group captain mandrake said:
That looks like a solution to a problem that does not exist.
I have to agree with that statement. My first thought was, "OK, this is a rescue vehicle, so the guy was going for functionality rather than looks." Even if you take the rear seats out, there won't be a place for the stretcher, so where else would you put it?
Then I thought back to my search and rescue days back in Norway, thought about when and why you would actually use a stretcher, and came to the conclusion that this has to be the stupidest design ever.
Is the idea here to get a stretcher to an accident site, carry the patient out with the stretcher mounted like that, or both?
An empty stretcher don't weigh much, and can be put pretty much anywhere. If you have to go through inaccessible terrain, a couple of guys can get it on-site by foot faster than you can get it there by Land Rover, and it won't be banged up and full of branches and other crap when it gets on site.
If you need to carry a patient out on a stretcher, I can't think of a worse place to keep it. Side to side movement will be amplified up there, and the stretcher is unprotected from treebranches and other hazards.
If the intention is to go slow with a patient to limit bouncing around, and have a couple of people on the outside of the truck move hazards out of the way, it would be faster and safer for the patient to be carried by foot or on a properly designed trailer behind an ATV.
This design is just stupid.
