The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Blue Light Special - Part 1
There are many posts on here in the forums and groups about the warning lights used by volunteer firefighters on privately owned vehicles. This is a favorite topic on many fire service websites. They all seem to boil down to the same thing. Someone asks one of two questions, either a technical one about what lights they can use or the more benign social question about what color lights those in other areas use. Then the inevitable post comes up, from someone who is not really answering either question but wants to inform all of us that no matter what color they are, how many you have, how bright they are or what direction they face, that these lights are nothing but so called “courtesy lights”.
I am in a district where such lights matter very little. We are small enough and many of our members live close enough that most respond to the station. Other local departments have larger areas to cover and have many more responses to the scene. I am sure there are places in the country where this is even more important than it is in area.
While reading through some of these posts I found out that North Carolina refers to the color of light, refers to the type of vehicle, and contains the word emergency but not the word courtesy. Texas refers to operating a private vehicle as an emergency vehicle. Kentucky refers to responding to the scene of a fire or other emergency. Arizona lists these lights as lighting devices. My own state of Connecticut simply refers to flashing lights while regulating the color used. Now this list is by far not comprehensive, but it gives us a glimpse of several different states, and they all have one thing in common. Nowhere does the words or phrase “courtesy lights” appear or exist. This seems to be a peculiar construct of our own within the fire service.
I have posted this opinion before, but have decided to write at length of it in a blog because of how it relates to other issues facing the volunteer fire service. Whenever someone says that volunteer firefighters are less than our career counterparts, even in states where the minimum standards clearly allow for such failings, there is an outcry of epic proportions. This is that classic paid vs. volunteer argument that really gets us nowhere. Imagine if someone said that volunteer firefighters were only courtesy firefighters? Would there be an outcry? You bet there would. Yet we apply the same label to emergency warning lights used by our own members, and proudly pat ourselves on the back for being progressive.
Response times are an issue in the fire service as a whole, but are a major issue in the volunteer sector. These lights may have an effect on these times. There are studies about use of lights and sirens on apparatus, which say lights have very little effect on response times, but I can’t imagine that the effect would be any different on different types of vehicles. Traffic laws do sometimes afford different privileges to apparatus as opposed to POV’s but the lights are subject to these laws not the other way around.
One need not go very far to hear stories about how motorists do not yield to emergency lights on our apparatus, yet we still do everything we can to remind them that they do not have to yield to the very same lights on POV’s. We often complain about how other motorists impeded us from getting the engine to the scene, but are quite happy when they impede the crew from getting to that same engine. Every time we call warning lights courtesy lights we remind the public that we don’t really want the right of way after all. The flip side of this is that is actually the answer to another part of the question. When training new drivers we use words like “due regard” and we teach various safety rules, such as slowing down at intersections. Do we ever address this to those who respond in their POV’s?
When we install new lights on apparatus we seem to go with more is better, this is because we recognize these are for emergency warning and scene safety. When we see a POV with more than one light we call the owner a whacker, as if scene safety and emergency warning are no longer factors. Why do you think we use phrases like whacker to describe those who choose to install these lights on their POV’s? Because there will always be those who push the envelope with regard to rules and regulations. When I was a kid and my brother was a volunteer, light bars were all the rage among local volunteers. This is because they gave more light and more visibility. Now lights are smaller and draw less power, and thus one can (if they want to) install many more lights than provided by yesterdays light bars. Yet we give out whatever permits are needed without EVOC training. We do this because after all the lights are just “courtesy lights” not emergency lights and there is no such thing as a CVOC.
So let’s recap, we put our guys on the road, don’t train them, give them a device which (in theory at least) will move traffic, then tell the public they do not have to move. Then we act all surprised when there are problems with responding members. As I was writing this, I realized that there is more to this, and there will be a part two. But I wanted to post this for now, because we can’t get to the next part without an internal change in attitude.
I am in a district where such lights matter very little. We are small enough and many of our members live close enough that most respond to the station. Other local departments have larger areas to cover and have many more responses to the scene. I am sure there are places in the country where this is even more important than it is in area.
