Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 01:14:30 +0000 (UTC) From: "SimonJ" <menopsam.com> Subject: Re: EMT's - question for you
"Just Bob" <uctraingnopsamanet.com> wrote in message news:i0lp1u4m25i9vb6it5u6v96i9soj0j0v5nnopsamcom... > On Sat, 15 Dec 2001 18:15:39 +0000 (UTC), "SimonJ" <menopsam.com> > wrote: > > > > > >The door being locked would only affect casualties who were rendered > >unconscious or immobile by the crash, (if you were neither, you could unlock > >the car or not as you chose) > >In the case of unconscious/immobile patients, it is essential to get first > >aid to them as quickly as possible. > > > > Simon: > > These are all generalities, as we can invent any conditions we want. > > That said, if the lock of the door is all that is keeping it closed > in an accident, it would only be in cases where the patient is > unconscious or immobile that a 'bystander' would need to provide > care. Don't you think that in an accident so serious that the > occupant is unconscious that a professional should attend to the > patient rather than a bystander ? > Yes, definately, but how many accident occur directly outside a hospital? If a patient is not breathing, for example, should you wait for the profesionals to arrive? > > Somehow it seems to me that the benefit of the lock in keeping the > door closed in a serious accident out weighs the possibility of these > conditions occurring. But, I'm here to discuss, that's why I posted > the initial question. > As stated above (snipped by you) the lock has no effect on the strength of the door latch. > Bob
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
