MVPD red/blue lightbars

[EMT111 149]

So yesterday, I was watching the news and they were following a manhunt in Mount Vernon for a suspect who had struck a police officer with a car. One of the shots they kept showing had a MVPD ESU truck with a red and blue light bar. As far as I was aware, blue to the front is still technically illegal, so has MVPD decided to run red/blue to the front, or is it a color changing bar that they set to red/blue when on a scene since blue add's visibility?

[87D124 37]

Mount Vernon and Yonkers PDs both have forward facing blue lights along with red/clear. They have both been using forward facing blue for about the last 20 years, long before the law was changed allowing PD to have blue in the back.

[87D124 37]

I never bothered to check, but there may be a City Ordinance allowing them to use blue lights.

[everybodygoes 331]

Albany PD has been using rear facing blue lights for at least 20 years as well. Who cares, it adds to their safety.

[10512 214]

I see lots of emergency vehicles with rear and forward facing blue lights in NY, some FD's, EMS, some other PD's. I do not think anyone cares enough to bother them.

Is it legal in NY? I do not know, it does not intrigue me enough to look it up.

I do not care and I wonder why anyone else would.

Edited June 8, 2014 by 10512

[Bnechis 3,961]

I never bothered to check, but there may be a City Ordinance allowing them to use blue lights.

City ordinances can not contradict state law.

[EMT111 149]

Thanks for the answers. I was just wondering since as it was explained to me that no one other than vffs could run blue to the front and the volunteer fire fighter associations in NY were actively fighting against anyone else running blue to the front.

[Reliance 29]

Most of the emergency services in Canada other than fire service, run a light bar with red on one side and blue on the other.

[Dinosaur 844]

There used to be federal standards that said RED/BLUE was law enforcement and RED/CLEAR was all other emergency vehicles. They (the feds) never accounted for volunteer "courtesy lights" so NYS and many others used the lights differently. I don't remember if it was DOT or some other agency or if it was law, regulation, recommendation or just an idea but some agencies have been using red and blue for decades.

Another "tale" that I used to hear is that since CT uses blue for PD, some departments that border or are near CT use red and blue so people from CT know they're the police.

[Dinosaur 844]

Thanks for the answers. I was just wondering since as it was explained to me that no one other than vffs could run blue to the front and the volunteer fire fighter associations in NY were actively fighting against anyone else running blue to the front.

Was it explained to you too that you can only have ONE blue, visible from 360 degrees affixed to your vehicle? Not a blue bar, grill lights, deck lights, wig-wags, etc. etc. etc. etc. Or that it doesn't give you any special privileges or authority under the law? LOL

Volunteer fire associations in NYS also fight against training standards, response time standards, and staffing requirements. Nice to see they're staying with the good causes.

[ryguy12fd 33]

Who cares? You can argue and quote the laws all you want. Who is going to pull them over and cite them?

[Bnechis 3,961]

Who cares? You can argue and quote the laws all you want. Who is going to pull them over and cite them?

While no one is going to "pull them over and cite them". If they are involved in an accident, a smart lawyer will use this against the dept. and the taxpayers may end up paying, even if the incident had nothing to do with the color of the lights.

Very hard to have credibility in court, when you violate the law and you should have known better. Actually that's part of the tort standards that will be used against them.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Someone should call the cops...

[INIT915 1,119]

While no one is going to "pull them over and cite them". If they are involved in an accident, a smart lawyer will use this against the dept. and the taxpayers may end up paying, even if the incident had nothing to do with the color of the lights.

Very hard to have credibility in court, when you violate the law and you should have known better. Actually that's part of the tort standards that will be used against them.

While generally that's correct, there's a number of aspects of tort law that you'd be missing out on here, especially since there is a trove of studies, documentation, and anecdotal evidence that blue lights help with visibility. You be hard pressed to make a state of claim based solely on the fact that the blue lights violate the VTL. By that logic, blue lights must be inherently dangerous when used in such a fashion, making every volunteer's POV a "ticking time bomb on the public roadway", even when the lights are used lawfully.

