Roadway Safety

[FFEMT150 214]

After speaking briefly with one of the moderators I have decided to go ahead and start this thread. This was a thought I have been contemplating for quite some time. I travel the TSP everyday to work and often ask myself as I pass a trooper on a traffic stop, "Why don't these guys wear the safety vests?"

DOT requires that emergency personnel operating on roadways wear an ANSI approved traffic safety vest. My thought is, If we wear them with FD and EMS, than why dont LEO's wear them? I understand the tactical aspect of the job may be inhibited by the vest but as far as a traffic stop or detail, why not have it on?

Thanks for the input folks and as always, Stay Safe out there!

[JetPhoto 626]

I totally agree especially when they are stationed to be on foot directing traffic and they wear dark uniforms and it's raining out making it even more difficult to see them.

[texastom791 31]

Are troopers even issued traffic vests? I know they don't carry certain ems equipment like aeds because the state doesn't want to spend the money outfitting every car with them. Maybe it's a similar situation with vests too not that it's a good excuse for them not to be purchased.

Edited November 21, 2011 by texastom791

[FFEMT150 214]

Are troopers even issued traffic vests? I know they don't carry certain ems equipment like aeds becuase the state doesn't want to spend the money outfitting every car with them.

Thats more or less what I am asking here. Do they have them and why dont they use them??? Not only Troopers, but local LEO's as well.

[RWC130 594]

Good Topic!

SAFETY FIRST!

We will have to wait and get some "official" comments from our EMTBravo members who are members of

New York State Police but as far as I know Troopers are issued ANSI approved traffic safety vests.

As far as the AED goes I am pretty sure some NYSP vehicles do have AED's

SP Cortlandt has one because I saw a Trooper with it on a call a couple months ago.

[INIT915 1,119]

Every single NYSP vehicle is outfitted with vests and an AED.

[Ga-Lin 86]

After speaking briefly with one of the moderators I have decided to go ahead and start this thread. This was a thought I have been contemplating for quite some time. I travel the TSP everyday to work and often ask myself as I pass a trooper on a traffic stop, "Why don't these guys wear the safety vests?"

DOT requires that emergency personnel operating on roadways wear an ANSI approved traffic safety vest. My thought is, If we wear them with FD and EMS, than why dont LEO's wear them? I understand the tactical aspect of the job may be inhibited by the vest but as far as a traffic stop or detail, why not have it on?

Thanks for the input folks and as always, Stay Safe out there!

Two words: complacency & laziness. I'm not sure if laziness is the right word to use here, but I can't think of another one at the moment, nor do I intend any disrespect to our fellow emer responder LEO's. However, we all are guilty of these at one time or another. For years we've had vests in our ambulances right next to the flares, with a layer of dust on them from non-use. Never seen them used ( this was pre currently mandatory regs). This was not unusual at the time, so when we decided on new uniforms for everyone we incorparated reflective safety stripes into/onto the duty uniform. I suspect that vests are keep in the trunk of the cars which entails another step to perform prior to engaging in operations. As I've told my EMT students over the Yrs, if you think that you may need back-up or additional help upon arrivial, call for it prior to begining Pt. care because it requires alot of disipline to disengage from care to do it otherwise, same thing here. After begining operations at the scene almost no one is going to go back to put a vest on, unless a trip back to the car is needed for another reason, or if operations become extended & you think about it. As for "routine" traffic stops I understand the reason for not wearing a bright vest as you approach a car. I have seen them used for DWI, inspection & registration check points, but almost never at other emergency/accident scenes. Finally, the same also goes for most EMS responders that I see operating at accident scenes.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Ga-Lin

[CHIEFPHIL 90]

I use to not like the idea of wearing my vest.... then a couple of weeks ago coming home from NH on I-91 in Hartford ,a three car MVA happened right in front of us. I go t out and went to the aid of one of the drivers and so did my significant other (she is a nurse). I had no gear or anything like that, just my job shirt. while waiting for CSP to arrive, i realized we were targets and even though it was daylight no one could see me. Once CSP showed up, I briefed the first officer onscene, then a second cruiser arrived. the first put on a vest the second did not. What a contrast it made to the scene, as one was visible and not the other against the black crashed pick up.

