NYS Blue Light Law

[Bnechis 3,961]

So for NY, how about doing this: abolish blue courtesy lights, but allow FFs *who have completed EVOC or similar AND are passed to drive department vehicles* to use blue/red/white lights & sirens on their POVs, with the same privileges as any other emergency vehicle. How does that sound?

Gets rid of the two biggest problem with blue lights - young inexperienced guys driving like yahoos, and Joe Public not knowing or caring how to respond to blue-light vehicles - whilst still giving appropriate privileges to the more dedicated and experienced members of the FD, who can (hopefully!) be trusted to use them appropriately.

1) As mentioned, your insurance will go up by $1,000's

2) Maybe in rural areas, but lets think about this, in urban/suburban areas like most of Westchester most depts. cover less than 5 sq. miles. That means its about 3 miles from corner to corner. At 30 mph its a 6 minute run, now some members are most likely closer. National standards for career depts requires that other than the 1st due you need to be there in 8 minutes. So even unmanned you can do that.

3) If response time is so important.....have staffed stations.

Many of the VAC's have had duty crews for 30 years why cant fire?

I'm a Chief and I do not condone the use of the blues based on the law. That is why I feel it is well beyond time for the law to be amended to our benefit. You guys run a lot of calls on I95 and I am sure you may benefit from the addition of blue warning lights on your apparatus too. People are so used to seeing red and amber that blue actually grabs their attention. Hopefully we can find a resolution to this soon.

Agreed, I'm for Blue on Official Dept Vehicles, once it is legal to do so.

[abaduck 123]

1) As mentioned, your insurance will go up by $1,000's

2) Maybe in rural areas, but lets think about this, in urban/suburban areas like most of Westchester most depts. cover less than 5 sq. miles. That means its about 3 miles from corner to corner. At 30 mph its a 6 minute run, now some members are most likely closer. National standards for career depts requires that other than the 1st due you need to be there in 8 minutes. So even unmanned you can do that.

3) If response time is so important.....have staffed stations.

Many of the VAC's have had duty crews for 30 years why cant fire?

1. Insurance... yeah maybe, but as I said I've read about other states where POVs with lights/sirens/emergency vehicle status are allowed. They must have solved the insurance problem somehow. I guess if you have EVOC training you're considered to be properly trained, and a better driver for it anyway. Maybe even it's a law in those states - other states have laws preventing employers from discriminating against vollie FFs (because it's in the public interest to encourage people to volunteer), maybe some also have laws preventing insurers from doing the same?

2. I agree, in suburban Westchester it would be of little benefit, but don't forget the blue light law applies to all of NYS.

3. Response time to the station isn't the issue when you have combination departments where the vollies respond direct to scene. Otherwise... yes duty crews make some sense, or at least some formalised driving rota based on availability.

It was just a blue-sky idea... wondering how we could improve on the current blue-light situation. I certainly agree with a lot of comments made - especially re. blue lights at traffic lights, that's just dumb. If I have my light on at all, I turn it off when it's of no help - most especially at traffic lights! And I don't have any problem with a cop who decides to ticket a vollie who's driving like an idiot while responding to a call. In fact, by the time the Chief has finished with him, the ticket will/should be the least of his worries...!

Mike

Edited April 12, 2008 by abaduck

[joshlost818 6]

I'm sure that in upstate New York a blue light up there is treated just like a police car. I have driven through there and there are volunteers with blue lightbars on the top of there roof with more than one light flashing at a time. It's all New York and we should all have the same privaleges. Everyone breaks our balls about the whole blue light thing but lets not forget that they so the same and i would assume get nothing for it.

[ex-commish 490]

Yes, that's one. They're a little more useful than that:

1. They're useful if, as occasionally happens, we end up using POVs to close a road.

If you car gets hit..will the dept cover it?

2. Once parked near the scene, they increase visibility and decrease vulnerability, IMHO.

Same question as # 1.

3. They do occasionally work as advertised, in terms of getting slow-moving vehicles to move over.

And create more traffic issues.

4. They also serve to identify bad driving by members 'I saw this a****** firefighter...'.

License plates also identify vehicles.

For general responding to calls, I would agree with ALS - they're mostly as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike. I wouldn't cry a river if they were abolished.

I agree...do away with them. They serve no purpose.

