Is it legal to shut down major highways during emergencies

[Guest jbgfd314]

During the last snow storm one of our local fire departments was dispatched for a one car roll over auto accident on Interstate 84. Once units arrived they found that the plow trucks had not yet reached that area and the incident commander decided to have that section of the highway shut down for the safety of all parties involved. Once a Thruway Authority Trooper arrived on the scene he immediately wanted to talk to the person in charge and then demanded that the road be opened. A long drawn out discussion was had while the Chief's still refused to comply with the Troopers demands until all parties invovled could be safely removed from the area. I believe this Chief did the right thing for all people on that scene. During my time served as an officer I never had a problem with the Troopers before but I have had many problems with the Thruway authority people whose only agenda is to keep their roads open know matter what risks must be taken by others. It's always been my understanding that the scene belongs to the fire department until the injured have been attended to and the hazards removed. I personally have refused to budge on any decision that makes a scene safer for the first responders on that scene. Has anyone else had an issue like this and how has it been resolved?

[OnTheWheel 43]

Sounds like, from info give in your post, the Chief was right in THIS situation. If members were "working" the scene and it was snow and/or ice covered then it would be a great hazard to leave it open. But, its hard to draw a definite conclusion with limited information.

[post4031 16]

Technically, if it is an accident scene and no fire they are in charge. We have had the same argument with them for years in my department. It goes okay for a while then it starts back up again.

One incident a few years ago we had a tractor trailer full of tires on fire and they were so adamant about opening the road the chief pulled us all off the scene. We got called back shortly after and they moved the trailer while it was on fire off the interstate to the yard so it could be dumped and extinguished.

A recent scenario like you were describing happened and the Troopers response was to start pulling over chiefs and firefighters and issue tickets for whatever they could.

It is a Troop T problem because we also work with Troop K on the TSP and it doesn't seem to be an issue. Next time remind them that we are all on the team and depend on each other's services. Also, remind them that last month two of their brothers were sent the trauma center after they were hit on the side of the road on a traffic stop.

If the trooper on scene gives us a hassle about it we get what have to do done and get out there, patient care and see ya leave the mess for them to deal with.

I have been responding on these two highways for 20+ years and could write a book on all the problems we've had there.

It's absolutely crazy!

[Truck4 48]

Was this a NYSP Trooper or a Thruway Authority Employee?

[X2321 133]

I think the troopers on 95, 87, 287, and 84 are part of the NYS thruway authority, while the troopers on the Taconic, and 684 are not.

[Bnechis 3,961]

I think the troopers on 95, 87, 287, and 84 are part of the NYS thruway authority, while the troopers on the Taconic, and 684 are not.

95 & 87 (dont know about 287 & 84) are part of troop "T" which is funded by the thruway authority, but they answer like all other troops up thru the NYSP.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Technically, if it is an accident scene and no fire they are in charge. We have had the same argument with them for years in my department. It goes okay for a while then it starts back up again.

One incident a few years ago we had a tractor trailer full of tires on fire and they were so adamant about opening the road the chief pulled us all off the scene. We got called back shortly after and they moved the trailer while it was on fire off the interstate to the yard so it could be dumped and extinguished.

A recent scenario like you were describing happened and the Troopers response was to start pulling over chiefs and firefighters and issue tickets for whatever they could.

I have been responding on these two highways for 20+ years and could write a book on all the problems we've had there. It's absolutely crazy!

I agree with just about everything you wrote. If its a hazmat incident, state law says the IC must be to Ops level. NYSP are only required to be awarness (they have troopers at all levels) so if ops or tech trooper is not there, that MVA is leaking Hazmat.

Remember if they threaten to arrest, dont resist, let them.........it will never happen again.

[post4031 16]

I agree with just about everything you wrote. If its a hazmat incident, state law says the IC must be to Ops level. NYSP are only required to be awarness (they have troopers at all levels) so if ops or tech trooper is not there, that MVA is leaking Hazmat.

Remember if they threaten to arrest, dont resist, let them.........it will never happen again.

You are correct, forgot about that HAZMAT stuff.

[Tanker 10eng 140]

I am not a Law officer or have complete knowledge of the legal rules of highways, but I think this....

If I am the FD IC, and we shut down a road for Fire Departments duties, ( Fire, MVA, what ever ) in order to operate safely, that is my call and I am taking full liablity of my actions... We should act quickly to reopen the road...