While reading through some of these posts I found out that North Carolina refers to the color of light, refers to the type of vehicle, and contains the word emergency but not the word courtesy. Texas refers to operating a private vehicle as an emergency vehicle. Kentucky refers to responding to the scene of a fire or other emergency. Arizona lists these lights as lighting devices. My own state of Connecticut simply refers to flashing lights while regulating the color used. Now this list is by far not comprehensive, but it gives us a glimpse of several different states, and they all have one thing in common. Nowhere does the words or phrase “courtesy lights” appear or exist. This seems to be a peculiar construct of our own within the fire service.
I have posted this opinion before, but have decided to write at length of it in a blog because of how it relates to other issues facing the volunteer fire service. Whenever someone says that volunteer firefighters are less than our career counterparts, even in states where the minimum standards clearly allow for such failings, there is an outcry of epic proportions. This is that classic paid vs. volunteer argument that really gets us nowhere. Imagine if someone said that volunteer firefighters were only courtesy firefighters? Would there be an outcry? You bet there would. Yet we apply the same label to emergency warning lights used by our own members, and proudly pat ourselves on the back for being progressive.
Response times are an issue in the fire service as a whole, but are a major issue in the volunteer sector. These lights may have an effect on these times. There are studies about use of lights and sirens on apparatus, which say lights have very little effect on response times, but I can’t imagine that the effect would be any different on different types of vehicles. Traffic laws do sometimes afford different privileges to apparatus as opposed to POV’s but the lights are subject to these laws not the other way around.
One need not go very far to hear stories about how motorists do not yield to emergency lights on our apparatus, yet we still do everything we can to remind them that they do not have to yield to the very same lights on POV’s. We often complain about how other motorists impeded us from getting the engine to the scene, but are quite happy when they impede the crew from getting to that same engine. Every time we call warning lights courtesy lights we remind the public that we don’t really want the right of way after all. The flip side of this is that is actually the answer to another part of the question. When training new drivers we use words like “due regard” and we teach various safety rules, such as slowing down at intersections. Do we ever address this to those who respond in their POV’s?
When we install new lights on apparatus we seem to go with more is better, this is because we recognize these are for emergency warning and scene safety. When we see a POV with more than one light we call the owner a whacker, as if scene safety and emergency warning are no longer factors. Why do you think we use phrases like whacker to describe those who choose to install these lights on their POV’s? Because there will always be those who push the envelope with regard to rules and regulations. When I was a kid and my brother was a volunteer, light bars were all the rage among local volunteers. This is because they gave more light and more visibility. Now lights are smaller and draw less power, and thus one can (if they want to) install many more lights than provided by yesterdays light bars. Yet we give out whatever permits are needed without EVOC training. We do this because after all the lights are just “courtesy lights” not emergency lights and there is no such thing as a CVOC.
So let’s recap, we put our guys on the road, don’t train them, give them a device which (in theory at least) will move traffic, then tell the public they do not have to move. Then we act all surprised when there are problems with responding members. As I was writing this, I realized that there is more to this, and there will be a part two. But I wanted to post this for now, because we can’t get to the next part without an internal change in attitude.
Add a Comment
-
Comment by Alan Shaw on November 18, 2009 at 6:22pm
-
Sounds like you got the point quite well, we need to change our attitudes, that's it, no more, no less. I do not think that this is impossible. It was possible to get firefighters to change from hand drawn to horses and then to motors. It was possible to transition from 3/4 boots to hitches. SCBA use is now mandatory where it once was discouraged. Although it doesn't happen often or quickly, attitudes can and do change in the fire service.
-
Comment by Dustin J. Millis on November 18, 2009 at 4:31am
-
Alan, not to be a smartass here, but I'm still confused as to what the point of this blog is. Yeah, I understand that you want people to change their attitude about lights on POV's but thats pretty much impossible so.... where do we go from there? Also, the only thing I'm really getting from reading this is that you do not want vol. ff's to tell people that they do not have to pull over for a POV. Who cares if a ff tells someone that? Thats the law, the public should be instructed as to what laws are so they can abide by them properly. If someone asks me if they have to pull over for me when I'm responding to the station, I tell them "absolutly not, I would appreciate it if you did but you don't have to." Again, I'm not trying to start an argument, just a little confused as to what the point of this blog really is.