Here's an idea which... I dunno, what do people think? Some states I know give FF POVs considerably more than courtesy lights; they're given pretty much the same privileges as any other emergency vehicles when running lights & sirens. So for NY, how about doing this: abolish blue courtesy lights, but allow FFs *who have completed EVOC or similar AND are passed to drive department vehicles* to use blue/red/white lights & sirens on their POVs, with the same privileges as any other emergency vehicle. How does that sound? Gets rid of the two biggest problem with blue lights - young inexperienced guys driving like yahoos, and Joe Public not knowing or caring how to respond to blue-light vehicles - whilst still giving appropriate privileges to the more dedicated and experienced members of the FD, who can (hopefully!) be trusted to use them appropriately.

Just an idea...

Unfortunately I know EVOC trained people who still drive like maniacs. You can show all the videos, cover all case material, etc and there are still some who will not get the message. The only way to deal with any problem is to get rid of the problem. Anything else is mere sugarcoating.

Mike

[abaduck 123]

1. They're useful if, as occasionally happens, we end up using POVs to close a road.

If you car gets hit..will the dept cover it?

2. Once parked near the scene, they increase visibility and decrease vulnerability, IMHO.

Same question as # 1.

If I'm parked with lights on, hazard warning flashers on, and blue light flashing merrily, and some idiot STILL drives into my car, the idiot behind the wheel of that car is damn well going to 'cover it'!

4. They also serve to identify bad driving by members 'I saw this a****** firefighter...'.

License plates also identify vehicles.

Yeah, but as ALS once put it very eloquently in one of his classes, paraphrased slightly: 'you drive like an idiot and people will say "there goes another idiot driver" and forget about it. You drive like an idiot with a blue light, people say "there goes another idiot firefighter, I'm gonna complain to the FD"...' Personally, I'm MORE concious that my driving may be held up to inspection when I'm using a blue light, and drive accordingly.

Unfortunately I know EVOC trained people who still drive like maniacs. You can show all the videos, cover all case material, etc and there are still some who will not get the message. The only way to deal with any problem is to get rid of the problem. Anything else is mere sugarcoating.

Possibly... hell, enough apparatus driven by career FFs gets in wrecks anyway... as I said, it was just an idea.

Mike

[T. John 21]

First, I think this topic is started to get off course a little. Looking back to the first post, the original discussion was about the use of blue lights on official emergency apparatus (primarily non-POV). That being said, I think anything to improve responder safety is a good idea. If blue lights will help, I am in support of that. I will say that the new trooper vehicles are much more noticeable.

Regarding the other discussion with blue lights / POVS:

Something that should be highlighted is that the use of any emergency signaling device (light and/or siren) is a privilege - this is a privilege that can be taken away. While the "law" may provide the legal right to use such a device, department policy and/or Chief Officer(s) have the authority to grant/revoke that privilege. Just because someone "can" drive a fire truck, doesn't mean they should (or that they have the "privilege" of doing so). Similarly, department policy should spell out the parameters in which lights (and their permits) are issued, used and revoked (above and beyond what the "law" says). Aside from the legalities of using these devices, strong leadership is critical to ensuring that this privilege is not abused. If individuals do not accept the responsibilities of this privilege, it is up to the leadership to address the problem. In my department, I have very few firefighters that have blue lights. We also have restrictions and policies that spell out what, how and when they can be used.

As a Chief officer, if the very first thing a new member asks is about a blue light, I know we have a problem here....

Edited April 12, 2008 by T. John

[Guest MVFD334]

If a plow,utility,cable, etc trucks have strobes in there tailights I really dont see the problem. They are visible only fom the rear. The fact that you see them means they have served there purpose. Its not like they have them in front, on the roof and speeding down the roads trying to pass people. A strobe attracks attention, and in a snowstorm or in the bright sunlight you will see these before that the amber beacon. When i plow i want people seeing me, because whn backin up in and out of driveways with snow covered bushes it is hard to be seen, the strobes serve as a little extra security. I dont agree with these trucks usuing them when driving job to job, but at the job only.

As far as blue lights there is always gonna be a dilema over them. I will continue to use mine until the chief or law says otherwise.

[Doc 11]

I seriously think NYS should just start over with the whole colored lights issue. There is enough information out there that shows which lights are best for which applications. That isn't neccessarily reflected in the V&T laws. The law as it is written now and how it may or may not be revised only muddies the water and puts agencies and individuals in positions where the policy that would have the most benefit to their safety and health puts them at odds with the law. It is a typical Albany produced mess.

