Three Notch Road in the area of the Lone Star Restaurant

Cowgirl

Well-Known Member
And another thing....I haven't read anything on here saying any other victims were removed from the wreckage. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I only read that the baby was removed...and she was still in her carseat. I don't know why everyone is getting all huffy about that. There's no difference in the baby sitting in the mangled car in her carseat, than there is with the baby sitting safely on the sidewalk or road away from the wreckage....except that the baby can be calmed down much better if she's not in the mangled car in sight of her poor mother. :hrmph:
 
S

StrwberryKisses

Guest
Cowgirl said:
And another thing....I haven't read anything on here saying any other victims were removed from the wreckage. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I only read that the baby was removed...and she was still in her carseat. I don't know why everyone is getting all huffy about that. There's no difference in the baby sitting in the mangled car in her carseat, than there is with the baby sitting safely on the sidewalk or road away from the wreckage....except that the baby can be calmed down much better if she's not in the mangled car in sight of her poor mother. :hrmph:
I agree. and by keeping the baby in the seat they were maintaining support of the child's head and neck which is why everyone was upset that she was moved. The child was most likely transported to the hospital in the car seat
 

bohman

Well-Known Member
Cowgirl said:
There's no difference in the baby sitting in the mangled car in her carseat, than there is with the baby sitting safely on the sidewalk or road away from the wreckage....except that the baby can be calmed down much better if she's not in the mangled car in sight of her poor mother. :hrmph:
The difference is that the baby may have needed his/her neck immobilized BEFORE making that short trip from wrecked car to sidewalk. I do agree with you, it's a judgement call. No advice fits every situation. And of course everybody wants to comfort the baby, but crying for a few more minutes won't hurt it, while moving its injured neck might do just that.
 

nomoney

....
bohman said:
The difference is that the baby may have needed his/her neck immobilized BEFORE making that short trip from wrecked car to sidewalk. I do agree with you, it's a judgement call. No advice fits every situation. And of course everybody wants to comfort the baby, but crying for a few more minutes won't hurt it, while moving its injured neck might do just that.
did the baby get neck damage from being moved? No. End of discussion.
 

flomaster

J.F. A sus ordenes!
bohman said:
The difference is that the baby may have needed his/her neck immobilized BEFORE making that short trip from wrecked car to sidewalk. I do agree with you, it's a judgement call. No advice fits every situation. And of course everybody wants to comfort the baby, but crying for a few more minutes won't hurt it, while moving its injured neck might do just that.
Its an extremely difficult call but based on all that was around the baby, I can't see how anyone could have watched it there. Of course someone could have sat by the vehicle to aid in soothing baby but no telling what fumes were in the air with fuel and the airbags that did go off making that powdery mess that it does. very tough call.
 

bohman

Well-Known Member
nomoney said:
did the baby get neck damage from being moved? No. End of discussion.
How do you know that? Did you go to the hospital with this baby?

This is one of the least intelligent comments I've seen here. Maybe this baby didn't get neck damage. That doesn't mean it's a smart thing to move accident victims with no knowledge of how to do it the right way.

I can only guess that you are bored this morning and trying to rile somebody up for amusement purposes. :elaine:
 

Cowgirl

Well-Known Member
bohman said:
The difference is that the baby may have needed his/her neck immobilized BEFORE making that short trip from wrecked car to sidewalk. I do agree with you, it's a judgement call. No advice fits every situation. And of course everybody wants to comfort the baby, but crying for a few more minutes won't hurt it, while moving its injured neck might do just that.

