EMS Personnel & Highway Traffic Safety Vests

[x635 4,066]

I'm just curious, how many EMS agencies carry highway traffic safety vests on their ambulances and flycars, and require their personnel to wear them at every and any traffic related incident or incident in traffic?

I recently just saw a photo emailed to me of a EMS agency on a major roadway at dusk a few months ago. What startled me is that this agency wears a dark blue uniform, and was barely visible in the photo, I could only imagine what the motorists could see. However, the HELP truck driver you could clearly see.

I know scene safety on highways is a big thing with the fire service nowadays, and in 2009 it will be a reccomended standard that each seating position have a traffic safety vest and it be used, but what about EMS? It seems that some agencies have some very lazy traffic safety protocols. I'm seeing a lot of agencies get better, like the vests and chevrons, etc, but some still seem stuck in the dark ages. Very sad.

[Guest]

i have been told that withen the next few months EVERYONE will have to wear a vest FIRE, EMS even POLICE when on a call on any roadway firefighter's will have to put it on over there turnout coat's

[jack10562 414]

From my previous experience with my guys in gas, we drilled it into their heads to put on a vest and hardhat anytime they were out of the vehicle, working in or even near the street. Day or night.

It's considered Personal Protective Equipment, just like gloves, goggles, steel-toe boots, and so on.

It takes what, maybe five seconds to put a vest on?

To take a line from seat belt campaigns: The life you save may be your own

[Guest alsfirefighter]

The requirement is for anyone working on a state road. While their has been some crying about it being another unfunded mandate, it still is a good one for safety and those vests really don't cost all that much either.

[OoO 24]

My agency currently has high visibility vests, but they look real sloppy and we are looking to replace them. Can anyone recommend a specific brand?

[Bnechis 3,961]

The requirement is for anyone working on a state road. While their has been some crying about it being another unfunded mandate, it still is a good one for safety and those vests really don't cost all that much either.

Yes its a good idea for safety, but there are a few problems:

1) the only nomex traffic vest does not meet the DOT standard.

2) NFPA says I cant put a 2" nylon patch on my turnouts (it could burn), but is it ok to cover my turnouts in a nylon DOT vest.

3) it is an unfunded mandate and while we can afford it, it means I have to cut back on something else. One of the 2 state roads we cover is I-95 it is owned by the NYS Thruway Authority. They collect $40,000/hour at the toll booth in New Rochelle. They do nothing to support us. We've asked for a number of things to help us assist them (including hydrants in the toll plaza, which has water supply pipes running under it). They do not want assist us in anyway, so instead of having my tax dollars support them, let them fund there own fire and rescue services with the $350 million they make at the tolls in my city.

[Bnechis 3,961]

While this is another unfunded mandate, it was mentioned that its a minor one, which is true. But in NYS close to 80% of the School Budgets and County Budgets are based on State Mandates.

State & federal unfunded mandates are the way that the legislature gets to pass laws and claim it cost nothing, look at the great job they are doing........ Maybe the way to pay for this is anytime they pass an unfunded mandate, we get to take the money out of their salary.

Anyone need to buy Vests? put it on the senators tab........

[jack10562 414]

My agency currently has high visibility vests, but they look real sloppy and we are looking to replace them. Can anyone recommend a specific brand?

The vests we use at ConEd (gas) are from ML Kishigo they're 100% FR (Flame Resistant) Polyester / Lime ANSI/ISEA 107-2004 Class 2 Compliant

Coming soon, wearing a High-vis vest is NOT optional while working in certain areas: http://www.ohsonline.com/articles/49484

[SteveOFD 176]

Found this at Responder Knowledge Base.US

Federal Government Begins Mandating High-Visibility Vests for Emergency Responders

On November 24, 2008, a new federal regulation (23 CFR 634) goes into effect mandating that anyone working in the right-of-way of a federal-aid highway must be wearing high-visibility clothing that meets the requirements of ANSI / ISEA 107; 2004 edition class 2 or 3. This requirement will apply to all emergency responders.

The Code of Federal Regulations Title 23 (Highways) Part 634 was originally published in the Federal Register Vol 71, No 226, pp 67792 - 67800. The Rule itself (634.3) simply states that:

"All workers within the right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway who are exposed either to traffic (vehicles using the highway for purposes of travel) or to construction equipment within the work area shall wear high-visibility safety apparel."