I understand that there are plenty of people who have bugs up their hindquarters over vollies and their bluelights. I also understand that there is an equal number of wackers racing around with bluelights justifying that first bunch's assertions. I can also tell you that when we get a call, there might be two or three emergency vehicles on the road, but a half-dozen or more POV's driving around out there too. In my department, we have seen more accidents involving those few fire apparatus with lights and sirens than we have seen accidents involving member POVs with bluelights.

How many departments REQUIRE TRAINING before issuing bluelight cards? If your department is handing them out at the new guy's first company meeting along with his copy of the SOPs, you're already lost. That card should be given out only after the member has been trained on what he/she can and cannot do with it and some measure of competence assessment obtained. Planned light installations or purchases should be reviewed by a chief officer. Blue light policies need to be in writing and those policies need to be trained with. Violation of that policy should be treated as though the problem involved the operation of a department vehicle, especially if your department allows to-the-scene response in POVs. When young members get the bluelight fever, they need to taken to task for it immediately. It has to be merciless and discipline has to be delivered evenly.

This is the biggest inadequacy I see with departments that allow to-the-scene response in POVs. I have no problem with to-the-scene response and do so often, BUT if we expect our members to arrive safely yet quickly to the scene in their own vehicles they need to understand the rules of the road and have training. Handing them a little blue card and saying, "Don't go killin' yerself now..." is insane.

It's been my finding that the problem isn't the light on the roof, but the moron behind the wheel. Morons can only be cured or identified and taken out of the equation by training and good policies that are enforced. If an idiot like me can use his bluelight responsibly, than anybody can.

Edited April 13, 2008 by Doc

[xfirefighter484x 234]

I seriously think NYS should just start over with the whole colored lights issue.

I also found this!

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=S04842

The text from the bill is below.

Be sure to read the last sentence, BOLDED and underlined.

S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K

________________________________________________________________________

4842

2007-2008 Regular Sessions

I N S E N A T E

April 23, 2007

___________

Introduced by Sen. LARKIN -- read twice and ordered printed, and when

printed to be committed to the Committee on Finance

AN ACT to establish a temporary state commission on the use of colored

and flashing lights on certain vehicles to examine, evaluate and make

recommendations on the use of such lights on authorized emergency

vehicles and the personal motor vehicles of volunteer firefighters and

volunteer ambulance workers; and providing for the repeal of such

provisions upon expiration thereof

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-

BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

1 Section 1. A temporary state commission on the use of colored and

2 flashing lights on certain vehicles is hereby established to examine,

3 evaluate and make recommendations concerning the use of any variety of

4 such lights, as generally specified in subdivision 41 of section 375 of

5 the vehicle and traffic law, on the various types of authorized emergen-

6 cy vehicles, as defined in section 101 of the vehicle and traffic law,

7 and on the motor vehicles of volunteer firefighters and volunteer ambu-

8 lance workers under the circumstances specified in subparagraph a of

9 paragraph 4 and paragraph 5 of subdivision 41 of section 375 of the

10 vehicle and traffic law. Such commission shall direct its attention to

11 at least the following:

12 (a) Evaluate which combination of flashing and colored lighting would

13 be the optimal lighting system for the motor vehicles owned by volunteer

14 firefighters and volunteer ambulance workers to be used only while

15 engaged in emergency operation, as defined by section 114-b of the vehi-

16 cle and traffic law; and

17 ( Evaluate which combination of flashing and color lighting would be

18 the optimal lighting system for authorized emergency vehicles by making

19 such vehicles readily visible during daylight and dark, and provide for

20 easy identification of the various types of authorized emergency vehi-

21 cles.

EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets

{ } is old law to be omitted.

LBD11045-02-7

S. 4842 2

1 S 2. (a) The temporary state commission on the use of colored and

2 flashing lights on certain vehicles shall consist of 15 members as

3 follows:

4 (i) the commissioner of motor vehicles, or his or her designee, who

5 shall serve as chair of the commission;

6 (ii) the commissioner of transportation, or his or her designee;

7 (iii) the commissioner of health, or his or her designee;

8 (iv) the superintendent of insurance, or his or her designee;

9 (v) a representative of the state emergency management office;

10 (vi) the superintendent of state police, or his or her designee; and

11 (vii) nine appointed members who shall represent a statewide organiza-

12 tion that represents police officers, a statewide organization that

13 represents professional firefighters, a statewide organization that

14 represents volunteer firefighters, a statewide organization that repres-

15 ents professional emergency medical technicians and a statewide organ-

16 ization that represents volunteer ambulance workers; and persons with

17 expertise and knowledge about the visibility and distraction caused by

18 various types of lights. Such members shall be appointed as follows:

19 (A) three members shall be appointed by the governor;

20 ( two members shall be appointed by the temporary president of the

21 senate;

22 © two members shall be appointed by the speaker of the assembly;

23 (D) one member shall be appointed by the minority leader of the

24 senate; and

25 (E) one member shall be appointed by the minority leader of the assem-

26 bly.

