Federal traffic vest law

[vtach39680 23]

New job opening...Vest police...sign me up

While you are out doing that. why don't you catch all the over weight people who have beards that don't make mask compliance that I see masking up and going into fires

[Doc 11]

The 'exemption' would be that the vests aren't required where you're not exposed to traffic. If you close the road, you're not exposed to traffic...

Mike

Sounds like a simple but inconsiderate solution to me. With all the GPS systems in cars now, I'm sure the inconvenienced travelers will find a rail line to detour the accident scene

So, vest over the SCBA or under?! I'd assume over, since the tank would block the vest thereby negating the value of the vest.

Edited October 22, 2008 by Doc

[JetPhoto 626]

yea just put it on over the pack so when it melts it will look like a fancy art piece

[ny10570 745]

How about this law is a wate of money. If you get clipped by a car while involved in extinguishment or extrication then you probably have two or three rigs, a cop car or two, and maybe even a buring vehicle the idiot behind the wheel failed to notice. How the hell is a vest going to make a difference. So how about those actively involved in traffic control, yes the vest improves their visibility, but is it any better than the light show going on behind them, the light in their hand, or the JFK international airport flair patter set up? We are stuck by drivers who are not paying attention, are asleep at the wheel, or are drunk. You could paint the entire crew in florecent green paint and guys will still get hit. Want to stop the accidents then you have to slow down the traffic. Shut down the road enough where you get a good 50 to 100 yard back up of cars you have your safety. Vests, blue lights, 6 road cones with their striping spec aren't going to change anything because they don't get at the problem.

[Doc 11]

How about this law is a wate of money. If you get clipped by a car while involved in extinguishment or extrication then you probably have two or three rigs, a cop car or two, and maybe even a buring vehicle the idiot behind the wheel failed to notice. How the hell is a vest going to make a difference. So how about those actively involved in traffic control, yes the vest improves their visibility, but is it any better than the light show going on behind them, the light in their hand, or the JFK international airport flair patter set up? We are stuck by drivers who are not paying attention, are asleep at the wheel, or are drunk. You could paint the entire crew in florecent green paint and guys will still get hit. Want to stop the accidents then you have to slow down the traffic. Shut down the road enough where you get a good 50 to 100 yard back up of cars you have your safety. Vests, blue lights, 6 road cones with their striping spec aren't going to change anything because they don't get at the problem.

There are idiots who could/would/do find their way around all the above said warning signs and obstacles and hit a firefighter, oh, but the vest... the vest will fix it? ny10570 is right, the issue ignores the real problem and treats a symptom... if you're not creating a back-up of cars creeping by and sticking a few tons of apparatus down any other tenable path to hit your personnel you're doing it wrong in the first place. Create congestion, limit the publics options, and then put metal between you and them. Not inconveniencing the public is NOT an excuse for endangering yourself. The simple and most effective solution is abaducks - Close the road every time. But that solution makes people unhappy and interferes with the critical matters of the motoring public, ie...

B-B-BUT I GOTTA GET TO WAL-MART, I GOT COUPONS !!!111!!!!ELEVENTY

The old adage is, "mankind's ability to make things fool-proof is bested only by natures ability to make better fools."

[markmets415 524]

Here I am sporting my nice new compliant vest at our MVA today

[Guest]

nice vest Mark Orange and blue mixs well

[SIGNMAN 4]

Here I am sporting my nice new compliant vest at our MVA today

Looking good !!! Job well done.

[markmets415 524]

nice vest Mark Orange and blue mixs well

hope you finished picking up the debris from the MVA off your lawn

[SIGNMAN 4]

hope you finished picking up the debris from the MVA off your lawn

I took care of the stop sign. Easy four hours.

[markmets415 524]

I see Joe was out there with his rake too, nice photo by the way Signman. Did you have to go to the Fairview yard or Wassaic yard to get your repair kit??

*Note*

If anyone buys their own vest make sure you compensate for your gear, I thought I made a mistake by getting a 4X but it fits great over the gear.

Edited November 15, 2008 by markmets415

[SIGNMAN 4]

I see Joe was out there with his rake too, nice photo by the way Signman. Did you have to go to the Fairview yard or Wassaic yard to get your repair kit??

*Note*

If anyone buys their own vest make sure you compensate for your gear, I thought I made a mistake by getting a 4X but it fits great over the gear.

I called for the truck. 5829 rolled from Fairview, I rolled from the valley.

[markmets415 524]

The FHWA is revising its regulations to address safety concerns.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-27671.htm

[Doc 11]

The FHWA is revising its regulations to address safety concerns.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-27671.htm

Back to regularly scheduled programming.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Doc

[markmets415 524]

Back to regularly scheduled programming.

that smiley sums it up Doc.