The full article can be read at Responder Knowledge Base.US - Vests

[Guest EFFP411]

Well, here is the issue. Working on a state highway requires a class 3 ansi vest. And, the wonderful government thinkers keep changing the classification of "class 3" type vests. We have been having this issue with our Fire Police lately. We have been trying to update everyone's FP vests to class 3, but we keep having to change them and no company found yet has exactly what the law requires. They may have the proper reflective striping, but not the tear-away sleeves, etc. What we had last month that was considered class 3 last month may not qualify this month.... Get the point? Our fire police division has little to no budget and this absolutely warranted safety issue is important, but the fact that its "unfunded" is getting expensive, especially when you have 40 guys, and every time they change the requirements, we have to toss 40 basically useless brand new vests....

[OoO 24]

Fire police comes up a lot here. What exactly is that?

[Guest EFFP411]

The vests we use at ConEd (gas) are from ML Kishigo they're 100% FR (Flame Resistant) Polyester / Lime ANSI/ISEA 107-2004 Class 2 Compliant

Coming soon, wearing a High-vis vest is NOT optional while working in certain areas: http://www.ohsonline.com/articles/49484

Those vests are great, but they are not class 3. They are only ansi/isea class 2, which if memory serves me does NOT meet the standards for working on federal aided highways/ construction areas

[Guest EFFP411]

Fire police comes up a lot here. What exactly is that?

The Fire Police, are the traffic/scene control personnel associated with the FD, mostly in volunteer departments. Many areas do not have enough law enforcement personnel to effectively handle traffic situations caused by accidents, fires, major incidents, etc. so they rely on the fire police to assist. Many of them are older members of the department that cannot do the conventional FD activities, such as extrication, fighting fires, etc, or have medical limitations. then there are other jokers like me, who is just a jack of all trades, and does fire police as well as rescue, and firematic activities...

They are considered a peace officer, and depending on the area, can carry almost as much authority as any law enforcement agent. Ours are really limited to just traffic control, but will be backed 100% by local Law Enforcement since they make their jobs that much easier at accidents, major events, etc..

[Bnechis 3,961]

"23 CFR Part 634, Worker Visibility, state that all workers within the right of way of a federal-aid highway who are exposed either to traffic or construction equipment within the work area shall wear high-visibility safety apparel"

1) anyone know which roads are "federal-aid highways"?

2) What good is this vest, when some of the troopers will not shut the lanes?

Wow that was a bright ANSI vest that just flew over the hood of my car, I saw that way before I could have seen the firefighters reflective trim.

[jack10562 414]

The class is based on the minimum square inches of background surface area and retroreflective area.

Our Class 2 vests meets the requirements.

Class 3 performance would encompass a much larger surface area than a sleeve-less break-away vest affords.

[ snip ]The impending law specifies that affected workers must wear safety apparel that meets the Performance Class 2 or Class 3 requirements of the ANSI/ISEA 107-2004 [ / snip ]

[Guest EFFP411]

Yes, I know that jack. Class 2 reflective vesta are good for general use, but i do believe class 3 has been required for interstates, and major highways for quite a while for construction workers and traffic control personnel. The change is that EVERYONE will be required to wear something, firemen, police and ems included. I should have been more specific. I'm thinking in "FOG MODE".

[jack10562 414]

For those who might be interested, here's the Class-level table.

[Unionport 0]

Yes, I know that jack. Class 2 reflective vesta are good for general use, but i do believe class 3 has been required for interstates, and major highways for quite a while for construction workers and traffic control personnel. The change is that EVERYONE will be required to wear something, firemen, police and ems included. I should have been more specific. I'm thinking in "FOG MODE".

There are no class 3 compliant vests. That being said there is a company that is selling a vest that they claim is class 3. To be class 3, there needs to be sleeves to show more of a human silhouette. The biggest problem with the ANSI 107 standard is that it is a self certifying standard. When looking for a compliant garment, request 3rd. party testing documentation. It is a very expensive test that the better safety apparel manufacturers will have done.

Check out www.Spiewak.com. Their style S911 &S912 are excellent vests. I will attach images tomorrow.