So, now that I travel weekly between NH and CT, I have put my Safety Officer vest (in each car) and bought a vest for her (added our mandatory ID's as well). Chances are we are going to see another accident and stop to help. I learned a lesson, hopefully our LEO brothers and sisters will not learn the hard way.

Edited November 21, 2011 by CHIEFPHIL

[efdcapt115 1,511]

One reason I can think of for NOT wearing an illuminated vest; a felony traffic stop. If you have to approach a vehicle with your weapon drawn, at least one other officer doing the same, why "light" yourselves up for a potential perp; making yourself an easier target?

Traffic accidents? Yeah, I'd wear one.

[Ga-Lin 86]

One reason I can think of for NOT wearing an illuminated vest; a felony traffic stop. If you have to approach a vehicle with your weapon drawn, at least one other officer doing the same, why "light" yourselves up for a potential perp; making yourself an easier target?

Traffic accidents? Yeah, I'd wear one.

I'm in total agreement with you as far as traffic stops but not being an LEO, could you explain what is a felony traffic stop? The reason I ask is living in Orange Cty, you could not image the drug busts NYSP make on both the Rt17 & Thruway corridor. Many result from "routine" stops for headlights, Registration etc. in addition to speeding. Most purps are either high, packing weapons or both. My friend told me that many Troopers want to be transfered to Troop F because of the high rate of BIG drug busts they get to make, & therefore it looks good for promotion.

[FFEMT150 214]

Thanks for the input guys. I want to try and reach out to members that are LEO's here and get their input. I will stress the point that this thread is in no way ment to criticize or offend in any way how law enforcement operates or their practices. This is just an honest thought i have been mulling over for quite some time.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

I'm in total agreement with you as far as traffic stops but not being an LEO, could you explain what is a felony traffic stop? The reason I ask is living in Orange Cty, you could not image the drug busts NYSP make on both the Rt17 & Thruway corridor. Many result from "routine" stops for headlights, Registration etc. in addition to speeding. Most purps are either high, packing weapons or both. My friend told me that many Troopers want to be transfered to Troop F because of the high rate of BIG drug busts they get to make, & therefore it looks good for promotion.

Better left for helocopper, crime cop, INIT915, or JJB to explain, as I'm not LE either.

[helicopper 1,050]

From the Federal Register:

Overarching comments from State and local police, national police organizations, and State DOTs indicated a strong need for recognizing the many roles that law enforcement personnel serve when working on highways. In particular, the commenters were concerned about law enforcement officers wearing high-visibility clothing while performing duties (such as routine traffic stops or searches and manhunts) that often place them in an adversarial or confrontational role, such as apprehending suspects, stolen vehicles, illicit drugs, or a vehicle occupant who turns out to be wanted for a serious felony and is armed and dangerous. As a result, many of these organizations commented that the rulemaking needed to allow more flexibility for law enforcement to determine, based on their own standard operating procedures, when it was appropriate to use high-visibility clothing. Their primary concern was that a highly-reflective garment would make them a better target if a gunfight develops, especially in nighttime conditions.

The FHWA agrees with the law enforcement comments’ assertion that the role of police differs significantly from that of other persons whose duties require them to work in and around the highway. Therefore, the FHWA modifies the definition of worker to limit the high-visibility garment requirement for law enforcement personnel to those duties that involve directing traffic, investigating crashes, and handling lane closures, obstructed roadways, and disasters within the right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway.

Many police duties, especially traffic stops, have the potential to become tactical situations in the blink of an eye. Therefore it would be imprudent and unsafe to be wearing a reflective high-visibility garment during those assignments.

The whole issue of "felony" stops vs. conventional traffic stops is moot because some stops aren't known to be felony stops when they're made. Those that are, generally result in the complete closure of the road anyway (at least if they're done right) so traffic isn't an issue.

[helicopper 1,050]

Looking into the Federal Register brought up another question on the same topic. The regulation specifically states "wear high-visibility clothing...within the right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway".

What roads in our area (besides the interstates) are "Federal-aid highways"?

[x129K 1,393]

Looking into the Federal Register brought up another question on the same topic. The regulation specifically states "wear high-visibility clothing...within the right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway".

What roads in our area (besides the interstates) are "Federal-aid highways"?

