The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Chevrons on the rear of apparatus, your thoughts?
The 2009 version of NFPA 1901is going to mandate chevrons on the rear of apparatus, like they do in Europe. I think it's a great idea who's time has finally come. I'm sure many FF's and civilian's lives will be saved by this. We need to be visible out there. Some F.D's have been doing this for a while, (see the JPG below). What do you think?
- Attachments:
-
-
visible.jpg, 144 KB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Bull on
-
i think its stupid,,we are not europe.
just like i think ite dumb to wear crossing guards vests over my gear
theres too many pencil pushers that sit on there ass in a office having nothing to do so they think up the most dumbest rules that us responders have to deal with.
just my two cents
-
Permalink Reply by Grant Bennett on
-
in IL we have to have the reflective vests on if we are on a roadway. with the flashing light, reflective vests and now the chevrons i am afraid of drivers being blinded by all the light from the reflectors and from the trucks...i am very worried about how this might go...
-
Permalink Reply by k hig on
-
You are not Europe that is correct. Why does Europe have less fire-fighter related accidents injuries and deaths? I don't know the answer do you? But I do know that safety is of the highest priority in Europe and to me some of you guys are letting your side down by over looking such an effective piece of kit. Reflective vests improve visibility.deal withstop the BS and deal with the safety of your self and your crew by noticing such improvements when presented to you.
Just my two cents!
-
Permalink Reply by Mick Shelley on
-
I feel as if lights would do a better job, with Chevrons you look more like a Utility Truck
-
Permalink Reply by Michael C. Harrison on
-
First of all, to any of you that think money and kickbacks are not involved in NFPA decisions and/or guidelines, I would invite you to wake up and understand how this world works. And also realize that ONE of the reasons that the standards are changed, is because that is the only way they can sell more books to make money.......now that that is out of the way.
I am going to say that I believe that "rear end" apparatus accidents in my area (Washington D.C. Metro area) will increase due to the chevrons.
One reason is because ALL vehicles that work on the side of the road have these highly reflective chevrons on them, from State Dept.of Trans. trucks, to County roadwork trucks, and now fire apparatus......therefore people are seeing these things on the side of the road ALL day EVERY day and have, and will continue to ignore them due to overexposure. (that also coincides with the "safety vests" that EVERYONE has now)
Also, the chevrons point to the top middle point of the apparatus......aiming the drivers EXACTLY where we don't want them to go.
And finally, as an avid motorcyclist I understand target fixation VERY well (meaning where you look...is where you go).....and people will be running into the backs of fire apparatus like it's their job.
I have and will continue to COMPLETELY shut down roadways with apparatus (much to the dismay of police officials), but I believe that is the ONLY way to make operating in roadways safer for my members........and hopefully I will be able to angle the apparatus enough so that people can't use the florescent chevrons as a target on my back.
-
-
Actually....blinding lights BLIND you temporarily, and if you can't see you can't target fixate. Eliminate the lights and then people will target fixate BECAUSE the chevrons are so noticeable.
And if arrows pointing in a certain direction WON'T direct drivers that way, you might want to lend your expertise to the Department of Transportation (and inform them that they have been doing it wrong all these years....."point the arrows the way you don't want people to go") that's brilliant!! And I could care less who pulled what out of where....and I also know that peoples "studies" end up saying exactly what they WANT them to say.
I don't recall ever saying, stating, inferring, or writing that ,"any and all changes to NFPA are done just to sell more books." Please refresh my memory as to where I posted any such thing.
And if you think that money, and power are not influential in the decision making processes at NFPA , I would like to be your real estate agent, banker, and all around money manager (I will be more than happy to tell you and show you a "study" of how you can trust ME with ALL of your money.....and HELL, if there is a "study" it HAS TO BE FOR REAL!) wow...people never cease to amaze me.
"Kickbacks in order to get NFPA to sign off on the chevron markings, you mean to tell me that that industry is THAT powerful that they sold a bill of goods to NFPA and it has nothing to do with our safety?" ...once again, please show me where I made any such comment as this......thanks.
"So you feel that it would be safer for us NOT to wear vests as a result of the present 'overexposure'? In other words, we should blend INTO the scene and not stand OUT from it? I will have to assume your study (ies) support that conclusion. Are you suggesting PPE that mimics the present army camo? That might work."