27 ( Vacancies in the membership of the commission shall be filled in

28 the manner provided for original appointments.

29 S 3. The temporary state commission on the use of colored and flashing

30 lights on certain vehicles may meet within and without the state, shall

31 hold public hearings and shall have all the powers of a legislative

32 committee pursuant to the legislative law.

33 S 4. The members of the temporary state commission on the use of

34 colored and flashing lights on certain vehicles shall receive no compen-

35 sation for their services, but shall be allowed their actual and neces-

36 sary expenses incurred in their duties pursuant to this act.

37 S 5. The temporary state commission on the use of colored and flashing

38 lights on certain vehicles shall, on or before March 31, 2008, submit a

39 report to the governor and the legislature of its findings, conclusions

40 and recommendations. Such commission shall, as part of such report,

41 submit such legislative and regulatory proposals as it deems necessary

42 to implement its recommendations.

43 S 6. This act shall take effect immediately, and shall expire and be

44 deemed repealed April 1, 2008.

So if this was repealed on 4-1-08, does anyone know what came of it??

[Guest]

I seriously think NYS should just start over with the whole colored lights issue. There is enough information out there that shows which lights are best for which applications. That isn't neccessarily reflected in the V&T laws. The law as it is written now and how it may or may not be revised only muddies the water and puts agencies and individuals in positions where the policy that would have the most benefit to their safety and health puts them at odds with the law. It is a typical Albany produced mess.

I understand that there are plenty of people who have bugs up their hindquarters over vollies and their bluelights. I also understand that there is an equal number of wackers racing around with bluelights justifying that first bunch's assertions. I can also tell you that when we get a call, there might be two or three emergency vehicles on the road, but a half-dozen or more POV's driving around out there too. In my department, we have seen more accidents involving those few fire apparatus with lights and sirens than we have seen accidents involving member POVs with bluelights.

How many departments REQUIRE TRAINING before issuing bluelight cards? If your department is handing them out at the new guy's first company meeting along with his copy of the SOPs, you're already lost. That card should be given out only after the member has been trained on what he/she can and cannot do with it and some measure of competence assessment obtained. Planned light installations or purchases should be reviewed by a chief officer. Blue light policies need to be in writing and those policies need to be trained with. Violation of that policy should be treated as though the problem involved the operation of a department vehicle, especially if your department allows to-the-scene response in POVs. When young members get the bluelight fever, they need to taken to task for it immediately. It has to be merciless and discipline has to be delivered evenly.

This is the biggest inadequacy I see with departments that allow to-the-scene response in POVs. I have no problem with to-the-scene response and do so often, BUT if we expect our members to arrive safely yet quickly to the scene in their own vehicles they need to understand the rules of the road and have training. Handing them a little blue card and saying, "Don't go killin' yerself now..." is insane.

It's been my finding that the problem isn't the light on the roof, but the moron behind the wheel. Morons can only be cured or identified and taken out of the equation by training and good policies that are enforced. If an idiot like me can use his bluelight responsibly, than anybody can.

I have a better idea....In almost all other states except NY police have blue lights and volunteers have red lights. In NC volunteer FF have red lights and the Fire chiefs also but the Chiefs have Sirens and are in marked Dept Units. If NY would change the light lasw it would make it easier. Police have Blue lights and FD have Red lights. In these states there are noooooo issues when it comes to the lights. Also as far as sirens, I think it is a bad idea to give any volunteer red lights and sirens. That is what the rank of Chief and Asst Chief are. If I am a FF I should be going to get the rig to drive or Scott up. In NC the Volunteer Capts. take turns being"on call" and they use a Dept veh to respond lights n sirens. but no volunteer just a ff have sirens.

[OoO 24]

So if this was repealed on 4-1-08, does anyone know what came of it??

It doesn't look like this bill was ever passed.

