EMS Personnel & Highway Traffic Safety Vests

[Bnechis 3,961]

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

Never had a band and our parade budget has been $0 since 1927.

[Guest EFFP411]

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.

I feel your pain bnechis, i have experienced the wrath of an annoyed trooper over road closings first hand...

[Bnechis 3,961]

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...

So its ok to put a nylon vest (or as some suggest a nylon coat is nneded by the standard) over turnouts? Just a few months back everyone here was saying it was not ok for EMS to wear nylon coats at an MVA because it "might" have a flash fire.

I've been allowed to drive past a number of working car fires along I-95, the last time I saw it 100% closed as crews were stretching the 1st hose was when the flames from the tanker were going from the right shoulder to the center guard rail.

Even when we had the 2 trailers fully involved in the toll barrier, water was flowing before all the traffic was controlled.

[Guest MVFD334]

I was half asleep during this topic in Fire/Police course, but arent LEO's the only people that can shut a road down? Im not talking about situtations like wires down, but more so MVA's on highways and major roadways?

Also are these regulations regarding construction workers also? Cause I invite anyone to drive on RT 6 in Mahopac and watch the workers (not the flaggers) walk across the roadway or jump out to sweep up dirt in just a hardhat.

[Guest EFFP411]

I was half asleep during this topic in Fire/Police course, but arent LEO's the only people that can shut a road down? Im not talking about situtations like wires down, but more so MVA's on highways and major roadways?

Also are these regulations regarding construction workers also? Cause I invite anyone to drive on RT 6 in Mahopac and watch the workers (not the flaggers) walk across the roadway or jump out to sweep up dirt in just a hardhat.

Its broken down quite simply, fire in vehicle, FD controls the scene. No fire in vehicle, PD controls the scene, but the brass expect the officers to use their judgement to assess the safety of ALL personnel operating. This is the catch. The SP realizes they depend on the fire poilce personnel to control the over abundance of traffic at highway incidents, so If FD decides the 80 MPH traffic is a hazard, we ask to close a lane, and most of the time they will concede and let us do what we want. But, as stated, some officers get hot under the collar about closing lanes. A while back it became such an issue a meeting was arranged between Top FD officials from the surrounding area, and Top NYSP brass to resolve the issue. The conclusion was that since traffic is ultimately kept in control by the fire department personnel, IE: the fire police, the troopers were advised to follow our precautions in the interest of safety of workers on the scene. It still happens every now and again, but not nearly as much as it used to....

Edited August 11, 2008 by EFFP411

[abaduck 123]

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.

Well now you can point them at the CFR and get on with it - as I said, that document cuts both ways. It *requires* safety vests. OR it *requires* road closure if there are members working without safety vests, for whatever reason. A trooper who allows traffic through while members are working without safety vests would be breaching federal regs. and they need to be aware of that.

Mike

[abaduck 123]

Its broken down quite simply, fire in vehicle, FD controls the scene. No fire in vehicle, PD controls the scene, but the brass expect the officers to use their judgement to assess the safety of ALL personnel operating.

No fire, but hazmat incident? What then? I would have phrased it 'life/health safety hazard? FD controls scene...'

Mike

[Guest EFFP411]

Well now you can point them at the CFR and get on with it - as I said, that document cuts both ways. It *requires* safety vests. OR it *requires* road closure if there are members working without safety vests, for whatever reason. A trooper who allows traffic through while members are working without safety vests would be breaching federal regs. and they need to be aware of that.

Mike

Hahaha, the theory sounds good, and i know you have good intentions, but this only works in dreamland buddy. Each division has a job to do, and part of the troopers job is to manage traffic flow AND safety of fellow workers. But closing the road for every bs accident or fire to conform to a regulation would be out of the question for many troopers however...

[Guest EFFP411]

No fire, but hazmat incident? What then? I would have phrased it 'life/health safety hazard? FD controls scene...'

Mike

I asked that question once before, and the answer i gave was the answer i got. Hazmat was never added into the equation.... And even if its life or death, helicopters, the whole 9 yards, PD is still in "command" according to the rules, even though we run the show.

