Don't forget all of those cats stuck in tree that get rescued by local FD. Recent stories of pets in storm drains being rescued as well. But as someone else already posted, most are responding to auto accidents. Nothing as useful for redirecting traffic and shielding first responders than a giant firetruck blocking the lanes.

I realize it which is why their strategy is a good one. Does it make sense for the people who are able to do that job also all be able to put out fires?

I think someone that can carry grandma down the stairs and also occasionally put out a catastrophic fire is a pretty reasonable and efficient use of taxpayer money. The alternative would be what, having two different people to do those things?

It depends. In Ontario (or at least Toronto where I live), the fire department and ambulance services are separate. The paramedics are chronically underfunded and the result is that the fire department is constantly running up milage on multiple expensive and massive fire trucks for routine calls that should just have been a paramedic. This also compounds traffic issues when they park at their destination.

It makes sense for them to automatically show up for some situations (eg car accidents), but there should be a properly funded triage system.

Same goes for the police, which are often called for situations where there should be some other social workers available (again, there are exceptions where police should also be present in those situations).

Where I live, the fire department has rescue trucks which sometimes can be large (like a ladder-less fire truck) but can also be as small as a heavy duty work truck. Some departments have enough money to have all kinds of various vehicles for special situations while other departments have just enough to own one vehicle to cover as many needs as possible. It would make more sense to buy something smaller but can they justify the cost to the county or city? And in cities, they still need the big ladder truck and likely need to host an ambulance in the station and probably a fire chief vehicle too. The money is limited as well as the space. I'm sure cities are already rethinking what they actually need now versus 50 years ago. I've already seen paramedic vehicles that are not ambulances, they look like a work van or truck, just enough for two paramedics and enough supplies to treat someone that doesn't need to immediately go to the hospital or to serve as an auxiliary during a mass casualty event. The truck is way cheaper than an ambulance.

>It depends. In Ontario (or at least Toronto where I live), the fire department and ambulance services are separate. The paramedics are chronically underfunded

That's how it is in NYC[0] too...

[0] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/nyc-council-and-fdny-po...

The fire department should get a cheaper car for these calls then.

That isn't cost effective. They need the large trucks just in case - even though realistically they are never used. A large truck isn't that much more expensive to drive than a small one, and in any case if the large truck isn't used for more than a couple days you need to take it for a drive - ensure all the operators know how to drive it and if something broke (sitting is harmful to moving parts - wear is worse, but sitting is harmful) you want to find out and fix it right away.

Which is to say the small cheaper car only makes sense after you have enough large ones and conclude you still need more cars.

I guess it depends on their activity level but driving the big trucks extra could also be training for newer guys learning to handle them.

Well, yes, the alternative would be the necessary number of people to do the first thing and the necessary number of people to do the second thing.

If the two needs are distributed such that it works well to have one group of full-time workers able to do both, then I reckon that’s fine.

Maybe? Firefighting is extremely physically demanding, which is why you'll often see firehouses with built in gym, and rarely see a fat fire fighter. So that physical capability can be used in other circumstances.

Also, firefighters need to know how to dismantle a house quickly to support their operations. So if the door needs to come off the hinges to get grandma down the stairs, firefighters will be prepared for that and have it done in 30 seconds

Sure. And that's carrying someone out of a burning building. Most of the time the building you're getting someone out of isn't burning and you don't need someone trained to fight fires to do that and that person will cost less to employ.

Usually firefighters are on the clock and are paid the same whrehr they respond to a call or not

yes. they are edge cases but the training that comes with it translates fairly well to other tasks.

carrying grandma out of a burning building and carrying her downstairs after a fall are the same skill sets

So is powerlifting and ...?

Powerlifting doesn't teach you the technique and spotting required to walk backwards down a staircase while holding a stretcher above your head so that grandma, who is in extreme pain, doesn't slide off and tumble to the bottom.

Neither does firefighting. The point is if we don't need as many firefighters to fight the fewer fires we have, there are more cost-effective ways of maintaining a group of first responders for medical emergencies.

You're just being adversarial for no reason.

Please, let's hear your ideas. (blows away in the wind)

You must be enthusiastic about people using ERs when they have strep throat, right?

Let me think for a few seconds about ideas. Fitter EMTs who can assist people in more demanding physical situations. A subset of firefighters who can provide medical assistance but don't need the complete fire training curriculum and so can be paid less. Maintaining the ratio of firefighters and stations which was previously found satisfactory but adjusting it for requiring fewer of them since we have fewer fires.

Your turn.

Yup, had this exact scenario across the street last week.