[ltjay157 10]

Why can't we stop beating this dead horse? You're not going to lose blue light privileges. Lots of states have the PD's running red/blue lights. CT PD's have been running red/blue for ages and the vollies have run blue lights. there have been no problems here. Even if you lose the privilege of using blue lights, who cares? Granted, when I was younger, I used to go all out with the light bar and lights in the grille etc.... I found I get to the firehouse just as fast using just a dashlight now. rarely do I ever go directly to the scene unless it's just down the street. The State of Connecticut now allows vollies to have flashing white lights (flashing headlights only). You need to have the local police chief sign the permit. Want to know something I noticed? Even with the flashing headlights, traffic still doesn't move (shocking). We should be more concerned about making firefighting safer and eliminating senseles LODD deaths. If you joined the FD to use a "cool" blue light, you joined for the wrong reason. So can we move onto something more constructive? I doubt the PD's in NY are going to force the FD's to remove the blue light/lens from the rear of the apparatuss. Yes, I'll admit the blue does stand out. But people are stupid (job security) and will still crash into the parked apparatus no matter what colored lights you have flashing. Everyone seems concerned about response times. If you have trouble getting trucks out the door, start a duty crew if possible. Better yet, start off small with a night duty crew. Have 4 FF's assigned to it from say 8p-6am. I'll even use examples. If it takes you 4 min to get to the firehouse, then another 6 min to get to the scene, you're talking 10 min. If you had the duty crew, you'd be there in 6 min. That's a big difference in an emergency. The volunteer fire service is just that, a SERVICE. If you can't get your customers (residents/businesses) the best service they deserve, isn't that a DISSERVICE to them? End of rant.

PS, I'm not trying to incite a riot here, I just think we need to get our priorities straight.

[helicopper 1,050]

If I'm parked with lights on, hazard warning flashers on, and blue light flashing merrily, and some idiot STILL drives into my car, the idiot behind the wheel of that car is damn well going to 'cover it'!

And as a no-fault state, your insurance will get tagged also!

[MoFire390 118]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Be thankful the laws are not strictly enforced or there would be a lot of unhappy people out there. Why should we? Because you're setting an example for people as a first responder.

Also, great points as usual, bnechis!

I understand what you mean Chris192, but at the same time wasn't everyone preached scene safty from which ever part of Emergency Services you are in?? Does this not fall under scene and response safety??

[abaduck 123]

And as a no-fault state, your insurance will get tagged also!

I'm not trying to be funny, but I really didn't understand that at all - what do you mean by 'no-fault state' and 'insurance tagged'? (I'm an immigrant and still get tripped up by US language sometimes!)

To me, here's how it works:

1. I park my car with lights etc. as before.

2. Some idiot drives into it.

3. Last time I checked, it was the responsibility of the driver to avoid stationary objects - trees, signs, parked cars etc.

4. If there's any justice, idiot gets a ticket (back home in UK it would be for 'careless driving' at the least).

5. I fix my car.

6. I send idiot the invoice.

7. He/she pays, or their insurance company does.

8. No pay? You'll see me in court.

What have I got wrong?

Mike

[Bnechis 3,961]

I'm not trying to be funny, but I really didn't understand that at all - what do you mean by 'no-fault state' and 'insurance tagged'? (I'm an immigrant and still get tripped up by US language sometimes!)

To me, here's how it works:

1. I park my car with lights etc. as before.

2. Some idiot drives into it.

3. Last time I checked, it was the responsibility of the driver to avoid stationary objects - trees, signs, parked cars etc.

4. If there's any justice, idiot gets a ticket (back home in UK it would be for 'careless driving' at the least).

5. I fix my car.

6. I send idiot the invoice.

7. He/she pays, or their insurance company does.

8. No pay? You'll see me in court.

What have I got wrong?

Mike

You are partially correct. No Fault means it was an "accident"...he didnt mean to hit your car and everyone pays partially.

His insurance and your insurance will decide who is is at fault and by how much.

Generally he hit you so he is 60 - 80% responsable. You are responsible for the remainder.....Your Ins company will say its 20, - 40% your fault becaus if you stayed in bed your car would not have been in a place to get hit.

Tough concept, but its mostly based on you getting covered when you get hit by someone who has no insurance.

The tagged part is your rates will go up to pay your %.

[abaduck 123]

You are partially correct. No Fault means it was an "accident"...he didnt mean to hit your car and everyone pays partially.

His insurance and your insurance will decide who is is at fault and by how much.