Edited November 21, 2008 by markmets415

[Guest]

Nevermind, I misread it. So much for all the complaining haha.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Slayer61

[jack10562 414]

Not so fast...The rule is still being phased in, with a caveat. Please re-read [[Page 70595]]

You will need to perform a PPE hazard assessment (at each and every scene) and if heat and flame are expected to be encountered, then you may dispense with the hi-vis requirement.

After the heat / flame exposure threat is mitigated you would still need hi-vis.

[ny10570 745]

In April 2008, the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,

Transportation Research Institute released a study on the conspicuity

of first-responder safety garments. The study was conducted on a closed

track in both daytime and nighttime conditions to compare the

conspicuity of three different types of safety garments used by first

responders: NFPA 1971 turnout gear coats, ANSI/ISEA 107 safety vests,

and ANSI/ISEA 207 safety vests. Eight participants, balanced for gender

and age, drove instrumented vehicles on the closed track indicating the

distance at which they could detect workers at a simulated emergency

response scene. The results show no statistically significant

difference in the distance at which workers were detected, regardless

of which garment was worn. In other words, all three garment standards

provided equal levels of conspicuity under the conditions examined. The

results suggest that all of the garments studied should be considered

equivalent relative to first responder conspicuity when working in

close proximity to traffic.\1\ Based upon this research, the FHWA

believes that the PPE for firefighters specified in the NFPA 1971

standard is equivalent to the ANSI 107-2004 Class 2 garment.

It says it right there, this garbage is not necessary. Ignoring the 4th of July like show we put on at scenes our PPE is equally effective in alerting drivers to our presence. Yeah, the salted up crap that some guys like to rock wouldn't pass but on a dark road we are properly protected.

[Monty 35]

Attached is an interpretation that DES sent out:

FYI

The Federal Highway Administration today issued an Interim Final Rule to address safety concerns raised by the firefighting community regarding high-visibility safety apparel pursuant to 23 CFR Part 634 , the “Worker Visibility Final Rule”

Today’s Interim Final Rule:

• Revises the definition of "worker" to exclude firefighters when they are exposed to flame, fire, high heat or hazardous materials.

• Exempts firefighters from the requirement to use high-visibility safety apparel, as defined in this rule, when they are exposed to hazardous conditions where the use of such apparel may increase the risk of injury to firefighter personnel.

The Interim Final Rule is available at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-27671.htm

Section 634.2 is amended to revise the definition of ``worker'' to exclude firefighters when they are exposed to flame, fire, high heat or hazardous materials.

Since the advent of this rule the Highway Safety course for the Office of Fire Prevention and Control will recommend the following:

1. That all FD’s do a hazard assessment of their operations when it comes to highway incidents.

2. That firefighters in close proximity to a vehicle fire or vehicle collision, or inside the hot zone be free from this standard.

3. Any firefighters assigned to traffic management, command staff, operators of vehicles, and any others then the above assignments protect themselves with high visibility vests.

Hopefully this will lend to a resounding safety message to all in the fire service in this state. If you have any questions in regards to this please feel free to contact me.

Les Greenwood

Highway Safety Program Manager

This image comes from a presentation I found a while back on the subject.

Maybe it's just me, but seems the vest is a lot easier to see than the FF - especially if you are just seeing the reflective stripes. I'm sure other places are different, but we have so many people on a highway scene that aren't in the hot zone - some without ppe at all, that the vest has got to help us - even if there are only some of the FF's wearing them.

[ny10570 745]

and a head to toe reflective jumpsuit would be even more visible. Add some LEDs and you're even more visible. The point is ff PPE is visible enough when maintained and worn correctly. Reflective stripping is visible at a certain distance. It doesn't matter how much of it you wear it is still only visible at that certain distance.

[markmets415 524]

From the same call, which one is better????? That is yours truly on the right!

Edited November 24, 2008 by markmets415

[SIGNMAN 4]

Easy mark. Behind door one or door two!! I wear this stuff for shift, an still nobody, knowns i"m out there. Close the road!!! then we are all safe!! I HOPE. later.

[markmets415 524]

Easy mark. Behind door one or door two!! I wear this stuff for shift, an still nobody, knowns i"m out there. Close the road!!! then we are all safe!! I HOPE. later.

You're always invisible, never seen!!!!!!

[SIGNMAN 4]

You're always invisible, never seen!!!!!!

