firemen, I'd like to know what the track record has been for the past, say, 5 years. Were there tons of non-newsworthy fender benders with the ladder trucks? Were most chalked up to driver error or equipment failure? How many trucks have failed an inspection or required repair in the past, say, 6 months?
For example, yesterday's ladder truck hitting a parked car happened right in front of FD HQ and didn't even involve a loss of brakes or anything. The driver simply "lost control" is all we know. It does seem convenient; yet, sometimes coincidence and/or causal effects only *seem* convenient.
The union head was also out misquoting equipment safety recommendations by more than halving the suggested equipment lifetime. That doesn't help me want to believe that it's quite as dire a situation as he's calling for.
This is exactly the same kind of Shock Doctrine ("Emergency!! Let's react quickly in the way that only I can do/say!") that wears thin very quickly now that we've been hit with it so often. (n.b. - Globe/Herald: this is what we need you guys to do in this day and age! We need more facts and history to understand the situation more accurately!).
Predictable
David Bernstein explains why both Menino and the union might share the blame if it turns out Kelley died due to bad truck maintenance.
Meanwhile, City Councilor Sam Yoon wants the city to start sending trucks in for maintenance based on the number of calls they respond to, not their age:
I may be an armchair expert too, but at least I don't legislate
Meanwhile, City Councilor Sam Yoon wants the city to start sending trucks in for maintenance based on their mileage, not their age
Mileage is a poor indicator of actual use for a fire truck, for reasons obvious to anyone who sits down and thinks about it. Mileage doesn't reflect how many fires it's been used in, and thus how often maintenance needs to be done on the fire-fighting equipment. Mileage doesn't affect wear like brakes (truck that has to do hills like Parker Hill Avenue= more wear than most other city trucks.) Mileage doesn't reflect how much time the spends idling. Some components may not have miles-based replacement, but be based on condition on inspection or calendar age; a lot of rubber bits, for example, are replaced on age (in cars: timing belts and brake hoses, for example, though most people hit the mileage limit on a belt before the age limit.)
There may also be federal/state inspections that need to be done on a calendar basis.
Fleet maintenance is a pretty well-understood thing. Yoon should focus on finding out whether the fleet maintenance people have been doing their jobs according to accepted standards, not inventing his own.
Maybe while the city is at it, it can buy trucks that have been put on a diet and are easier to maneuver in Boston's tight city streets. Y'know, like they've been doing in Europe for decades...
Correction on Yoon's statement
My apologies, but I screwed up. He didn't say milage. What his press release says:
My apologies; I've corrected my post up above.