First of all, I say what I mean....and I mean what I say......ONCE again....PUHLEEEEASE show me where I made ANY such reference, comment, OR statement (I will be waiting for that answer along with the others)
Now, do you mean to actually tell me that YOUR study shows that it makes sense for fire dept. personnel to blend in with every road worker, bicycle messenger, construction worker, paperman, postal employee, safety patrol, and panhandling vagrant that happens to have one of the EXACT SAME VESTS.......OR would it make sense (common sense that is....no study needed for that) that WE NOT blend in with everyone else......let me break it down to the lowest common denominator since you seem to be struggling to keep up with the class. Ready?....OK....here we go......Everyone else has one kind of vest to meet the D.O.T. Requirement.....and the Fire Dept. uses a DIFFERENT one to meet those standards......ok, really slow this time......everyone in the country can get a vest, but ONLY the FD can have one that looks different.....therefore, you may see 4000 identical vests in one day, but then at a car accident you see 3-7 of them that look different enough that it MAY actually grab your attention......hopefully that's not too difficult for you to comprehend. hmmmmm "that might work" a little bit better than your G.I.Joe cameo idea
WHEW...that was a little bit tiring....but I like to help the underdog.
I do NOT need a NFPA manual to inform me that shutting down a road and blocking it with fire apparatus is the safest most responsible, and the smartest thing to do........the manuel I use is called Common Sense (I will sell you a discounted copy sense you seem to be a bit behind the 8-ball)
Oh yeah.....when is protecting your people , "not practical " I need an explanation on that one please and thank you.
Now don't getting all upset because your little "funny man, smart ass" routine backfired on you.....I would congratulate you on it....but I have seen better from my 3 year old nephew.
P.S. if any of those quotes were meant for some other person, I apologize......if not PLEASE (once again) remember to show me where I said such a thing(s) thanks and have a good night
-
Permalink Reply by Ben "Batman" Barry on
-
well i say it is a good idea. i say put it on the back of every emergency vehicleand maintnence vehicle out there.
-
-
Your question
"I don't recall ever saying, stating, inferring, or writing that ,"any and all changes to NFPA are done just to sell more books." Please refresh my memory as to where I posted any such thing."
Your answer
"And also realize that ONE of the reasons that the standards are changed, is because that is the only way they can sell more books to make money.......now that that is out of the way."
Exactly.....I said one, ONE, 1, uno, ....you said that I said ALL......thats one out of the way
"Actually....blinding lights BLIND you temporarily, and if you can't see you can't target fixate. Eliminate the lights and then people will target fixate BECAUSE the chevrons are so noticeable."
which is why I said rear lights need to be dimmed or eliminated so that the chevons CAN be seen, and NO they won't fixate on them, certainly not to the degree that they do lights.
Seriously, read what you type and try to have it make sense........you are NOT able to fixate on a target you can NOT see......therefore if you are BLINDED, you can't see it, and if you think people will not fixate on 10 foot tall fluorescent reflective chevrons, you are not as smart as I give you credit for (and I'm not giving you much to begin with)
Your statement
"And if arrows pointing in a certain direction WON'T direct drivers that way, you might want to lend your expertise to the Department of Transportation (and inform them that they have been doing it wrong all these years"
What I said was that the chevron is NOT a directional arrow, you honestly (turn of phrase) think people will drive into them? Gee, I guess you ARE a whole lot smarter than the DOT and everyone ELSE who's studied and recommended they be used.
Ok....time to get down to basics, altho a chevron is an arrow without the tail ( look < > chevrons....look <-- > arrows) and correct, you said chevrons not arrows....but if you come to the east coast you WILL see (if you keep your eyes open while driving ) CHEVRONS denoting abrupt turns.....they are normally 15 + feet tall and yellow and black and reflective and they work the same way as arrows....they POINT where you SHOULD go......don't try to use my D.O.T. line on me...it's not funny when you use it........oh yeah....try to listen (read) to what people say (write) so you don't look like a dunce when you mis-quote another ENTIRE post
Now, you seem to think that just because you posted some links to studies that somehow that makes your opinion a fact.......I stated that my "study" will begin this year and go on from there. I based my "opinion, just like an....well" as you so eloquently put it, on the psychology of the human brain....people are conditioned at a very young age to understand basic shapes and colors and what corresponds to them ( red and octagon = stop, yellow =caution.....and yield signs were changed from yellow to red for a reason.....people tended to not place as much attention to yellow as red.....arrows and CHEVRONS pointing in a direction= GO THAT WAY)so, if people will revert to the basics in an emergency (fight or flight) or in confusion.....if we place big giant arrows (without the tails on them) pointing to the tops of fire apparatus....thats where people are going to subconsciously aim when confused or stressed.