Now if a PD ( Trooper , etc. ) shows up and demands we open the road... would the right thing to do here is allow HIM or her, to re - open the road, provided that they ( the PD dept in question ) are able to safely control the traffic passing us ( meaning not just 1 officer and a patrol unit ) and that they (the PD dept in question ) will accept FULL, responsiblity for the safety of all Emergency workers on the scene... seeing how they are insistant on opening the roadway... This way " they are in between us and the on coming traffic, they and their Dept. fully holds the liability for the workers on the scene. Most Depts. do not want to accept such Liability...

I do not know about other towns, but my Village has limited manpower and would not be able to control Route 9 traffic and fill out the required paperwork..

opinions ?

[post4031 16]

I am not a Law officer or have complete knowledge of the legal rules of highways, but I think this....

If I am the FD IC, and we shut down a road for Fire Departments duties, ( Fire, MVA, what ever ) in order to operate safely, that is my call and I am taking full liablity of my actions... We should act quickly to reopen the road...

Now if a PD ( Trooper , etc. ) shows up and demands we open the road... would the right thing to do here is allow HIM or her, to re - open the road, provided that they ( the PD dept in question ) are able to safely control the traffic passing us ( meaning not just 1 officer and a patrol unit ) and that they (the PD dept in question ) will accept FULL, responsiblity for the safety of all Emergency workers on the scene... seeing how they are insistant on opening the roadway... This way " they are in between us and the on coming traffic, they and their Dept. fully holds the liability for the workers on the scene. Most Depts. do not want to accept such Liability...

I do not know about other towns, but my Village has limited manpower and would not be able to control Route 9 traffic and fill out the required paperwork..

opinions ?

We always try and keep the traffic moving, we have enough vehicles on scene to act as blocking vehicles and Fire Police for traffic control. We have to do this ourselves because sometimes the trooper is responding from 20 miles away and when they get their don't bother getting out of the car.

This has always been very touchy issue with me, especially considering the traffic on these roads, the vehicle sizes and the fact that they don't slow down for emergency scenes.

We have had two very close calls on I84 and the TSP where our members have almost been hit. One recently, a month ago when a vehicle lost control on black ice and slammed into the back of the engine. We had two members stowing gear and the engine was minutes from leaving. THANK GOD, they were paying attention and got out of the way.

Let's not forget the idiots trying to get a picture as they are driving by. A few months ago we had a guy swerve towards us with one hand out of his sunroof taking a snapshot and the trooper laughed!

I've witnessed troopers get right in IC's face yelling and screaming over the issue. Once, while we were doing extrication which was hard enough without keeping an eye on the Chief. It was ugly!! His response was no problem, all fire and EMS are leaving, you can extricate the victim with your baton. The trooper saw the light went back to his car and pouted. Best part was one lane was still open.

We have had meetings with the Captain responsible for the I84 corridor between Pennsylvania and Connecticut, explain our situation and his response was send an ambulance only to see what you have first then call for backup like we do. We explained the volunteer fire service to him and the distances for our responding equipment and it didn't matter at all.

Then we had a 30 car pile up in a snow squall, no injuries, but a tom of people holed up in the rest rooms of the rest area. That one car concept worked great then!!

Funny thing is when we a minor property damage incident we get four troopers in their cars.

Sorry for the soap box!!

[post4031 16]

One thing more, I do have the highest regard for our State Police and have friends who are Troopers. They too shake their heads when tell them what we have been through. I don't know what the answer is as we have tried just about everything. I just pray that we don't have a L.O.D.D. that could of been prevented.

[Goose 188]

NYSP doesn't like shutting things done completely from my experience. But, that said, they have never created a dangerous situation for me, my partners, other crews or the patients - so i have no complaints. They've got a job to do too - and have always been more than accommodating.

[Guest jbgfd314]

Was this a NYSP Trooper or a Thruway Authority Employee?

This was a NYS Thruway Authority Trooper.

[Guest jbgfd314]

I agree with just about everything you wrote. If its a hazmat incident, state law says the IC must be to Ops level. NYSP are only required to be awarness (they have troopers at all levels) so if ops or tech trooper is not there, that MVA is leaking Hazmat.

Remember if they threaten to arrest, dont resist, let them.........it will never happen again.

This threat was made and the Chief even spoke to his Sergeant who backed his employee. The Trooper worsened the situation when he threatened to not let a BLS ambulance to the scene because the Chief didn't heed to his demands.

[Tanker 10eng 140]

Let's not forget the idiots trying to get a picture as they are driving by. A few months ago we had a guy swerve towards us with one hand out of his sunroof taking a snapshot and the trooper laughed!

yep, the same thing happen in Croton, and our PD on the scene was so pissed off with this lady slowing down in the south bound lane of route 9, to take a pic with her cell, he chased after her and gave her a ticket... scary to see how many of those people are out there !!! or are they the same person ?