No, actually this is an unintelligent comment. IF the baby had been left in the carseat for 10 minutes while waiting for the paramedics, she wouldn't have been immobilized. It's the same as her sitting on the sidewalk in her carseat.
 

flomaster

J.F. A sus ordenes!
At least in can be said that all of us are a bit smarter due to this thread. Those of us that live and work in that area know that there is at least one hideous accident around there every year. Perhaps one of us will reflect back to this thread one day and no what to do. Of course if its me and you think I am at risk then pull my azz out!!!!
 

bohman

Well-Known Member
Cowgirl said:
No, actually this is an unintelligent comment. IF the baby had been left in the carseat for 10 minutes while waiting for the paramedics, she wouldn't have been immobilized. It's the same as her sitting on the sidewalk in her carseat.
So you think that pulling a damaged car seat out of a mangled car won't shake the kid up more than letting it sit there? Picture yourself trying to get access to the seat belt holding the seat to the car. Those things are hard to get to in a non-accident situation, much less crushing the car around it. Did you look at the pictures?

All I'm saying is, let a paramedic get a neck brace on the kid. Car seats are designed to reduce and spread out impact, not immobilize necks.
 

Cowgirl

Well-Known Member
bohman said:
So you think that pulling a damaged car seat out of a mangled car won't shake the kid up more than letting it sit there? Picture yourself trying to get access to the seat belt holding the seat to the car. Those things are hard to get to in a non-accident situation, much less crushing the car around it. Did you look at the pictures?
Yes, I saw the pictures. I do think that the child would be more easily calmed if outside the car. Imagine if you were that baby...all of the sudden the car is in a wreck and mangled all around you...there's broken glass, airbags going off, and your mother is up front either screaming or not responding at all (I'm sure she was not in good shape). I think if the child was outside away from the wreckage, with people consoling her, she would be better off.

All I'm saying is, let a paramedic get a neck brace on the kid. Car seats are designed to reduce and spread out impact, not immobilize necks.
Exactly, so whether the kid is sitting in the car or outside the car, her neck is still not going to be immobilized until the paramedics arrive.
 
bohman said:
So you think that pulling a damaged car seat out of a mangled car won't shake the kid up more than letting it sit there? Picture yourself trying to get access to the seat belt holding the seat to the car. Those things are hard to get to in a non-accident situation, much less crushing the car around it. Did you look at the pictures?

All I'm saying is, let a paramedic get a neck brace on the kid. Car seats are designed to reduce and spread out impact, not immobilize necks.
Good lord are you afraid to use your own judgement in a situation like this? You gotta give people some credit to do the right thing. You think the kid was just calmly sitting there?
 

flomaster

J.F. A sus ordenes!
Cowgirl said:
Yes, I saw the pictures. I do think that the child would be more easily calmed if outside the car. Imagine if you were that baby...all of the sudden the car is in a wreck and mangled all around you...there's broken glass, airbags going off, and your mother is up front either screaming or not responding at all (I'm sure she was not in good shape). I think if the child was outside away from the wreckage, with people consoling her, she would be better off.



Whats a baby gonna know about being in a car wreck? Does anyone even know how old it was. I have read infant. There is an emotional side to this and a side that is actually right. Do I agree if baby should be left there? yes I do. Do I believe that my heart wanted that bay out of there pronto? Hell yes. The reality is that one must assess what is there and do what is right regardless of what you "feel". Of course I was not there and don't have all the circumstances in front of me short of child being in a totalled car.
 
I have had my fair share of opinions in this thread and I agree with most, i would have gotten that baby out too. But right now, i think it is time to stop arguing about this tragic event and just start praying for the family of this poor child. I am very sure that the family is very appreciative for saving the baby, but at the same time i think they deserve a bit more respect and not make this about who is right or wrong.
 

ohstate

Member
http://www.roadandtravel.com/safetyandsecurity/accidentfirstonscene.htm

A few years ago, a star collegiate football player was praised by the news media for his actions at the scene of an automobile accident. He was virtually declared a hero for pulling some injured persons from their wrecked car while others stood by, doing nothing. His actions were viewed as daring, decisive, and right. In contrast, the lack of action by bystanders was viewed with disdain by the media. In reality, both the reaction of the football hero, and the bystanders may have been wrong.

Rarely is impulsive action by "good Samaritans" or apathy by bystanders the best way to help victims of auto accidents. You might drive for decades and never be one of the first persons at the scene of a serious accident. On the other hand, if you do ever come across that accident, there are precautions you should take.