Edited August 11, 2008 by EFFP411

[Future Fireman 4]

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.

This is why I love Massachusetts. Any incident involving the Fire Department, the FD has command. Once we leave, it's left to the cops for their reports.

So in short, you don't like NY troopers, come to Massachusetts!

Mike

[50-65 205]

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.

We had a few run ins with a particular trooper. One day at the scene of an mva that was making a mess of traffic, he was giving the OIC a hard time. The OIC looked around and saw that all hazards had been controlled. While standing in front of the trooper, he got on the radio and called county. He said that FD had completed operations on scene and was turning scene over to SP. With that the FD left the scene. I guess the trooper just kind of stood there with a WTF look on his face. But, we never had a problem with him after that.

Another time on the Thruway, a trooper got in the face of one of our officers because he was shutting down the road. The trooper insisted that he couldn't do that. Our officer replied they had to for the incoming medivac. As the trooper was insisting that there was no chopper coming, our officer pointed behind him (the trooper), and said "excuse me, but doesn't that helicopter belong to you?" as Life Guard 18 was approaching the LZ. Priceless

[Bnechis 3,961]

I asked that question once before, and the answer i gave was the answer i got. it was never added into the equation.... And even if its life or death, helicopters, the whole 9 yards, PD is still in "command" according to the rules, even though we run the show.

According to which "rules"?

According to Federal and NYS Law - 29 CFR 1910.120(q)(3)(i) The senior emergency response official responding to an emergency shall become the individual in charge of a site-specific Incident Command System (ICS). All emergency responders and their communications shall be coordinated and controlled through the individual in charge of the ICS assisted by the senior official present for each employer.

NOTE TO PARAGRAPH (q)(3)(i). - The "senior official" at an emergency response is the most senior official on the site who has the responsibility for controlling the operations at the site. Initially it is the senior officer on the first-due piece of responding emergency apparatus to arrive on the incident scene. As more senior officers arrive (i.e. , battalion chief, fire chief, state law enforcement official, site coordinator, etc.) the position is passed up the line of authority which has been previously established.

1910.120(q)(6)(v) On scene incident commander. Incident commanders, who will assume control of the incident scene beyond the first responder awareness level, shall receive at least 24 hours of training equal to the first responder operations level and in addition have competency in the following areas and the employer shall so certify:

Since NYS Troopers are generally trained to the Awareness level (HM training at higher levels is given to some troopers in each troop) the law requires OPS level (for commanders) which NYS has determined is the minimum level for all FF's. The FD more often than not should be incharge at Hazmat incidents (this does not mean LE can't, just what the "norm" is).

The last "big" HM we had on I-95 was a "white powder" incident that started at the toll booths and was transfered to the barricks before our arrival. Once they determined it was a potential incident we were called to decon them, the toll collector and seal the barricks (with their weapons/uniforms) and toll booth for 3 days until the state lab determined what it was. Proper ICS would have limited this to almost no incident.

Edited August 12, 2008 by Bnechis

[LTNRFD 266]

Never had a band and our parade budget has been $0 since 1927.

I believe it was 1973 when NRFD had it's last parade. The 50th anniversary of the UFFA. Sponsored by Shaffer beer. Nice parade, good time had by all. Both career and volunteer alike.

In 1998, for the 75th, it was combined with the annual Thanksgiving Parade.

[helicopper 1,050]

Its broken down quite simply, fire in vehicle, FD controls the scene. No fire in vehicle, PD controls the scene, but the brass expect the officers to use their judgement to assess the safety of ALL personnel operating. This is the catch. The SP realizes they depend on the fire poilce personnel to control the over abundance of traffic at highway incidents, so If FD decides the 80 MPH traffic is a hazard, we ask to close a lane, and most of the time they will concede and let us do what we want. But, as stated, some officers get hot under the collar about closing lanes. A while back it became such an issue a meeting was arranged between Top FD officials from the surrounding area, and Top NYSP brass to resolve the issue. The conclusion was that since traffic is ultimately kept in control by the fire department personnel, IE: the fire police, the troopers were advised to follow our precautions in the interest of safety of workers on the scene. It still happens every now and again, but not nearly as much as it used to....

