Why you don't need lights!

[voyager9]

Depends on how much credence you want to put on his claim that his buddy (a likely strong contributing factor in and of himself) was the one playing with the lights.

The car was a Dodge Caliber. Not the hottest car on the road, but sporty enough. He was 20, no mention of the age of his companion but likely close. Speeds were reportedly 68-75 on a somewhat windy two lane highway (US 30 west of Pittsburg).

I'll certainly not say that the lights were not a contributing factor, but I think his immaturity, with a strong dose of showing off, comes in pretty high on the list.

I agree there. Certainly there were many contributing factors, the existence of lights being one of them. The others you mention were probably more significant.

[dmleblanc]

Yeah, it was the light's fault. And guns kill people all by themselves, too....

[voyager9]

Yeah, it was the light's fault. And guns kill people all by themselves, too....

Maybe it was flashing in his eyes? And accidentally fell off the windshield and hit the accelerator?

[Acklan]

I do not see the need for this story to even be related to the fact he was a fire fighter. If he were anyone else it would have just been another senseless tragic MVA involving a motorcycle. He was not on a department incident, vehicle, or even in uniform. He was recklessly driving his vehicle on his own time. This report casts a shadow on a FD, thats is only misfortune was to have this person as a member.
Maybe the caption should read, "Why does media involve FD in non-FD related wreck?".

[XRaysJL]

Laughing me b-hind off!!!

Maybe it was flashing in his eyes? And accidentally fell off the windshield and hit the accelerator?

Okay, this is just tooo funny!!!!! >Good one<

[natedog54]

You don't think the lights may have enabled or contributed to that behavior in any way?

Not really. I carry a knife, never stabbed anyone. Carry a firearm as well, never shot anyone...

[LaFireEducator]

Last year, I had a conversation with a couple of our volunteers about lights in the parking lot of the station.

It got heated.

Towards the end he said "if you take the lights way, we'll lose a lot of people because that is one of the things that attracts them to this".

We don't need lights. It's really that simple.

[XRaysJL]

Paid?

Last year, I had a conversation with a couple of our volunteers about lights in the parking lot of the station.

It got heated.

Towards the end he said "if you take the lights way, we'll lose a lot of people because that is one of the things that attracts them to this".

We don't need lights. It's really that simple.

Is that for the paid departments too? If so, there are departments that are telling their operators to not drive code-3.

And again, what works for one area may not work for another.

[JoeMZ191]

Is that for the paid departments too? If so, there are departments that are telling their operators to not drive code-3.

And again, what works for one area may not work for another.

As a matter of fact, a lot of career departments are getting away from running Code 3 on most calls. It doesn't really make a big difference in response times.

[mtg55]

Last year, I had a conversation with a couple of our volunteers about lights in the parking lot of the station.

It got heated.

Towards the end he said "if you take the lights way, we'll lose a lot of people because that is one of the things that attracts them to this".

We don't need lights. It's really that simple.

We have interviewed people for membership that asked when they get to have blue lights. They were not approved by the investigating committee. There are few calls that we respond "hot" to to begin with. Otherwise, we monitor the use of "courtesy" lights very closely. This is very tragic, and should not have happened. Period. It is unfortunate the FD got dragged into this due to the usage of said lights, and hopefully it will be a learning lesson to all.

[LaFireEducator]

Is that for the paid departments too? If so, there are departments that are telling their operators to not drive code-3.

And again, what works for one area may not work for another.

Was referring to lights on POVs.

Obviously apparatus need lights, however, I am a believer that many, if not most of the calls we respond to, do not require a hot-response by the apparatus either.

This includes alarm trips, smoke investigations, MVAs where LE is on scene and wants somebody checked out or confirmed minor injuries, wires down, transformer or wire fires and many EMS related calls.

But that is another thread for another day.

[LaFireEducator]

As a matter of fact, a lot of career departments are getting away from running Code 3 on most calls. It doesn't really make a big difference in response times.

And the data shows a dramatic reduction in accidents, firefighter and civilian accident-related injuries and vehicle maintainence costs.

[tree68]

And on top of that, another rationale for lights on apparatus (on-scene protection) has been co-opted by Phoenix, AZ, most of whose apparatus reportedly switch over to all amber on the scene...

[jam24u]

We have interviewed people for membership that asked when they get to have blue lights. They were not approved by the investigating committee. There are few calls that we respond "hot" to to begin with. Otherwise, we monitor the use of "courtesy" lights very closely. This is very tragic, and should not have happened. Period. It is unfortunate the FD got dragged into this due to the usage of said lights, and hopefully it will be a learning lesson to all.

We too recently have had some applicants ask when they can get some lights for their POV's. As we do not use them for our POV's, I was surprised that they asked about them. Sorry, if we do delegate the use of them, it will probably be to the ones who want them the least.

That would be the one qualifying aspect to help guarantee proper usage.

[XRaysJL]

Safe driving

Was referring to lights on POVs.

Obviously apparatus need lights, however, I am a believer that many, if not most of the calls we respond to, do not require a hot-response by the apparatus either.

This includes alarm trips, smoke investigations, MVAs where LE is on scene and wants somebody checked out or confirmed minor injuries, wires down, transformer or wire fires and many EMS related calls.

But that is another thread for another day.

Most of the footage of dangerous driving that I've seen in training came from paid departments. You have the addrenaline rush, compounded by several people in the rig urging the driver to speed up for one reason or another.
Bottom line: It's an SOP issue. You either drive safely or you don't. Again, what works for one area may not work for another area.

SOP Clarification on this subject:
It's every departments responsibility to decide whether or not they have a need to respond code-3. If so, then it's that department's responsibility to make sure that they have competent and safe operators behind the wheel. This goes for department apparatus and POV's.
What one department decides they need, another may not need it.