Generally he hit you so he is 60 - 80% responsable. You are responsible for the remainder.....Your Ins company will say its 20, - 40% your fault becaus if you stayed in bed your car would not have been in a place to get hit.

Tough concept, but its mostly based on you getting covered when you get hit by someone who has no insurance.

The tagged part is your rates will go up to pay your %.

That doesn't make a lot of sense - if someone drives into a well-lit parked car they're 100% at fault, and 100% on the hook. What if I'd stopped at a red light, and someone ran right into the back of me? No arguments there, I'm obeying the rules of the road, the other party is again 100% at fault. What you're describing is 'knock for knock', where both parties are to some degree at fault, and the insurers apportion liability on the evidence.

Yes, of course I'd notify my insurers of the accident - but they don't get a say in deciding what happens, that's between me and the idiot who ran into me. I won't be making any claim on my insurance; no claim, no payout, no loss to insurers, no increase in rates - for *me*. I'll be making my claim to HIM, and he'll pass it on to his insurers to deal with - unless he just wants to settle up out of his own pocket.

There's a difference between 'accident' as in, something that wasn't deliberate, intentional, and 'accident' as in the reasonably forseeable consequences of driving like a moron...!

Mike

[Bnechis 3,961]

That doesn't make a lot of sense - if someone drives into a well-lit parked car they're 100% at fault, and 100% on the hook. What if I'd stopped at a red light, and someone ran right into the back of me? No arguments there, I'm obeying the rules of the road, the other party is again 100% at fault. What you're describing is 'knock for knock', where both parties are to some degree at fault, and the insurers apportion liability on the evidence.

My wife was stopped at a red light (about 10 yrs ago) and was struck by another car. The ins. co said she was 30% at fault because she got out of bed and left the house. You're right it does not make sense.

Yes, of course I'd notify my insurers of the accident - but they don't get a say in deciding what happens, that's between me and the idiot who ran into me. I won't be making any claim on my insurance; no claim, no payout, no loss to insurers, no increase in rates - for *me*. I'll be making my claim to HIM, and he'll pass it on to his insurers to deal with - unless he just wants to settle up out of his own pocket.

Your Insurance carrier will see it differently. They dont like paying. They believe its there money and will make you pay in the long run. This is one of the reasons that most people avoid reporting anything to them.

[helicopper 1,050]

That doesn't make a lot of sense - if someone drives into a well-lit parked car they're 100% at fault, and 100% on the hook. What if I'd stopped at a red light, and someone ran right into the back of me? No arguments there, I'm obeying the rules of the road, the other party is again 100% at fault. What you're describing is 'knock for knock', where both parties are to some degree at fault, and the insurers apportion liability on the evidence.

Yes, of course I'd notify my insurers of the accident - but they don't get a say in deciding what happens, that's between me and the idiot who ran into me. I won't be making any claim on my insurance; no claim, no payout, no loss to insurers, no increase in rates - for *me*. I'll be making my claim to HIM, and he'll pass it on to his insurers to deal with - unless he just wants to settle up out of his own pocket.

There's a difference between 'accident' as in, something that wasn't deliberate, intentional, and 'accident' as in the reasonably forseeable consequences of driving like a moron...!

Mike

It's not so much a matter of making sense as it is the insurance companies trying to reduce their liability and payouts. A parked car may be a little bit different - a vehicle being used to control/safeguard a scene with lights flashing is probably going to incur some liability.

Once your insurance company learns of the incident - claim or not - they can increase your rates. They can increase your rates for traffic violations even where there is no accident. That's why they review DMV records.

Insurance companies in New York State use no-fault to equalize the expense of insuring 17 million crazy drivers in the state.

[EXDC203 38]

Lets look at the big picture............What color is not it...........its what the LAW allows. The NYS Volunteer Firefighters Assc. fought long & hard to get things straight. The old law stated that the blue light was for use on the personel vehicle of a volunteer firefighter ONLY. New studies proved that Blue was the last color that a drunk lost in his vision, I argued for years about not having blue on police cars or apparatus because it was illegal...........change the law. Now the law reads POV of vols & rear on police vehicles. Dont get me wrong, i agree if they help a drunk see a police car........it will help see other emergency vehicles as well. Lets do things right & lobby to change the law once again, to include all emergency vehicles.