I asked that question once before, and the answer i gave was the answer i got. Hazmat was never added into the equation.... And even if its life or death, helicopters, the whole 9 yards, PD is still in "command" according to the rules, even though we run the show.

Where is it broken down so simply? While it does sound a lot like common sense, I'd love to have the reference for future use.

Also, it seems as though you're contradicting yourself here. Could you please cite the "rules" to which you're referring?

[RDUNC67 1]

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

Lakeland Reflective (Mifflin Valley)

[Guest EFFP411]

Where is it broken down so simply? While it does sound a lot like common sense, I'd love to have the reference for future use.

Also, it seems as though you're contradicting yourself here. Could you please cite the "rules" to which you're referring?

Ok, I'll remember to ask my chief about it when i'm not exausted and I'll get back to you....

[Bnechis 3,961]

I believe it was 1973 when NRFD had it's last parade. The 50th anniversary of the UFFA. Sponsored by Shaffer beer. Nice parade, good time had by all. Both career and volunteer alike. In 1998, for the 75th, it was combined with the annual Thanksgiving Parade.

I never said we did not have parades. I said the FD did not pay for them. Thanks for confirming that.

[helicopper 1,050]

So what's the issue anyway? Is it that we now have to take steps to protect our personnel operating at highway incidents or is it that there are few (if any) compliant garments out there? It seems to me that $40 or $100 for a compliant garment is pretty cheap insurance to minimize the risk of becoming a hood ornament.

The thread has been off on a couple of tangents already, let's try to stay on topic. If you have points related to other topics brought up here, please start a new thread. Thanks!

[Guest alsfirefighter]

I asked that question once before, and the answer i gave was the answer i got. Hazmat was never added into the equation.... And even if its life or death, helicopters, the whole 9 yards, PD is still in "command" according to the rules, even though we run the show.

PD has no "command" under any 'rules' they have responsibilities under their job function. Each discipline on scene should have a "command" aka unified command and each has their responsibilities. One of the functions of the fire service when called is we are tasked with life safety...having a vehicle sitting in a lane that has just gotten wrecked is a life safety issue to other cars on the road and the occupants of the vehicle that is mangled or even has nothing but a scratch on the bumper but won't start. PD has their job to do....FD has theirs. If you feel a lane needs to be shut down...shut it down.

But closing the road for every bs accident or fire to conform to a regulation would be out of the question for many troopers however...

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.

So if you don't close the road for a "bs" accident and one of our members gets clipped or killed does that make it a "bs" injury or LODD? If its a hazard eliminate it until you can ensure your personnel is safe. I operated with a dept. in Virginia that covered a good stretch of I-95 and the policy was 1 1/2 lanes with cones and 2 apparatus minimum. If that meant that 2 1/2 lanes had wrecked vehicles...it got shut down. But as it got mitigated we opened lanes, particularly on holiday weekends. You do what is best for you and you also have to work with SP to do what will help them when it is prudent. Some of you I beleive would b**** if you were sitting in traffic because of a shut down road and as you'd drive by you'd probably think to yourself...they shut the whole road down for this?

As far as using the $800,000 truck to go across both lanes....much better then just using $55 vests or keeping some traffic moving along...after all it only takes on average of 1 hour to clear up the traffic that builds for every 15 minutes we keep a road closed "until we are done."

[Unionport 0]

Lakeland Reflective (Mifflin Valley)

This is the company that claims that their vest is a class 3. It absolutely is not class 3. Ask for their 3rd party(ie: underwriters laboratories) certificate.

[ex-commish 490]

So what's the issue anyway? Is it that we now have to take steps to protect our personnel operating at highway incidents or is it that there are few (if any) compliant garments out there? It seems to me that $40 or $100 for a compliant garment is pretty cheap insurance to minimize the risk of becoming a hood ornament.