DING SING DING!

Pays to read the fineprint!~

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Many police duties, especially traffic stops, have the potential to become tactical situations in the blink of an eye. Therefore it would be imprudent and unsafe to be wearing a reflective high-visibility garment during those assignments.

Chris, while I respect the tactical needs of an officer, look at the statistics from 2010. Note: Its kind of quiet at work so I'm amazed I have the time to do this...

Total LODDs: 162

LODDs as a result of Traffic Fatalities: 72

LODDs as a result of Gunfire: 61

Of the 72 Traffic Fatalities, 16 were Officers struck while outside their vehicle.

Of the 61 Gunfire Fatalities, 8 were traffic stops/pursuits.

Twice as many cops were killed on foot in traffic than were shot and killed at traffic stops. Granted, that can include Officers directing traffic, etc. But we can AT LEAST say that the numbers alone (which admittedly never tell the entire story) show that the risk of an Officer being struck by a vehicle is AT LEAST comparable to that of an Officer being shot, so maybe the steps we take to mitigate that risk should be equal as well. Also granted that this is just ONE year, and it would take more data than that for an accurate statistical analysis for the overall risk involved.

(Source: http://www.nleomf.org/assets/pdfs/reports/2010_Law_Enforcement_Fatalities_Report.pdf)

Maybe its time for a creative solution. Maybe a jacket that has hi-vis scotchlite and fluorescent yellow on the BACK only (and no, I'm not just talking about a TROOPER pulldown with a little reflective material like they have now, I'm saying it looks like a traffic vest on the back) with an special ANSI standard to go with it or something like that? I don't know the answer, I'm just saying SOMETHING needs to be done to address it. All the move over laws in the world aren't going to completely solve the problem, and if we can come up with something simple to fix the problem it would definitely be worth it.

[helicopper 1,050]

Chris, while I respect the tactical needs of an officer, look at the statistics from 2010. Note: Its kind of quiet at work so I'm amazed I have the time to do this...

Total LODDs: 162

LODDs as a result of Traffic Fatalities: 72

LODDs as a result of Gunfire: 61

Of the 72 Traffic Fatalities, 16 were Officers struck while outside their vehicle.

Of the 61 Gunfire Fatalities, 8 were traffic stops/pursuits.

Twice as many cops were killed on foot in traffic than were shot and killed at traffic stops. Granted, that can include Officers directing traffic, etc. But we can AT LEAST say that the numbers alone (which admittedly never tell the entire story) show that the risk of an Officer being struck by a vehicle is AT LEAST comparable to that of an Officer being shot, so maybe the steps we take to mitigate that risk should be equal as well. Also granted that this is just ONE year, and it would take more data than that for an accurate statistical analysis for the overall risk involved.

(Source: http://www.nleomf.or...ties_Report.pdf)

Maybe its time for a creative solution. Maybe a jacket that has hi-vis scotchlite and fluorescent yellow on the BACK only (and no, I'm not just talking about a TROOPER pulldown with a little reflective material like they have now, I'm saying it looks like a traffic vest on the back) with an special ANSI standard to go with it or something like that? I don't know the answer, I'm just saying SOMETHING needs to be done to address it. All the move over laws in the world aren't going to completely solve the problem, and if we can come up with something simple to fix the problem it would definitely be worth it.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics!

The problem with these statistics is that we don't know all the information. Would any of these deaths have been avoidable with the use of a traffic vest? Don't know. Would any additional officers have been killed/injured if they were wearing one in a tactical situation. Don't know.

I'm not suggesting that traffic vests don't improve visibility or safety on the highway but if I'm in a foot pursuit, I don't want to be reflective from any angle. How do you know when you're going to get into a foot pursuit? You don't! That's the problem; there is no simple solution.

If we could find out how many of those traffic fatalities were due to poor visibility or as a result of not being seen we might be able to draw a more informed conclusion. But even the "killed outside of vehicle while on traffic stop" category doesn't tell you whether or not a vest would have mattered? I know a few specific instances in those cases from last year where alcohol or drugs was a contributing factor and I would submit that a vest isn't going to make a damn bit of difference in those cases.