I know I know.....I posted no links or study names about the human mind......so what I posted was invalid and made up (go take a basic psychology class, stay after and hopefully the teacher will be as kind as I am and make it easier for you to understand)
There will NEVER be a way to stop people from running into the back of fire apparatus, because you can't control all the factors (drugs, alcohol, inexperienced drivers ect.)......just more of my stinky a-hole opinion, I know I know.
But if you used common sense and did a study with those great big tail less arrows pointing AWAY from the apparatus ( it would look something like this and >>>>) I bet the results would show that people would be more likely to avoid the apparatus (except in the case of target fixation....which apparently is something ELSE that I made up since I provided no links to any U.K. studies ) and the results would also depend on which camp the money came from to conduct the study.
Now for the opinion part of this post (altho some might argue that it is INDEED fact).....One of the major problems with the fire service today is lemmings that BLINDLY buy into any and all studies, buzz words ect. without taking them in....looking at them, realizing what they are and THEN analyzing them with common sense and feasibility.......so Mr.Damnthing, I hope you learn how to swim before you reach the cliff.
Now to sum this up, I NEVER said I don't believe in studies (that was you once again making things up....or sarcasm....or whatever you choose to call it in your next post) I think studies are a GREAT tool (a tool is a thing you use to accomplish a given task.....OR a term to describe a person that is as useless as a chunk of metal in the wrong hands......see you and something useful have the same name) a tool that should be used just as that ....a TOOL....NOT the GOSPEL.
I realize that I have made no effort to provide you with any links to back up my opinions OR facts.......so in the internet world you win (in the real world the people you will provide service to probably won't)
And I have NO problem with people disagreeing with me....actually I love and encourage it......the ONLY way to solve a problem is to see as many sides of it as you possibly can, therefore the more people that offer opinion, insight, facts......or the HOLY LINKS, the better.....then take all that info in, and decipher it with a little common sense....thats how ALMOST EVERY PROBLEM COULD BE SOLVED.
You were the one that decided to begin our little joust with disparaging remarks towards me and many MANY misquotes.....and altho I can carry on a respectful intelligent conversation, I can also trade insults with the best of them (which , by the way....you aren't even CLOSE to the best of them)
And I didn't get into the fire service to be the popular guy.....I got in it to do the right thing.......please do the citizens you are supposed to serve a favor and reevaluate whether or not you belong here.
Now....if you want to continue this discussion like a reasonable person with a differing opinion, I would enjoy that.
If you want to continue to misquote me, and baffle me with your links and study's that you have no clue about, and try to throw insults my way, I would THOROUGHLY ENJOY THAT (nothing makes me feel smarter than having a battle of wits with an unarmed fool)
If you choose to end this.....I could care less.....your choice (just don't feel like you are the man if a few days pass before I reply.....I have other things to do besides this)
-
-
Thank you, thank you.....and yes, I do try to cover all my bases (it's a smart thing to do)
Just to clarify...I do not disdain studies (another misquote......but you are batting 1000 with those, so why stop now) I said that they should be used as a tool, not as gospel (that means that study's can be flawed.....even tho someone posts them on the internet, or in print format) I really didn't think that would be tooo hard to understand....but hopefully I broke it down to the lowest common demonimator this time (we shall see)
And YES....it IS only common sense that is worth my time......you say that like it's a bad thing....try it sometime and you might get better results in everything you do.
I am VERY familiar with what I wrote.....because.....I wrote it, but thanks for the reminder.
I do think a lot of myself, I hold others to a high standard, and hold myself even higher......be the best you can be (all that stuff your parents SHOULD have taught you)
And I have great pride in the fact that you (and many others) consider me an asshole....that means I am doing my job and people are thinking (or trying to)....and when they reach the limit and can't make sense or make a valid arguement anymore.....its all because I'm an asshole...haha...and don't go getting all butt hurt now because of my "unwarranted arrogance and attitude" you are the one that began with all the scornful remarks and smart assed comments.....I just finished it.
And you have a nice day too,
The Asshole Known as Mike (I actually have shirts made up that say that.....just email me your size and I will send you one)
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Those are a big problem in my area, because we have one highway that carries around 80% of our total traffic. We have to work closely with the cops to ensure that Wreck A doesn't cause Wrecks B through Z.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
