I agree completely on the 'single man ambulance' idea not being that great, although yes, it does have certain specific improvements in short-sighted results (specifically the number of vehicles on the road being higher, and therefore having reduced response time). As you say though, this results in time-on-scene being higher, and you end up with 3 people at a call (solo plus full crew ambo) instead of just 2 if the person needs to be transported. This is of course counter-productive. Being in the service industry, it would be obvious that what is needed is to reduce the number of calls that you respond to. The only way to do this is at the call logging point, and having effective scripting of your operators, and therefore being able to weed out whether a casualty is needing an ambulance or not. Unfortunately, due to the 'sue me' culture, the NHS is reticent to allow this, as they might be sued (yes... because the amount of doctors that get sued every year and being 'highly trained' is not an issue...). Again short sighted. I agree that having an alternative to shipping a big old ambulance to every call is a good idea, however, you then need the backup available to provide the transport required for that patient. Otherwise you'll just snare up more resources. Rather than having 'FRU' teams, shouldn't they rather have 'Light Injury Responders' who go to the verruca's, small cuts, etc. that can be dealt with directly at the casualty's home, or similar. Then with your Paramedics (in a high-speed response vehicle of course), they can get themselves nice and quick over to your priority-collapse calls (And with the police in London having AEDs, along with the AEDs in railway stations) and get your ORCON numbers within requirements. Of course... getting the government to listen... well... Christmas is coming I suppose....