The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
New Federal Regulation Requires High Visibility Garments Be Worn While Operating On Highways
Not sure if everyone picked up on this controversy yet - but the Federal Highway Administration has enacted a new regulation 23 CFR 634, that goes into effect in November, 2008 - requiring all emergency responders (as well as anyone else working in proximity to traffic) on a Federally funded highway - to be wearing certain high visibility clothing.
One wouldn't think that kind of a rule would be a problem since the NFPA already requires high visibility markings on our turnout gear - and the wearing of high visibility garments whenever personnel are exposed to traffic - except for the fact that under the new regulations our turnout gear will not be considered adequate. 23 CFR 934 mandates high visibility clothing that meets ANSI Standard 107 - Class 2 or Class 3. Class 2 is a high visibility vest, and Class 3 is a combination vest and pants. No exception is made for firefighters fighting a fire, wearing SCBA, performing vehicle extrication, in hazmat attire, wearing body-substance isolation garments, or any other reason. Even the specially designed ANSI 207 vest that was intended specifically with police and firefighters in mind will not be adequate.
I know we all are concerned about responder safety - that is a given. That is our top priority. However, time and time again we have seen fire apparatus with thousands of dollars worth of lights and reflective trim being struck by drunk, sleepy or inattentive drivers. If these drunk, sleepy, or inattentive drivers cannot see our well lit trucks - then whether a firefighter is wearing turnout gear or an ANSI 107 Class 3 High Visibility Garment is not going to make a significant difference. (Incidentally a recent study by the Univ. of Michigan concluded that the new ANSI 107 garments are no more visible than our turnout gear is). My bigger concern is that once this new regulation goes into effect - firefighters/fire departments that do not comply - may find themselves being blamed for an accident that occurs where personnel are struck by a drunk, sleepy or inattentive driver - and that will be a double tragedy indeed.
The NFPA has additional information about this new regulation, including a podcast and a copy of the Michigan study. Take a look at www.fireservicetoday.org. Its something we all need to pay attention to.
One wouldn't think that kind of a rule would be a problem since the NFPA already requires high visibility markings on our turnout gear - and the wearing of high visibility garments whenever personnel are exposed to traffic - except for the fact that under the new regulations our turnout gear will not be considered adequate. 23 CFR 934 mandates high visibility clothing that meets ANSI Standard 107 - Class 2 or Class 3. Class 2 is a high visibility vest, and Class 3 is a combination vest and pants. No exception is made for firefighters fighting a fire, wearing SCBA, performing vehicle extrication, in hazmat attire, wearing body-substance isolation garments, or any other reason. Even the specially designed ANSI 207 vest that was intended specifically with police and firefighters in mind will not be adequate.
I know we all are concerned about responder safety - that is a given. That is our top priority. However, time and time again we have seen fire apparatus with thousands of dollars worth of lights and reflective trim being struck by drunk, sleepy or inattentive drivers. If these drunk, sleepy, or inattentive drivers cannot see our well lit trucks - then whether a firefighter is wearing turnout gear or an ANSI 107 Class 3 High Visibility Garment is not going to make a significant difference. (Incidentally a recent study by the Univ. of Michigan concluded that the new ANSI 107 garments are no more visible than our turnout gear is). My bigger concern is that once this new regulation goes into effect - firefighters/fire departments that do not comply - may find themselves being blamed for an accident that occurs where personnel are struck by a drunk, sleepy or inattentive driver - and that will be a double tragedy indeed.
The NFPA has additional information about this new regulation, including a podcast and a copy of the Michigan study. Take a look at www.fireservicetoday.org. Its something we all need to pay attention to.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Tony P on
-
I have no issue with wearing a safety vest. It's in our SOP's to do so even though under our laws our turnout gear is considered adequate. But as you said, if people can't see our trucks, what chance does a safety vest give us? Maybe it's time to start shutting down traffic completely when you're working? We already do that a lot - traffic can go somewhere else, we have enough problems already at an incident. Admittedly we're allowed by State law to do so, from what I've read that doesn't apply to a lot (most?) of the US.
-
Permalink Reply by Oldman on
-
I hope we (the fire service) do not start acting like Chicken Little. The Michigan study was a poorly done study at best. As with any study, results can be manipulated, and there are far more studies which show the opposite.
http://www.respondersafety.com/BeRightBeBright.aspx
The point of the vest is not only the reflective striping which bunker gear already has, but also the florescent color for visibility in the daytime, which bunker gear does not have. These requirements and specifications were a combined effort from the government organizations and our own brother and sister fire and EMS people. We had a say, and the concerns were listened to, this was not just thrown at us with a note attached "Deal with it".
"No exception is made for firefighters fighting a fire, wearing SCBA, performing vehicle extrication, in hazmat attire, wearing body-substance isolation garments" ...
Ok, the vest are not fire resistant which means they burn. Nothing in the CFR states you have to wear it in a fire or with SCBA. Vehicle extrication, why not? Whats the big deal with this. We do this all the time in my department. Hazmat? Unless I miss my guess, if there is a hazmat situation where you are wearing a suit, that area is going to be shut down, PERIOD.