Bizarre as it may seem, what you do at the scene of an accident can have long-range consequences. As prominent California attorney William Bradley points out: "The foremost question the good Samaritan should ask is, 'can I leave this accident victim better or in at least the same condition as I found him?' "

Even with the best intentions, if an accident victim's injuries are made worse by your "help," you could be liable for his/her additional injuries.

Most states have "Good Samaritan" laws to protect from legal action those who give aid at an accident. But not everybody is covered. "Some [states] apply them only to citizens rendering assistance to auto accident victims," attorney James O. Page points out. Still other states give protection only to certified emergency personnel.

If a car smashes into a utility pole, and the driver isn't making any effort to get out, you might think the best thing to do is drag him from the wreck. Yet that's usually not the best thing to do. Unless there is some other danger, such as fire, victims should not be moved by bystanders.

Most experts say that at the scene of most accidents, the first thoughts should be, "What can I do to protect victims from sustaining additional injuries?" Pausing for a few seconds, literally, and looking over the situation, you'll probably see several things that should be done before caring for victims.

For example, if a car skids on a turn, crashes into the guard rail, and then flips on its side, what should you do first? There are probably several "good" courses of action.

Safety experts, however, generally recommend you park your car safely out of the traffic lanes, and turn on your emergency flashers. Then warn on-coming traffic that there is an accident ahead by sending other bystanders to flag down traffic approaching the accident scene.

Of course, "flagmen" need to stay out of the traffic lanes. Setting out road flares several hundred feet on either side of the accident is also a good first step--provided there's no danger of fire from leaking fuel.

An accident victim laying in the road is especially vulnerable. Nevertheless, it's usually best not to move him. Such victims can be protected from traffic by positioning vehicles on both sides, creating protective "barriers." Barrier vehicles should have their four-way flashers turned on.

Emergency help--police, fire, and ambulance--should be called promptly. Ask several passing motorists, going in opposite directions, and bystanders, too, to call for help. Asking several people is important in case a cell phone isn't handy. The more people you ask to call for help, the more likely the call will be made.

It's better to have an accident reported by two or three people than not at all because somebody didn't find a phone. A cellular phone, or CB radio also can be used to summon help.

Turn off the ignition switches on vehicles involved in the accident to reduce the risk of fire.

It takes a couple of people just a minute or two to adequately protect victims. It probably took you longer to read these paragraphs than it would actually take to carry out the tasks.

Before attempting to render aid to victims, Bradley says, "If the accident victim is conscious, ask if he wants assistance. If he rejects an offer of help, for any reason, do not aid him." As difficult as it might be, wait for professional help to arrive. If you give aid when a person says he doesn't want it, you might be vulnerable under Good Samaritan laws.

A California Highway Patrolman told me about an accident he once handled where a deaf-mute was thrown from his car in a collision. Well-meaning bystanders moved him from a ditch where he had landed to the edge of the road, despite the speechless man's frantic pointing to his back and shaking his head "no." Fortunately, his back wasn't broken in the accident. Had it been, their action could have resulted in permanent, disabling injuries.

Even if an accident victim says "yes, help me," you still need to be cautious. If there is no immediate danger, why move him? It's usually best to wait for professional help to arrive.

Eighty percent of those hurt in traffic accidents have head injuries. If a person has a head injury, you should assume he also has neck and back injuries.

Bandaging wounds, attempting to splint broken bones, or using more advanced first-aid techniques, especially if professional help is on the way, isn't generally recommended. If an injury is obviously life threatening, and waiting for help would endanger a life, then necessary action probably should be taken.

For instance, if a victim has stopped breathing, mouth-to-mouth resuscitation or CPR (if you're trained in it) becomes vital. If, on the other hand, the person merely lapsed into unconsciousness but is still breathing normally, heroic measures probably aren't warranted.
If it seems there's little you can do for an accident victim, that isn't so. You can do several "safe" things.