-
-
I am not advocating giving right of way to blue light...yet (more on that in the follow up blog I am writing). I just think we need to change our way of thinking about them internally first.
These are the only tools we use that we think of in terms of what they can't do, as opposed to what they can do. I do not tell new members that our Tower Ladder is just shy of reaching 76 feet high, or that our newer pumper can't quite pump 1,251 gpm. I have heard members tell the public that they do not have to pull over for blue lights.
-
Comment by Paul Dudan on November 12, 2009 at 9:19pm
-
After reading your blog Alan I became inspired to research the ACTUAL NJ laws and forget the here-say always tossed around at the station.In recognition of responding emergency personel, vollie mainly, NJ actually revised their 1977 Law and has now given blue lights right of way priviledges.Thus as per your blog eliminating the "courtesy lights" idea and recognzing volunteer POV's as emergency vehicles. This however will never cure that idiot we all know who races to the station while running everyone else off the road, including other emergency responders.
-
Comment by Oldman on November 12, 2009 at 2:44pm
-
Not to pick nits Alan, but in the apparatus driver/operator class I took, and in every EVOC class I've taught, it is stressed many times that the operator of an "authorized" emergency vehicle is asking for the right of way. Yes, drivers are supposed to yield right of way under most laws, but it is not a given. So it is a courtesy of sorts.
If we drive fire apparatus or ambulances with the same lack of caution or due regard which some display in a POV with a light, lights, full lightbar etc, then it doesn't matter if we're paid or not paid. It is unprofessional behavior and the person who was killed won't know what our status was, nor will they care.
A rose is a rose
-
-
Not to pick nits Alan, but in the apparatus driver/operator class I took, and in every EVOC class I've taught, it is stressed many times that the operator of an "authorized" emergency vehicle is asking for the right of way. Yes, drivers are supposed to yield right of way under most laws, but it is not a given. So it is a courtesy of sorts.
If we drive fire apparatus or ambulances with the same lack of caution or due regard which some display in a POV with a light, lights, full lightbar etc, then it doesn't matter if we're paid or not paid. It is unprofessional behavior and the person who was killed won't know what our status was, nor will they care.
A rose is a rose
-
Comment by Jack/dt on November 12, 2009 at 10:29am
-
I believe that CT motor vehicle regulations says approximately the same thing.
I think that you're stretching it by comparing blue lights/emergency vehicles with paid/vollie. No where is it written that volunteers are less than paid ff's nor does it anywhere imply that vollies are 'courtesy' ff's. But it does clearly say that blue lights are NOT emergency vehicles. There is a reason for this. A vollie going to the station or scene in a POV with blue light(s) may be going to an emergency but is not an emergency vehicle. This has to do with liability and public safety.
In CT it clearly defines what an emergency vehicle is and governs the color of lights and use of them as well as a siren. It also lays out how the public is to respond to an emergency vehicle; slow down, pull far to the right and stop, etc.
A POV is not an emergency vehicle so the public does not have to move over, slow down, etc. (this is not written out but is clearly inferred from the DMV regs.) The phrase "courtesy light" ( which describes the legal nature of the blue light) may also be inferred from the DMV regulations. It outlines who may use a blue light, who may authorize it, how it is to be displayed and used. And that the operator must abide by all motor vehicle laws, regulation, etc. While the actual phrase 'courtesy light' is not used it is clearly implied. The public does NOT have to pull/move over as they would for an emergency vehicle and the vehicle with the blue has NO privilege.
-
-
Although the actual word "courtesy" is not here. I believe it is implied.... This is straight from the Indiana Legislative Bill regarding Volunteer Firefighters....
) This section does not grant a vehicle displaying blue lights the
right-of-way under IC 9-21-8-35 or exemption from traffic rules under IC 9-21-1-8. A driver of a vehicle displaying a blue light shall obey all traffic rules.
(g) This section shall not be construed to include a vehicle displaying a blue light and driven by a member of a volunteer fire department as an authorized emergency vehicle (as defined in IC 9-13-2-6).
Even though it does not say courtesy, it does say that it is NOT an emergency vehicle.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
You need to be a member of My Firefighter Nation to add comments!
Join My Firefighter Nation