In my area, I will not hesitate to pull my big red truck across the roadway. It's a life safety issue, and 5 O just has to deal with it. In Texas, the fire department has the authority to close roads regardless. However, my people must still wear their vest anyway.
I personally think people are making much ado about nothing. If wearing them will give even a little added safety so I can go home, no problem.
Live long and prosper
-
Permalink Reply by Curt Varone on
-
Great points!!!!
My concern is how do we get the vast majority of firefighters to recognize this as an issue they need to pay attention to? No doubt some departments and many progressive firefighters are following this issue - but I don't think most firefighters are. I will bet you I could spend the entire day going to observe highway incidents up and down Rt. 95 and not see a single responder (police or fire) with any sort of vest on - never mind an ANSI 107 Class 3 top and bottom.
I think the pending implementation of this new regulation offers us the chance to generate some important discussion about highway safety - irrespective of whether you wear an ANSI 207 vest, 107 vest, 107 vest and pants, or place a landing light from a 737 on your helmet.
-
Permalink Reply by Engineco913 on
-
All of our apparatus are equipped with the vests. (even the Tanker) For MVA's we generally wear them over the coat. With Temperatures being what they are, the coats at times get removed after extrication is complete and the vest remains on. We also got the "accident ahead" and "fire incident ahead" signs (dot orange signs) that we place out well in advance of the incident for further protection. We have a large call volume on 95, so every ounce of visability we can get is better. It also helps to have the State police barracks closeby. Having officers on the scene who work with us improves the safety on scene. They make themselves highly visible before and at the scene and it tends to keep drivers more aware and alert
-
-
Thats also a good point. Having a good relationship with law enforcement can't do anything but help. A mutual understanding of what each others role is on scene makes for a smoother and quicker mitigation. It is a team effort. Think of the vests as just another member of the team.
-
Permalink Reply by lutan1 on
-
I'm not familiar with the US law at all but remember that hi-vis markings and colours are different for day versus night.
As someone said below, turn out gear is not designed for hi vis during the day so the use of vests, provided it's not going to create an additional hazard, can only be a good thing...
-
-
I think several different issues are getting kind of mixed together here - and they need to stay distinct.
Issue 1 - Are operations on highways dangerous - and are high visibility garments warranted: Yes - absolutely. No debate (from me anyway).
Issue 2 - What are the new Federal requirements? This is where there is alot of confusion. A recently designed high visibility garment/vest designed for police and firefighters (ANSI 207 vest) that many folks assume is what the new Federal regulation refers to - is not addressed by 23 CFR 634. The new regulations require a larger vest (ANSI 107 Class 2) or a full body suit (ANSI Class 3). This situation is really unfortunate - but it is at the heart of much of the confusion. Many well intentioned folks are assuming that anyone raising a concern over 23 CFR 634 are merely whining about Issue 1 above - but the situation is more complicated.
Issue 3 - Are most firefighters aware of the requirement for high visibility garments? As best I can tell there are some folks out there who are all over this issue - and some who believe their fire departments are already following the requirements. To those folks - I tip my hat. But the sad reality is that most firefighters and fire departments remain unaware. Just watch the evening news and see if personnel at the next highway accident coverage are properly attired. I am not seeing it.
I think we need to move beyond Issue 1, clarify Issue 2, and focus on Issue 3.
-
Permalink Reply by Tim Meckler # 575 on
-
I can see it now..... We pull up and its a small fire but by time we get our "SAFETY VEST" on it will be a total lost. Even better we pull up to a pin job and don't start to work until we put on our vests I don't know about you but thats what we have big engines & trucks for, to block the road. I sure don't want to tell someone that I had to put this vest on before I could do something. Why don't the feds stick their noise were it belongs like on "GAS PRICES".
-
-
Issue 1. Agreed. Filed.
Issue 2. Not applicable to us - we have our own Standards, workplace laws, and SOP's.
Issue 3. I think too many FF's here (at least) play down the need for high visibility, do we emphasise the issue? Probably not enough. Yes we have vests, and are supposed to wear them. But our pumper only has 3 - seen as one to identify the IC and two for anyone assisting the Police with traffic control. And our current structural coat is black... Plentiful supply of reflective tape, but black none the less.
The single vehicle roll-over I attended yasterday. Feeder road, 15:30, so before the evening peak. Three fire trucks, two rescues, two ambulances, one Police car. The four ambos and the single copper were wearing vests, but none of the rest of us had even thought of it. Yes I was as bad as the rest. I'm going to put some pressure on the training officer.
-
Permalink Reply by Brian Dumser on
-
Here in the western suburbs of Chicago, my F.D has hi-vis lime green vests on every vehicle, (apparatus and chief's cars). They are to be worn at every roadway incident with the exception of vehicle fires. Liker Billy G says, assume every motorist will either not see you or will try to hit you! Stay safe!
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