[post4031 16]

yep, the same thing happen in Croton, and our PD on the scene was so pissed off with this lady slowing down in the south bound lane of route 9, to take a pic with her cell, he chased after her and gave her a ticket... scary to see how many of those people are out there !!! or are they the same person ?

I hear ya, brother! I do believe 99.9% of our troopers and police officers would do the same thing.

[JBE 328]

Personal opinion. The safety of the people operating at the incident takes priority over moving traffic along. Close the road until it is safe to move traffic through.

[xfirefighter484x 234]

Last month, I was the IC for an MVA on I-84 involving a NYSP who was struck by an errant vehicle, during a V&T (he was out of his car at the time he got hit). There was a response from NYSP Thruway, NYSP Troop K, and DCSO to the scene. Original dispatch was for a Priority 3 MVA (BLS response in our county). It was not until our first arriving units got on scene we realized the scope of what really was going on. The whole "send one unit to investigate" sure would have pissed a LOT of people off, seeing as it was one of their own, and we arrived without appropriate manpower/resources.

http://www.emtbravo.net/index.php?showtopic=29104

NYSP did not put up one single fight when its one of their own who is involved. Not that I blame them, but it cannot be a double standard, just MHO. I have never personally ran into any problems with the NYSP while operating. The guys I deal with while working always seem to be understanding. I have the utmost respect for them, respect their job, but I would always stick to my guns, when it comes to the safety of me, them, the people I am operating with, and the people we are trying to treat.

[kvfd306 0]

the thruways purpose is to keep traffic moving and keep the road open in a some what safe manner the chief made a good call i think safety comes first the thruway does have a job to do and i respect them as well

[abaduck 123]

This threat was made and the Chief even spoke to his Sergeant who backed his employee. The Trooper worsened the situation when he threatened to not let a BLS ambulance to the scene because the Chief didn't heed to his demands.

He WHAT??

Must have been a bad case of testosterone poisoning... seriously, that's bordering on the criminal. Who arrests a trooper, when they need arresting?

[Guest EFFP411]

I understand the fact that they are trying to do their job in keeping traffic flowing, but there are just some situations that do not allow for the safe movement of vehicles through a scene.... Plain and simple! We are also trying to do our jobs, and part of that is preventing the harm of personnel, patients, and bystanders on the scene. When i'm working on a patient in a car, i am not too pleased with the sound of cars and truks ripping through at 55 because they don't feel like slowing down. ANd When i'm doing fire police, I try as hard as i can to slow traffic, and will even go so far as to make vehicles stop completely, make the driver roll down their window and personally tell them to slow down or else. I have also been screamed at by a Trooper because we had changed from having 1 lane open to closing it completely because the traffic was getting out of hand, one of our firefighters had almost gotten clipped by a lookey-loo and we needed to move apparatus around for extrication purposes. I just told him i was doing my job to protect the safety of my brothers and sisters, and he needed to go talk to the Chief. IT comes down to the point where we do what we have to do and get out as fast as possible, and leave the traffic mess behind for the Trooper to deal with. And it has been my experience that they are ill prepared to handle the sudden traffic overflow... We have lent them fire police personnel for as many as 10 hours while THEY shut down a road for accident re-construction, or investigation until they start with this ridiculous behavior again. As soon as pt's are cleared from the scene, "It's all yours!!" and away we go... I really hope that this will end, and we can all work together as a team again...

[JetPhoto 626]

jbgfd314 - I was on that call and if the trooper thought it was safe to keep the road open, he should be immediately drug tested and his head examined for rabies because the road was not maintained to the ability that would safely allow free flowing traffic to move past the incident. At the time of the incident, only a car width was clear essentially making it a one lane road.

Had the road not have been covered with snow and ice we could have allowed one lane to stay open but not last this morning.

Your guys did a good job this morning.

JETPHOTO

[Guest]

I'm not sure about the NY statutes, but in CT, whoever the OIC is has control over the entire emergency scene and controls everything basically.