To take that argument a step further, how many fire departments have amber lights, even if only rearward facing? Read the VTL closely, those amber lights on emergency vehicles are illegal in New York. So, if an engine/rescue/truck gets rear ended while having amber flashing lights, is that a home run for a civil claim. Of course not. But if your worried about it and your in a command position, how can you allow your department to continue to display those amber lights and "flout the law." I say that sarcastically, because I live in the real world.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Read the VTL closely, those amber lights on emergency vehicles are illegal in New York. So, if an engine/rescue/truck gets rear ended while having amber flashing lights, is that a home run for a civil claim. Of course not. But if your worried about it and your in a command position, how can you allow your department to continue to display those amber lights and "flout the law." I say that sarcastically, because I live in the real world.

It has been some time since I last read the V&T laws, their have been some minor language changes and you bring up an interesting point. The definition of a hazard vehicle has changed, in the past amber light could be used on any vehicle involved in an operation where it was operating at reduced or different speeds than the flow of traffic. Now its rather limited, so as I read it, the following vehicles that regularly use amber lights are breaking the V&T: security companies, private security (hospitals, manufacturing, universities, etc.), oversized vehicles, escort vehicles, delivery vehicles, USPS (except on rural routes), fleet maintenance & repair vehicles, etc.

Now while it is a little vague as to who may use ambler, it does indicate that as long as a vehicle is designed to push a disabled vehicle (our fire trucks are so equipped) or is involved in highway maintenance (like cleaning up a fluid spill or the remaining debris at a crash) as we regularly do, then the regulation clearly allows us to use amber lights.

At the same time its hard to get past the language for blue lights as its on point:

Article 9, 375, 41. 4. b. In addition to the red and white lights authorized to be displayed pursuant to paragraph two of this subdivision, one or more blue lights or combination blue and red lights or combination blue, red and white lights may be affixed to a police vehicle, fire vehicle, ambulance, emergency ambulance service vehicle, and county emergency medical services vehicle provided that such blue light or lights shall be displayed on a police vehicle, fire vehicle, ambulance, emergency ambulance service vehicle, and county emergency medical services vehicle for rear projection only.

[INIT915 1,119]

It has been some time since I last read the V&T laws, their have been some minor language changes and you bring up an interesting point. The definition of a hazard vehicle has changed, in the past amber light could be used on any vehicle involved in an operation where it was operating at reduced or different speeds than the flow of traffic. Now its rather limited, so as I read it, the following vehicles that regularly use amber lights are breaking the V&T: security companies, private security (hospitals, manufacturing, universities, etc.), oversized vehicles, escort vehicles, delivery vehicles, USPS (except on rural routes), fleet maintenance & repair vehicles, etc.

Now while it is a little vague as to who may use ambler, it does indicate that as long as a vehicle is designed to push a disabled vehicle (our fire trucks are so equipped) or is involved in highway maintenance (like cleaning up a fluid spill or the remaining debris at a crash) as we regularly do, then the regulation clearly allows us to use amber lights.

At the same time its hard to get past the language for blue lights as its on point:

Article 9, 375, 41. 4. b. In addition to the red and white lights authorized to be displayed pursuant to paragraph two of this subdivision, one or more blue lights or combination blue and red lights or combination blue, red and white lights may be affixed to a police vehicle, fire vehicle, ambulance, emergency ambulance service vehicle, and county emergency medical services vehicle provided that such blue light or lights shall be displayed on a police vehicle, fire vehicle, ambulance, emergency ambulance service vehicle, and county emergency medical services vehicle for rear projection only.

Good points, but I don't know that it's that vague about the amber lights. Your trucks are not "specially equipped or designed for the towing or pushing of vehicles." It just happens to be something they can physically do, in addition to their intended purpose. And highway maintenance is defined, as permits are needed, so I doubt you file for a permit every time you respond to an MVA. That's all an aside though, I generally agree these laws are not realistic.