[MoFire390 118]

Lets look at the big picture............What color is not it...........its what the LAW allows. The NYS Volunteer Firefighters Assc. fought long & hard to get things straight. The old law stated that the blue light was for use on the personel vehicle of a volunteer firefighter ONLY. New studies proved that Blue was the last color that a drunk lost in his vision, I argued for years about not having blue on police cars or apparatus because it was illegal...........change the law. Now the law reads POV of vols & rear on police vehicles. Dont get me wrong, i agree if they help a drunk see a police car........it will help see other emergency vehicles as well. Lets do things right & lobby to change the law once again, to include all emergency vehicles.

agreed. should also read responders. blue is the first light you see in inclamite weather.

[crcocr1 8]

First and foremost, I am a law student studying the New York State Bar. I agree that No-Fault Insurance makes little sense if you truly are not the individual at fault.

Secondly, I agree that giving FF/EMTs the same status as PD if FF/EMTs across the board act responsibly. There are too many instances where FF/EMTs go speeding down the road in excess of 20 mph in their personal vehicles or in an official vehicle because the nature of the call. [They almost always admit this after a call.] Although one might be able to rationalize it because "it was a cardiac arrest" or "there was a kid involved", if an accident occurs, the FF/EMT doesn't help anyone. Instead, s/he will be forced to visit lawyers, go to Court, and possibly face criminal penalties. In addition, the FD/EMS agency will suffer a black eye in the community. If we show the State that we can act responsibly and professionally, the Legislature will act reasonably. In turn, acting responsibly also will lower insurance rates, as insurance companies measure risk. Further the Legislature can mandate changes in the insurance law as well.

Third, as a general matter, FF/EMS needs to act professionally, especially in a volunteer agency. This professionalism extends to how neatly we dress, how we act, and how we deal with the stresses in our lives. The public views us as professionals, and the Courts treats us like professionals. Granted, some chief officers/rank and file may act a bit irresponsible with policy and procedure, especially in the disciplinary arena, but this will change if we lead by example.

Finally, with all this said, everyone be safe out there!

JDR

[Guest MVFD334]

crcocr1, well stated.

[Guest Photounit]

Someone please corect me if I'm wrong..... The present V&T law states that blue lights are to be used on volunteer firefighters personal vehicles while responding to alarms and makes no mention of blue lights being allowed on any emergency vehilce am I correct ? That being said, then how can Police vehicles use Blue lights if the present law as it is written prohibits the same? Are the Police above the law?????

[DOC22 1]

Someone please corect me if I'm wrong..... The present V&T law states that blue lights are to be used on volunteer firefighters personal vehicles while responding to alarms and makes no mention of blue lights being allowed on any emergency vehilce am I correct ? That being said, then how can Police vehicles use Blue lights if the present law as it is written prohibits the same? Are the Police above the law?????

The law was changed within the past year or so, to allow blue lights to be affixed on police vehicles only, no other emergncy vehicles are allowed, and on police vehicles,they may be rear facing only.

Hope this helps.

[RWC130 594]

UPDATED NEW YORK STATE BLUE LIGHT LAW

LAWS OF NEW YORK, 2006

CHAPTER 45

ACT to amend the vehicle and traffic law, in relation to authorizing certain lights to be affixed to police vehicles

Became a law June 7, 2006, with the approval of the Governor. Passed by a majority vote, three-fifths being present.

The People of the State of New York. represented in Senate and Assembly. do enact as follows:

Section 1. Paragraph 4 of subdivision 41 of section 375 of the vehicle and traffic law, as amended by chapter 12 of the laws of 2002, is amended to read as follows:

4. Blue light. a. One blue light may be affixed to any motor vehicle owned by a volunteer member of a fire department or on a motor vehicle owned by a member of such person's family residing in the same household or by a business enterprise in which such person has a proprietary interest or by which he or she is employed, provided such volunteer firefighter has been authorized in writing to so affix a blue light by the chief of the fire department or company of which he or she is a member, which authorization shall be subject to revocation at any time by the chief who issued the same or his or her successor in office. Such blue light may be displayed exclusively by such volunteer firefighter on such a vehicle only when engaged in an emergency operation. The use of blue and red light combinations shall be prohibited on all fire vehicles. The use of blue lights on fire vehicles shall be prohibited and the use of blue lights on vehicles shall be restricted for use only by a volunteer firefighter except as otherwise provided for in subparagraph b of this paragraph.

b. In addition to the red and white lights authorized to be displayed pursuant to paragraph two of this subdivision, one or more blue lights or combination blue and red lights or combination blue, red and white lights may be affixed to a police vehicle, provided that such blue light or lights shall be displayed on a police vehicle for rear projection only. In the event that the trunk or rear gate of a police vehicle obstructs or diminishes the visibility of other emergency lighting on such vehicle, a blue light may be affixed to and displayed from the trunk, rear gate or interior of such vehicle. Such lights may be displayed on a police vehicle when such vehicle is engaged in an emergency operation. Nothing contained in this sub paragraph shall be deemed to authorize the use of blue lights on police vehicles unless such vehicles also display one or more red or combination red and white lights otherwise authorized in this subdivision.

c. The commissioner is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations relating to the use, placement, power and display of blue lights on a police vehicle.