[Future Fireman 4]

Yes its a good idea for safety, but there are a few problems:

1) the only nomex traffic vest does not meet the DOT standard.

2) NFPA says I cant put a 2" nylon patch on my turnouts (it could burn), but is it ok to cover my turnouts in a nylon DOT vest.

3) it is an unfunded mandate and while we can afford it, it means I have to cut back on something else. One of the 2 state roads we cover is I-95 it is owned by the NYS Thruway Authority. They collect $40,000/hour at the toll booth in New Rochelle. They do nothing to support us. We've asked for a number of things to help us assist them (including hydrants in the toll plaza, which has water supply pipes running under it). They do not want assist us in anyway, so instead of having my tax dollars support them, let them fund there own fire and rescue services with the $350 million they make at the tolls in my city.

Here's an answer for #2: Obviously NFPA doesn't want a nylon patch on your turnouts because that runs a risk of burning inside a building fire. However, the nice thing about the vest at MVAs with no fire is that you don't have to worry about that happening. However, you pull up to a car fire on the interstate, you're gonna put your SCBA on and forget about the vest until the fire's extinguished.

This may be common sense, but regulatory agencies for what we do are trying to regulate common sense these days.

Mike

[JM15 386]

Let me see if I got this right. A vest can't be considered a class 3 because it doesn't have enough surface area. So the only class 3 devices are full length jackets? Those jackets fun at about 100 a piece at retail. That could get pretty expensive for departments to purchase and outfit members with.

[Bnechis 3,961]

However, you pull up to a car fire on the interstate, you're gonna put your SCBA on and forget about the vest until the fire's extinguished. This may be common sense, but regulatory agencies for what we do are trying to regulate common sense these days.

Talk about no common sense. The regulation says you must wear it, even if its flammable it also indicates that once you use it at a car fire it will no longer meet the standard.

https://www.rkb.us/contentdetail.cfm?content_id=200647

Currently no such exception exists for firefighters. Some fire service personnel have expressed concern about the idea of adding a layer of potentially flammable material between their turnout gear and SCBA while battling car fires or during an extrication. Because those views were not expressed during the comment period of 23 CFR 634 no exceptions or interpretations for fire service operations were published along with the rule. Further, all fire department personnel should be aware that turnout gear alone does not meet the visibility requirement. No turnout gear currently manufactured meets the color requirement for the fluorescent background material of these high-visibility garments. Even if turnout gear could be dyed to meet the color standard when manufactured, it would no longer be compliant after the first exposure to fire, smoke, and soot. Fire departments should consider fire resistance of materials (and their limitations) as part of their criteria for selecting vests and writing department protocols and procedures.

[abaduck 123]

Yes its a good idea for safety, but there are a few problems:

1) the only nomex traffic vest does not meet the DOT standard.

2) NFPA says I cant put a 2" nylon patch on my turnouts (it could burn), but is it ok to cover my turnouts in a nylon DOT vest.

Am I missing something here? What's the problem? If you're working on the highway, you put the vest on. If you're not - such as when you're fighting a fire - you... don't put the vest on! The only middle ground is a car fire, in which case the highway is going to be closed until extinguishment is complete? Packs on? Vests off! The pack would substantially obscure the vest anyway...

Mike

[abaduck 123]

Talk about no common sense. The regulation says you must wear it, even if its flammable it also indicates that once you use it at a car fire it will no longer meet the standard.

https://www.rkb.us/contentdetail.cfm?content_id=200647

Currently no such exception exists for firefighters. Some fire service personnel have expressed concern about the idea of adding a layer of potentially flammable material between their turnout gear and SCBA while battling car fires or during an extrication. Because those views were not expressed during the comment period of 23 CFR 634 no exceptions or interpretations for fire service operations were published along with the rule. Further, all fire department personnel should be aware that turnout gear alone does not meet the visibility requirement. No turnout gear currently manufactured meets the color requirement for the fluorescent background material of these high-visibility garments. Even if turnout gear could be dyed to meet the color standard when manufactured, it would no longer be compliant after the first exposure to fire, smoke, and soot. Fire departments should consider fire resistance of materials (and their limitations) as part of their criteria for selecting vests and writing department protocols and procedures.