[FightingIrish 7]

While on the topic of roadway safety anyone have any ideas on why NYSP is subduing the reflective stripes on their cars. It kind of seems like the opposite of what fire and EMS are doing with the chevrons. Are there other reasons then just a darker profile for running radar?

[TCD0415 26]

In my department, the SOG's stipulate that a vest should be worn with the exception of when engaged in Firefighting Duties or when the vest impedes or becomes a safety hazard to the user. I am getting the same sort of message from what Chris is saying (makes sense to me). In a tactical situation (or possible one) it may actually be safer not to wear one. When things slow down or it is a Checkpoint or Traffic Detail, I am sure that you see more LEO's wearing them. On the flip side, a lot of FF's do neglect to wear them at times as well.

Are you required to wear on the the helicopter ?

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics!

The problem with these statistics is that we don't know all the information. Would any of these deaths have been avoidable with the use of a traffic vest? Don't know. Would any additional officers have been killed/injured if they were wearing one in a tactical situation. Don't know.

I'm not suggesting that traffic vests don't improve visibility or safety on the highway but if I'm in a foot pursuit, I don't want to be reflective from any angle. How do you know when you're going to get into a foot pursuit? You don't! That's the problem; there is no simple solution.

If we could find out how many of those traffic fatalities were due to poor visibility or as a result of not being seen we might be able to draw a more informed conclusion. But even the "killed outside of vehicle while on traffic stop" category doesn't tell you whether or not a vest would have mattered? I know a few specific instances in those cases from last year where alcohol or drugs was a contributing factor and I would submit that a vest isn't going to make a damn bit of difference in those cases.

Fair point, and as I mentioned the statistics do not tell the whole story. I'm just saying that someone DOES need to come up with a solution to this problem. Obviously the solution isn't a simple one, otherwise I'd have come up with it and made millions of dollars selling it... but seriously though, I think this does need to be looked at a little more closely.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Many police duties, especially traffic stops, have the potential to become tactical situations in the blink of an eye. Therefore it would be imprudent and unsafe to be wearing a reflective high-visibility garment during those assignments.

Chris, I understand the issue of the potential for it becoming tactical, but from a risk vs. benefit, what are the numbers of officers injured/killed on the highway by a criminal action vs. being struck because they were not seen?

Chris, no need to answer......I saw the follow ups.

Edited November 22, 2011 by Bnechis

[Bnechis 3,961]

What roads in our area (besides the interstates) are "Federal-aid highways"?

We looked in to this and if they recieve any money from the Feds, for improvemnets (paving, signs, lighting, etc.) they county.

In New Rochelle they include: North Avenue, Main St., Huguenot St., Pelham Rd., Weaver St., Webster Ave., Pinebrook Blvd., Eastchester Rd., Quaker Ridge Rd., 5th Ave., Stratton Rd., Baurad Rd., Wilmot Rd. Union Ave., Weyman Ave., Kings Highway, Palmer Ave., etc.

Plus many more.

So basicly if your on a primary local road.

[JohnnyOV 2]

from 23 CFR 634:

Workers means people on foot whose

duties place them within the right-ofway

of a Federal-aid highway, such as

highway construction and maintenance

forces, survey crews, utility crews, responders

to incidents within the highway

right-of-way, and law enforcement

personnel when directing traffic, investigating

crashes, and handling lane closures,

obstructed roadways, and disasters

within the right-of-way of a Federal-

aid highway.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/aprqtr/pdf/23cfr634.1.pdf

Normal traffic stops and criminal investigations do not fall under this.

Edited November 22, 2011 by JohnnyOV

[helicopper 1,050]

Chris, I understand the issue of the potential for it becoming tactical, but from a risk vs. benefit, what are the numbers of officers injured/killed on the highway by a criminal action vs. being struck because they were not seen?

Chris, no need to answer......I saw the follow ups.

I don't think we can ever get close enough to a root cause to determine if it was visibility vs. other factors. Most of the accidents on the "federal highway right of way" that I'm aware of have multiple contributing factors and visibility hasn't been one of them. Alcohol/drugs, speed, failure to yield or move over seem to be the most insidious and vests do nothing to mitigate them.

[JetPhoto 626]

Stealth ware! Normal operations is the beautiful reflective material, press a button and instant stealth operations of dark police clothing.

There is a fortune to be made $$$