The Missing Map at Our Intersections
By:
John R. Bennett
Seminole County Fire Department
www.seminolecountyfl.gov/firedepartment
Since January, I’ve been knee-deep in standard operating procedures, training manuals, and operator guides from fire and EMS departments across the country. Not for school. Not for work. Simply because, after years of leading roadway responses, I’ve felt a nagging absence: a lack of hard guidance I could hand to my personnel with confidence. I started this review with one mission in mind, but as with any deep dive, intel accumulates far beyond the original scope.
What’s emerging is disconcerting. Across hundreds of documents so far, one glaring weakness stands out: how we handle intersections. These are the very places where nearly half of roadway collisions occur, yet our policies and training materials treat them as an afterthought (if at all).
Four particularly troubling gaps have surfaced about intersection responses:
- No detailed reference for positioning apparatus in intersections.
- No clear method for identifying which direction of traffic poses the greatest threat.
- SOPs that stop at non-specific phrases like “protect from more than one direction,” offering no operational specificity.
- No universal language to describe locations within an intersection.
For an industry that prides itself on structured training and repeatable practices, these are not minor oversights— they’re dangerous vulnerabilities. According to the National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 42–45 percent of roadway collisions happen in intersections. That’s likely similar to the proportion of our own roadway responses. In other words, this isn’t a fringe issue.
So what do we do? Two immediate changes can start to close the gap.
1. Position Apparatus with Intersections in Mind
We must go beyond generic roadway positioning rules and spell out intersection strategy explicitly. Every deployment should aim to:
- Contain the scene.
- Identify and objectify the most dangerous approach(es).
- Provide a single directional viewpoint wherever possible.
- Eliminate “sneak points” where traffic can unexpectedly enter.
These goals are universal enough to fit all roadway incidents but were developed specifically with intersections in mind.
2. Speak the Same Language
We already label building sides and vehicle posts A, B, C, D. We already number road lanes. Why not do the same with intersections? Breaking a standard four-way intersection into quadrants— A, B, C, D, with A marking the main incident area—creates instant clarity. This simple framework mimics how we describe square structures and at the same time avoids confusion with lane numbering. It also makes it easier to communicate positioning, whether between an arriving driver and officer or to incoming units still en route.
Practice Before the Big Ones
These ideas complement—not contradict—established national standards. My goal is to review at least one percent of agencies’ SOPs nationwide, enough to paint a representative picture. I’m sure I’ll find departments that already address intersections thoroughly, with policies far more tested than what my crews have rehearsed over the years.
But we can’t wait for the “big ones” to practice getting this right. Crews need to employ these frameworks on everyday calls, iron out the kinks, adapt them locally, and then feed lessons learned back into the system. It takes only 20–30 minutes of rehearsal to turn a new concept into everyday flow.
The bottom line: intersections are where danger concentrates, yet our guidance dissipates. We owe it to our personnel— and to the public— to close that gap now, not later.