Chevrons: Saferty or Marketing?

[dmc2007 17]

Just look at the ambulance pictured. Once the patient doors are opened the chevrons are gone. The door side goes toward rig and the sides are covered by the doors. While the rig is visible the lettering no longer is. The real question should be chevrons at what price?

Our Ambulance that is equipped with Chevrons has chevrons on the interior of the doors for the very reason that, when opened, the doors cover the pattern.

[INIT915 1,119]

I think the apparatus looks terrible. Do I think the Chevrons are helping?? Lets see My Engine 1 got hit by a Tractor trailer, Then there was Stratford shortly (2 rigs) therafter so I'm gonna go with no on this one. as for the vest we have to don they get a BIG thumbs down.

Lets stick with two rigs taking the lane of traffic and leave the striping and the vest back in the store where they belong.

Are you suggesting that since a truck with chevrons was struck, you can make the case that chevrons don't work at all? As Chris suggested, perhaps some real empirical data would be more useful that two random examples when it didn't work.

By that logic, if a LEO's bullet-proof vest has ever failed to stop a round (and its happened), they must all be useless, no? It doesn't matter that 999 out of a 1000 work as expected, but the mere fact that that one didn't, we should go back to the drawing board?

Just sitting here, I can think of dozens and dozens of examples in Fire/EMS/Law Enforcement of cases that fall outside the expected results. To pick one or two of them and hold them up as the standard is nonsensical. Now, if after the chevrons have been out long enough, we can't find any measurable effect, then so be it, we'll have our answer. I hesitate to buy into conspiracy theories that manufacturers pushed these for profit. As I said earlier, I personally can see a difference, so if that avoids even one accident, just one, isn't it worth it? I bet you'll think so if your that one guy who gets to go home after your would-be fatal, and I bet your friends, family, and fellow FF's would be thankful as well...

[x129K 1,393]

THanks. No picture. My concern was that with both colors reflective there is so much light reflected that at night a firefighter standing just a foot or 2 past (like the pump operator) the rig can not be seen, even if he is wearing a vest. I thought having only 1 color relective will break it up and make it easier to spot US.

I have no scientific study to back this up, just my observation.

THIS is a very sound idea.

[huzzie59 75]

So they will not protect you?

1) then how do you cover your crews? You need something covering your tail when loading if not the FD, have at least another ambulance.

2) If the FD will not cover you, do you still cover them? Do you do standbys at fire scenes for them? rehab? Time for a big sit down chat BEFORE someone gets killed.

1 - Use of flares. Assign a crew memeber as a spotter. The idea of a utility truck, on the order of one of the HELP trucks has been discussed. For calls on the Tappen Zee Bridge there is nobody better than the Thruway Wrecker Crew personnel. They protect us better than anyone could.

2 - Spimply put - We get called - we answer the call.

[Bnechis 3,961]

1 - Use of flares. Assign a crew memeber as a spotter. The idea of a utility truck, on the order of one of the HELP trucks has been discussed. For calls on the Tappen Zee Bridge there is nobody better than the Thruway Wrecker Crew personnel. They protect us better than anyone could.

Flares do not stop your crews from getting hit.

If you are loading the ambulance, you may need the spotter for the lift, but more important if he see's someone running thru your flares, hhis warning, particularly if you are in the middle of the lift will be the last thing you will ever hear.

The NYS TA is great on the bridge, but you are putting your personnel in harms way if you are not covering them properly and its just a mater of time before you will have a disaster.

When everyone in the VAC took EMT (and every refresher) did they remember the required question: "Is the scene safe?"

2 - Spimply put - We get called - we answer the call.

Simply put you have a responsibility to your members 1st. It appears that you are placing everyone elses well being ahead of that.

[x129K 1,393]

THanks. No picture. My concern was that with both colors reflective there is so much light reflected that at night a firefighter standing just a foot or 2 past (like the pump operator) the rig can not be seen, even if he is wearing a vest. I thought having only 1 color relective will break it up and make it easier to spot US.

I have no scientific study to back this up, just my observation.

Cap - a question if you have the answer;

Let's say I spec a rig and want the rear to have the NFPA colored chevrons, BUT only one of the colors to be reflective, the other painted, non reflective. Would we still have to sign the waiver? Again, it would still be the two approved colors.

Also - is there a minumum surface area that has to be covered? Say I wanted to stop the chevrons approx a foot or so from the sides of the rig to prevent the halo/glow you mentioned?

Thanks.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Cap - a question if you have the answer;

Let's say I spec a rig and want the rear to have the NFPA colored chevrons, BUT only one of the colors to be reflective, the other painted, non reflective. Would we still have to sign the waiver? Again, it would still be the two approved colors.

Also - is there a minumum surface area that has to be covered? Say I wanted to stop the chevrons approx a foot or so from the sides of the rig to prevent the halo/glow you mentioned?

Thanks.

1) Yes the standard says both to be reflective.

2) There is a % to be covered. I do not like the idea of not haveing the outside edge covered, drivers may think the rig is narrower than it is.

[antiquefirelt 994]

Cap - a question if you have the answer;

Let's say I spec a rig and want the rear to have the NFPA colored chevrons, BUT only one of the colors to be reflective, the other painted, non reflective. Would we still have to sign the waiver? Again, it would still be the two approved colors.

Also - is there a minumum surface area that has to be covered? Say I wanted to stop the chevrons approx a foot or so from the sides of the rig to prevent the halo/glow you mentioned? Clearly it may be a stretch to get the exact 50% that way given other items such as light assemblies and other equipment may reduce the covered area.

Thanks.

To add to BNECHIS's answer, here is the NFPA 1901 reference:

15.9.3.2 At least 50 percent of the rear-facing vertical surfaces, visible from the rear of the apparatus, excluding any pump panel areas not covered by a door, shall be equipped with retroreflective striping in a chevron pattern sloping downward and away from the centerline of the vehicle at an angle of 45 degrees.

15.9.3.2.1 Each stripe in the chevron shall be a single color alternating between red and either yellow, fluorescent yellow, or fluorescent yellow-green.

15.9.3.2.2 Each stripe shall be 6 in. (150 mm) in width.

The way this reads, it appears that you may be able to cover 100% of the rear facing surfaces with the chevron, then use standard decal for one color, and the retro-reflective for the other to get your 50% total coverage? It appears the intent is that all the striping be reflective, but I think a good argument may be made for the half and half.

Edited July 6, 2011 by antiquefirelt