• Cover a victim with a coat or blanket to keep him warm and to prevent shock.

• Shade him from the sun or protect the victim from falling rain to make the victim more comfortable while waiting for the ambulance.

• Talk to victims, reassure them help is on the way. Be encouraging.

• Hold his hand while waiting for the ambulance. While this might not seem like much, it can do a lot for an injured person's sense of survival.

• Use a clean cloth as a compress to stop the flow of blood from a serious wound. In the case of head wounds, however, experts suggest you use as light a pressure as possible because he could have a fractured skull.

What if the car bursts into flames, and there are injured persons in it? Most experts agree that pulling a person from a flaming car, even if it aggravates his injuries would certainly be "leaving the persons better off than you found him."

When it comes to saving a life, most people wouldn't even worry about legal liabilities. As Page points out, "Based on the total lack of reported cases, I would say the potential [for being sued] ranges between slim and none."

Traffic accidents are terrible things. They can be traumatic for victims and bystanders alike. Still, if you ever have to "take charge" at the scene of an accident, keep in mind that your primary job is to help protect the victims until professional help arrives--not treat their injuries.
 

mainman

Set Trippin
mehlert74 said:
I have had my fair share of opinions in this thread and I agree with most, i would have gotten that baby out too. But right now, i think it is time to stop arguing about this tragic event and just start praying for the family of this poor child. I am very sure that the family is very appreciative for saving the baby, but at the same time i think they deserve a bit more respect and not make this about who is right or wrong.
Is the family here? :confused:
 

keekee

Well-Known Member
I know that if I were in this situation, I would want nothing more than to comfort this baby. It's human instinct. But I think the point is, you CAN possibly hurt someone worse by moving them, anyone - baby or adult. Although it would be heartwrenching seeing the baby in that mess, it would be best not to move the baby unless there was real danger in leaving him/her in place until EMS arrived. While emotionally we would want to comfort & protect the baby and remove him/her from the wreckage, it might not be in the baby's best interest.

It is definitely a judgement call. But - no fire, I personally wouldn't move the baby. I think this is taught in most first aid classes, and there really is good reason for it.
 
mainman said:
Is the family here? :confused:

No, the family is not here, but how would you feel if this were your family, and you stumbled across all fo this, would you be real thrilled with the idea of your family being the main topic of something as tragic as this and seeing every arguement there is about this? i wouldn't think many would. As i said, i have had my share of opinions on here, but i just think that it is time to stop the argueing and start respecting the outcome of this family and the tragic event.
 

bohman

Well-Known Member
flomaster said:
Whats a baby gonna know about being in a car wreck? Does anyone even know how old it was. I have read infant. There is an emotional side to this and a side that is actually right. Do I agree if baby should be left there? yes I do. Do I believe that my heart wanted that bay out of there pronto? Hell yes. The reality is that one must assess what is there and do what is right regardless of what you "feel". Of course I was not there and don't have all the circumstances in front of me short of child being in a totalled car.
Thank you. This is what I'm trying to say. I'm getting the impression that people think I'm saying that the good samaritans who pulled this baby out should be locked up. But I've already posted that I don't know exactly what the right actions for this accident were, BECAUSE I WASN'T THERE. What I'm saying is that in most cases, don't move the victim unless you absolutely have to. This is common knowledge, and I don't know why I taking so much flak for saying it.

Cowgirl, I understand your viewpoint. I have a daughter, and to hear any baby cry for help tears me up inside. But which one is worse:

1. Baby cries for a few minutes, then paramedics rescue her properly.

2. Baby is paralyzed for life because she was moved improperly.

Which one do you pick?
 

nomoney

....
bohman said:
How do you know that? Did you go to the hospital with this baby?

This is one of the least intelligent comments I've seen here. Maybe this baby didn't get neck damage. That doesn't mean it's a smart thing to move accident victims with no knowledge of how to do it the right way.

I can only guess that you are bored this morning and trying to rile somebody up for amusement purposes. :elaine:
So does it have neck damage? :popcorn:
 
Top