Not only would you have to sell that your engine was designed for pushing and towing vehicles, those lights "shall be

displayed on a hazard vehicle when such vehicle is engaged in a hazardous operation." Which means "the operation, or parking, of a vehicle on or immediately adjacent to a public highway while such vehicle is actually engaged in an operation which would restrict, impede or interfere with the normal flow of traffic," which creates all kinds of new problems. This would suggest you must be able to disable the amber flashing lights except when meeting one of those conditions. So, whenever not on or adjacent to a public highway as those terms are defined and actually engaged, you must have a way to turn them off. Absurd, right? I agree.

But as you said, a "creative lawyer..." My point, if I have one, is that a "creative lawyer" couldn't make either of these claims fly. Either the blue forward facing lights, nor the amber on your trucks. They are both well accepted practice nationally, and best-practice in many areas. So to argue that something that is generally considered "best practice" almost everywhere else, was somehow the proximate cause of a civil tort in New York, is, well, just a tad far fetched for my taste.

[Bnechis 3,961]

1) Your trucks are not "specially equipped or designed for the towing or pushing of vehicles." It just happens to be something they can physically do, in addition to their intended purpose.

2) And highway maintenance is defined, as permits are needed, so I doubt you file for a permit every time you respond to an MVA. That's all an aside though,

3) I generally agree these laws are not realistic.

4) Not only would you have to sell that your engine was designed for pushing and towing vehicles, those lights "shall be displayed on a hazard vehicle when such vehicle is engaged in a hazardous operation." Which means "the operation, or parking, of a vehicle on or immediately adjacent to a public highway while such vehicle is actually engaged in an operation which would restrict, impede or interfere with the normal flow of traffic," which creates all kinds of new problems.

5) This would suggest you must be able to disable the amber flashing lights except when meeting one of those conditions. So, whenever not on or adjacent to a public highway as those terms are defined and actually engaged, you must have a way to turn them off. Absurd, right? I agree.

6) But as you said, a "creative lawyer..." My point, if I have one, is that a "creative lawyer" couldn't make either of these claims fly. Either the blue forward facing lights, nor the amber on your trucks. They are both well accepted practice nationally, and best-practice in many areas. So to argue that something that is generally considered "best practice" almost everywhere else, was somehow the proximate cause of a civil tort in New York, is, well, just a tad far fetched for my taste.

Excellent points!

1) Actually we require the manufacture builds the front bumper without damaging the vehicle (and minimizing damage to the pushed vehicle, if possible) so it can be used for pushing,

2) I could not fined a definition in the V&T for highway maintenance, but it did define "highway" as including all publicly owned road. Now that being said, there are approximately 180 miles of public highway in my city (excluding I-95 & the HRP). And they are controlled/maintained by our DPW. The engineering department is responsible for issuing "maintanince permits" to any entity that cuts through the pavement, or patches, fills or repaves it. Since they do not issue permits for the level of maintenance that we do, this is a none issue. In addition Federal & State law requires clean up of spilled hazardous materials on these roads, which we perform, again no permits are issued to anyone for this type of work.

3) Why should they be the exception to anything else that comes out of Albany.

4) I do not know if the courts would consider "responding" as operating (and we can all establish that it is considered hazardous) , but that does restrict, disrupt and impede normal traffic. Once we stop we clearly do this. Also if while moving its improper, then DOT, DPW's, Sanitation & Tow Trucks are all violating this as they are "operating" while moving all the time.

5) not that we do, but we can. Since once out of the fire house we are always on or adjacent to a public highway, so the only issue is does #4 apply, prior to our arrival. Of course its absurd (see #3).

6) We use the law firm of Duewe Cheatum & Howe. Was told by a NYS Judge (at a multi day seminar on FD Vehicle Liability) that best practices & even standards (like NFPA) outside NYS would generally not be admitted if it was to defend against a state regulation.