The thread has been off on a couple of tangents already, let's try to stay on topic. If you have points related to other topics brought up here, please start a new thread. Thanks!

There should be no issue. The money's there. Go to any parade. Millions rolling past the judges.

[MPACE2-299 0]

Does any one know what ANSI / ISEA rating our current bunker gear has, or what would it take to make it compliant? 90% of our gear today contains scotchlite trim, the same as the vests. Would adding 2 more stripe to the coat or arms make it compliant? I know in Putnam County, Brewster Fire Department is always on I-84 or I-684, on their newer gear they have added a 3” wide full length Triple trip stripe on the legs of their bunker gear for added visibility. Maybe if we make our gear to meet the ANSI / ISEA standards, we would not have to worry about donning the vests while only operating on the” right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway who are exposed either to traffic”, we would be protected all the time. We are supposed to be wearing out proper PPE on all calls aren’t we?

[jcoppola 52]

How about we worry less about vests and worry about wearing the basic PPE required at a MVA. Especially EMS services who wear uniforms and no PPE and put the IC in a tough spot because they are working in a dangerous environment with zero protection from burns, cuts and flying debris.

Personally, I think vests are stupid, we spend all that money on reflexite and flashing lights and teach our people to use apparatus as a sheild, yet we add another layer of garb that only hinders our mobility while working.

[helicopper 1,050]

Does any one know what ANSI / ISEA rating our current bunker gear has, or what would it take to make it compliant? 90% of our gear today contains scotchlite trim, the same as the vests. Would adding 2 more stripe to the coat or arms make it compliant? I know in Putnam County, Brewster Fire Department is always on I-84 or I-684, on their newer gear they have added a 3” wide full length Triple trip stripe on the legs of their bunker gear for added visibility. Maybe if we make our gear to meet the ANSI / ISEA standards, we would not have to worry about donning the vests while only operating on the” right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway who are exposed either to traffic”, we would be protected all the time. We are supposed to be wearing out proper PPE on all calls aren’t we?

I believe this quote from an earlier post answers your question. Bunker gear/turnout gear is good but it is not the answer. The goal, as I understand it, is to make the human outline unmistakable. Striping on otherwise dark clothing does not do that.

This thread started as a question about EMS providers - what about the non-fire affiliated EMS agencies? What are they doing?

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.

[Guest EFFP411]

I believe this quote from an earlier post answers your question. Bunker gear/turnout gear is good but it is not the answer. The goal, as I understand it, is to make the human outline unmistakable. Striping on otherwise dark clothing does not do that.

This thread started as a question about EMS providers - what about the non-fire affiliated EMS agencies? What are they doing?

Ok, back on topic. On my rigs at work, nwe have blue turnout coats. The theory behind those and not vests was that they are required on every MVA, fire stand-by, etc. to protect us from debris, fluids, and so on. As for my VFD ambulance, we have black turnouts. Our rescue squad jackets are actually more safe on scene, visibility wise anyway. They are certified class 2 ansi/isea visibility. As for the turnouts, not so much.....

[Unionport 0]

Does any one know what ANSI / ISEA rating our current bunker gear has, or what would it take to make it compliant? 90% of our gear today contains scotchlite trim, the same as the vests. Would adding 2 more stripe to the coat or arms make it compliant? I know in Putnam County, Brewster Fire Department is always on I-84 or I-684, on their newer gear they have added a 3” wide full length Triple trip stripe on the legs of their bunker gear for added visibility. Maybe if we make our gear to meet the ANSI / ISEA standards, we would not have to worry about donning the vests while only operating on the” right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway who are exposed either to traffic”, we would be protected all the time. We are supposed to be wearing out proper PPE on all calls aren’t we?

Bunker gear does not and can't meet the ANSI 107 & ANSI 207 standard for visibility. There are very specific guide lines that are available for purchase through ISEA that spell out how a garment must be manufactured. You could make the whole coat out of scotchlight and it would not be compliant.