Hah. Well, the regulation is quite clear:

"All workers within the right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway who are exposed either to traffic (vehicles using the highway for purposes of travel) or to construction equipment within the work area shall wear high-visibility safety apparel." (also from https://www.rkb.us/contentdetail.cfm?content_id=200647 )

So the answer is simple and obvious: any time we have to perform a task where it's inappropriate to wear a vest (such as knocking down a car fire), we HAVE to close the highway, in order that we're not 'exposed... to traffic'. When the packs come off and the vests can go on, then we can open up to traffic, if appropriate. That's the only way to remain in full compliance with the regs, as far as I can see.

Mike

Edited August 11, 2008 by abaduck

[Guest EFFP411]

Hah. Well, the regulation is quite clear:

"All workers within the right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway who are exposed either to traffic (vehicles using the highway for purposes of travel) or to construction equipment within the work area shall wear high-visibility safety apparel." (also from https://www.rkb.us/contentdetail.cfm?content_id=200647 )

So the answer is simple and obvious: any time we have to perform a task where it's inappropriate to wear a vest (such as knocking down a car fire), we HAVE to close the highway, in order that we're not 'exposed... to traffic'. When the packs come off and the vests can go on, then we can open up to traffic, if appropriate. That's the only way to remain in full compliance with the regs, as far as I can see.

Mike

Well I see your point Mike, but closing the road is not always an option, especially a major highway. The state police around here are very cooperative, and they will pretty much give us whatever we need, but some areas troopers are not so gracious. The only thing in their mind is "get the road open, get this traffic moving", and even one lane closed is too much for them. We have had problems in the past with this mentality, especially when it compromises our safety on scene and the trooper is howling at us to open the road. Such is no longer the case these days thankfully.

Edited August 11, 2008 by EFFP411

[Unionport 0]

My agency currently has high visibility vests, but they look real sloppy and we are looking to replace them. Can anyone recommend a specific brand?

My recommendation is either of the Spiewak that I have attached here. The style #S912 meets the new public safety standard. I have also attached the 3rd party test. Whatever garments you decide to purchase, insist on 3rd party testing. I have seen too many non-compliant garments self certified that would never pass a 3rd party test.

Either of these vests can be customized with POLICE, FIRE, or EMS on the front and the back.

WWW.Spiewak.com

S911.pdf

S912_red.pdf

S911_3rd_Party_Test_Report__Class_2.pdf

[Guest alsfirefighter]

I know the car fire thing keeps coming up and this is probably going to sound a little out of the norm for my normal mindset...but I'm thinking if you use proper tactics and you have a vest on..its probably going to still be ok. Now we all know the unexpected things can happen...and if your engulfed for whatever reason in a fire ball...vest or no vest that's still not that conducive. How often is your gear charring at car fires? Most of those vests will be like shrinky dinks...and you have a back up line. Now with that being said...lets face it that some common sense is prevalent in certain aspects, and even as a person who likes policy, regulation and standards to add to safety, wouldn't get in a tizzy if those on the line didn't have the little vests on. Anyone who is not should have them on..and once the car is extinguished and the risk is minimal everyone dons them.

[50-65 205]

"All workers within the right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway who are exposed either to traffic (vehicles using the highway for purposes of travel) or to construction equipment within the work area shall wear high-visibility safety apparel."

Here is what I proposed when we were discussing this the other day. If we close the road, we are no longer exposed to traffic. Take that $800,000 truck which is 46' long and park it across both lanes of the interstate until we are done working.

[gamewell45 258]

"All workers within the right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway who are exposed either to traffic (vehicles using the highway for purposes of travel) or to construction equipment within the work area shall wear high-visibility safety apparel."

Here is what I proposed when we were discussing this the other day. If we close the road, we are no longer exposed to traffic. Take that $800,000 truck which is 46' long and park it across both lanes of the interstate until we are done working.

Amen

[ex-commish 490]

Anyone need to buy Vests? put it on the senators tab........

How about we cancel a few parades or the $1000.00 plus band for the parade and use that money to buy vests.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Here is what I proposed when we were discussing this the other day. If we close the road, we are no longer exposed to traffic. Take that $800,000 truck which is 46' long and park it across both lanes of the interstate until we are done working.

Works great till the trooper starts threatening arrests for blocking "his road". We have had this happen many times with the last round (a few different incidents) being within the last 2 years.