Sec. 7-313e. Authority of fire officer during emergency. Notwithstanding any provision in the general statutes or a municipal ordinance to the contrary, the fire chief of the municipality, or any member serving in the capacity of fire officer-in-charge, shall, when any fire department or company is responding to or operating at a fire, service call, or other emergency, within such municipality, have the authority to: (a) Control and direct emergency activities at such scene; ( B ) order any person to leave any building or place in the vicinity of such fire for the purpose of protecting such person from injury; © blockade any public highway, street, or private right-of-way temporarily while at such scene; (d) at any time of the day or night, enter any building, including a private dwelling, or upon any premises where a fire is in progress or near the scene of any fire, or where there is reasonable cause to believe a fire is in progress, for the purpose of extinguishing the fire or preventing its spread; (e) inspect for the purposes of preventing fires and preplanning the control of fire all buildings, structures or other places in their fire district, except the interior of private dwellings, where any combustible material, including but not limited to waste paper, rags, shavings, waste, leather, rubber, crates, boxes, barrels or rubbish, that is or may become dangerous as a fire menace to such buildings, structures or other places has been allowed to accumulate or where such chief or his designated representative has reason to believe that such material has accumulated or is liable to be accumulated; (f) order disengagement or discouplement of any convoy, caravan or train of vehicles, craft or railway cars for the purpose of extinguishing a fire or preventing its spread; and (g) take command of any industrial fire brigade or fire chief when such fire company or department has been called to such industry.

Edited January 12, 2009 by Slayer61

[Guest EFFP411]

I'm not sure about the NY statutes, but in CT, whoever the OIC is has control over the entire emergency scene and controls everything basically.

The statute you provided is the one which causes the most controversy, seeing as how it all states that a fire chief is in control if there is the presence of FIRE anywhere... but a general auto accident, with no fire is not mentioned anywhere in there. This is why it becomes such an issue. They feel that since there is no actual FIRE , that the police have complete control over the scene. This is understandable, but we have the responsibility for the safety of ALL presonnel working, including the Troopers, and I just don't think they see that....

[Just a guy 493]

the way i see it is if the road needs to be closed, it needs to be closed end of story, no matter who's call it is, if it is in the best interest the people working at the scene then so be it, close it if you need to

[RWC130 594]

Always Remember...

SAFETY FIRST!

New York State Trooper assigned to Troop K, Troop F,

or Troop T which is Thruway all the have same authority.

They are "State Troopers"

The fact that a State Trooper from Troop T patrols

I-287, I-87, or I-95 makes them no different than a State Trooper

in the Town of Somers, Town of Cortlandt, or the Taconic Parkway.

They only difference with a State Trooper who patrols the

NYS Thruway I believe is his/her Overtime is paid by the NYS Thruway Authority.

State Troopers assigned to "Troop T" are not NYS Thruway Authority Employees.

SP Members correct me if I am wrong?

[Bnechis 3,961]

The statute you provided is the one which causes the most controversy, seeing as how it all states that a fire chief is in control if there is the presence of FIRE anywhere... but a general auto accident, with no fire is not mentioned anywhere in there. This is why it becomes such an issue. They feel that since there is no actual FIRE , that the police have complete control over the scene. This is understandable, but we have the responsibility for the safety of ALL presonnel working, including the Troopers, and I just don't think they see that....

Most incidents that I've been at on I-95 have "Fire".......1" x 18" red & started by the trooper, they are usually in a pattern of 3 to 6 seperate fires (since they were deleberatly set, does it make them arson, and under NYS law doesn't the fire chief or his designe have to determine the cause of all fires....bring out the C&O team).

You know this is a problem when these fires are being started and you have 8,000 gallons of gasoline flowing from the overturned MC406 tanker.

I loved the comment about them closing the road for 12 hours to do an investigation, but no way for 12 minutes for an extrication. We see it all the time. Also why dont they have an issue when DOT closes 2 lanes?

[Bnechis 3,961]

They only difference with a State Trooper who patrols the

NYS Thruway I believe is his/her Overtime is paid by the NYS Thruway Authority.

In the past (dont know if its still the same), the TA paid the state for NYSP services. The state would bill the full price for a seasoned trooper, but would send a lot of newbies to troop T, since they got paid less. Nice book keeping move.

[pasobuff 38]

I am an advocate for closing traffic (lane, road etc) until the situation is safe enough for traffic to start flowing......

Many of you may have seen this - the result of 1 lane being closed on the NYS T-way due to an accident.....and someone NOT paying attention - this vehicle was parked on the shoulder in front of the accident.....was the 2nd car struck in this sequence. NYSP was still in route to the initial accident - only 4 minutes elapsed from the time this vehicle stopped and the accident occured.

[50-65 205]

We too have had our problems on 84 and 87, but none recently that I can recall. Once the trooper demanded that we open the road when it had been shut down for an incoming medevac. He insisted no helo was coming. About that time the SP helo arrived. One of our members who was "talking" to the trooper pointed to the helo and said, " excuse me, but isn't that one of yours?"

Another time, the trooper was giving the IC a hard time about traffic. IC looked around, saw that all hazards had been mitigated, called the county, and turned over the scene (O/T tractor trailer )to the lone trooper and left.

Since then we have had very few problems with them.