§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately.

http://www.safeny.com/bluelite.htm

Now, Wanna know what's SAD?

Here on EMTBravo we have threads about LODD's, Serious Accidents involving MOS,

Excellent Training Ideas & Information, and VARIOUS GREAT TOPICS! all with MINIMAL interest

or replies.....yet when a thread like BLUE LIGHTS comes around for a 3rd or 4th go around on here

we have 50+ comments!

With all due respect to EVERYONE Do you see a problem?

I THINK BLUE LIGHTS HAVE BEEN BEAT TO DEATH!

If you have one, two, five, ten, GREAT!

If it's Rotating, Strobe, LED, GREAT!

If it's 35, 50 Watts or 1,000 Watts and will blind a UFO, GREAT!

Now...

If you need one, BUY IT!

If you don't have one and don't care, SUPER!

If you don't like them, COOL!

ENOUGH BLUE LIGHTS!

Sorry, Just my TWO cents!

I am OK now. lol

BE SAFE!

[DaRock98 76]

UPDATED NEW YORK STATE BLUE LIGHT LAW

http://www.safeny.com/bluelite.htm

Now, Wanna know what's SAD?

Here on EMTBravo we have threads about LODD's, Serious Accidents involving MOS,

Excellent Training Ideas & Information, and VARIOUS GREAT TOPICS! all with MINIMAL interest

or replies.....yet when a thread like BLUE LIGHTS comes around for a 3rd or 4th go around on here

we have 50+ comments!

With all due respect to EVERYONE Do you see a problem?

I THINK BLUE LIGHTS HAVE BEEN BEAT TO DEATH!

If you have one, two, five, ten, GREAT!

If it's Rotating, Strobe, LED, GREAT!

If it's 35, 50 Watts or 1,000 Watts and will blind a UFO, GREAT!

Now...

If you need one, BUY IT!

If you don't have one and don't care, SUPER!

If you don't like them, COOL!

ENOUGH BLUE LIGHTS!

Sorry, Just my TWO cents!

I am OK now. lol

BE SAFE!

WOW someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed today!

[DOC22 1]

WOW someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed today!

Not necessarily! RWC30 ha a valid point! These relativly inane threads about blue, red, green, yellow, white or pink Too mch time gets spent worrying about who has what color lights. It has ben proven that blue is more visible than red, so WHO CARES????? If you want blue lights on your POV, the put them on it. enough crying about lights! Let's move on to something worthwhile, such as Firefighter safety, training or something important. Lets give the lights topic a rest.

Rant over.

[DaRock98 76]

Not necessarily! RWC30 ha a valid point! These relativly inane threads about blue, red, green, yellow, white or pink Too mch time gets spent worrying about who has what color lights. It has ben proven that blue is more visible than red, so WHO CARES????? If you want blue lights on your POV, the put them on it. enough crying about lights! Let's move on to something worthwhile, such as Firefighter safety, training or something important. Lets give the lights topic a rest.

Rant over.

No I completely agree I joined this site to learn new things because every firefighter knows you can never stop learning in this business. I hope to learn about more important things such as life safety, new tactics, to better myself and my department. So far I have learned a lot from this site and thats why I continue to come back, it was a joke and I hope he or anyone else doesn't take it as a jab or insult. Sorry.

[DOC22 1]

No I completely agree I joined this site to learn new things because every firefighter knows you can never stop learning in this business. I hope to learn about more important things such as life safety, new tactics, to better myself and my department. So far I have learned a lot from this site and thats why I continue to come back, it was a joke and I hope he or anyone else doesn't take it as a jab or insult. Sorry.

No problem, bro. I does get a bit frustrating to have the more important topics with only 5 or 10 replies, overshadowed by this colored light thread wth 60 plus replies. Kinda shows where a lot of interest lays.