Yes, your right. Signs, cones, lights, flaggers, an trucks !! I didn't see you guys. Wake up!!! Stop playing with the phone, texting, reading the paper, I-pods etc. Just watch what your doing frist!!!! I would like to go home alive !! :angry:

[Guest]

hope you finished picking up the debris from the MVA off your lawn

i raked it into a pile about 2hours and Murphy came and picked it up the next day

[markmets415 524]

TENN FIREFIGHTER STRUCK WHILE DIRECTING TRAFFIC: Civilian claims... failed to see the Firefighter Tuesday, December 2, 2008 A DeBusk (TN) volunteer firefighter was struck by a vehicle while directing traffic near an accident scene on the Newport Highway on Sunday afternoon. Firefighter Michael Wayne McKinney, 27, was helping direct traffic on U.S. Highway 321 when he was struck by a pickup truck driven by Dale Kite, 78

Trooper David Good, who investigated the 1:40 p.m. accident said Kite was pulling his truck from a stopped position on Warrensburg Road and failed to see McKinney, who was helping to direct traffic.

McKinney was taken by ambulance to Takoma Regional Hospital after the accident for treatment of what were believed to be non-life-threatening injuries. Regie Jones, chief of the DeBusk VFD said McKinney was struck after he pushed fellow firefighter Jason Seaton to safety as the truck approached. Jones said Seaton had been standing with his back to the approaching truck when McKinney pushed him to safety before being struck in both legs by the truck. This morning, Chief Jones said McKinney was treated for two sprained ankles and released from the hospital on Sunday afternoon.

December 3, 2008: UPDATE: TENNESSEE FIREFIGHTER STRUCK-WAS WEARING VEST:

FF Michael McKinney was wearing his traffic vest but as we often see, the public may not notice the equipment, lights or FF's wearing vests in the roadway. While vests play a critical role, we also must manage the traffic which often can include blocking any areas where we may be working with apparatus.

posted with permission from the secretlist @ firefighterclosecalls.com

Edited December 3, 2008 by markmets415

[x134 46]

This one is a no brainer. Half the time we go on incidents on the highways I have to throw my coat on for no reason other than to have some visibility. I wish we had vests for the last few years.

Not on the Fire equipment yet but they are on the Ambulances BEHIND THE SEATS take a look.

[Monty 35]

TENN FIREFIGHTER STRUCK WHILE DIRECTING TRAFFIC: Civilian claims... failed to see the Firefighter Tuesday, December 2, 2008 A DeBusk (TN) volunteer firefighter was struck by a vehicle while directing traffic near an accident scene on the Newport Highway on Sunday afternoon. Firefighter Michael Wayne McKinney, 27, was helping direct traffic on U.S. Highway 321 when he was struck by a pickup truck driven by Dale Kite, 78

Trooper David Good, who investigated the 1:40 p.m. accident said Kite was pulling his truck from a stopped position on Warrensburg Road and failed to see McKinney, who was helping to direct traffic.

McKinney was taken by ambulance to Takoma Regional Hospital after the accident for treatment of what were believed to be non-life-threatening injuries. Regie Jones, chief of the DeBusk VFD said McKinney was struck after he pushed fellow firefighter Jason Seaton to safety as the truck approached. Jones said Seaton had been standing with his back to the approaching truck when McKinney pushed him to safety before being struck in both legs by the truck. This morning, Chief Jones said McKinney was treated for two sprained ankles and released from the hospital on Sunday afternoon.

December 3, 2008: UPDATE: TENNESSEE FIREFIGHTER STRUCK-WAS WEARING VEST:

FF Michael McKinney was wearing his traffic vest but as we often see, the public may not notice the equipment, lights or FF's wearing vests in the roadway. While vests play a critical role, we also must manage the traffic which often can include blocking any areas where we may be working with apparatus.

posted with permission from the secretlist @ firefighterclosecalls.com

So FF McKinney who was injured was wearing his vest - it doesn't say whether the Brother he saved was wearing one.

With almost all of the dangers associated with this line of work, we're not going to be able to eliminate them.

However, there are lots of things we can do to reduce the risks - slow down, wear seatbelts, wear vests, wear SCBA etc .... it may be just enough to save YOU!

[markmets415 524]

So FF McKinney who was injured was wearing his vest - it doesn't say whether the Brother he saved was wearing one.

With almost all of the dangers associated with this line of work, we're not going to be able to eliminate them.

However, there are lots of things we can do to reduce the risks - slow down, wear seatbelts, wear vests, wear SCBA etc .... it may be just enough to save YOU!

Close the road!!!!

[on the job 68]

Buy a vest and wear it, how hard is that.

First of all, this is not new. This has been talk for a long time, it's just the law went into effect.

People will run you down even if you have a vest on or not...I dont care big or reflective the vest is, everyone is in a big rush (will it help...I guess)

We will see in time.. how many people are still killed wearing a vest.

The "BETTER" answer/solution is just close the road down with one of those 20-25 ton firetrucks ....let the people run that... instead of us.