Why you don't need lights!

[NewHampshireFF]

I do need lights, and here's why:

Because my town's insurance company requires them.

Two points I would draw from this:

1. Blanket statements about "not needing" lights are idiotic;
2. Insurance companies make their livings by judging risk, and have apparently in at least this case decided that the risk of not having the lights outweighs the risk of having them.

[XRaysJL]

Edited for correction

[XRaysJL]

Wow

What kind of critical care equipment are you taking home. to SAVE LIVES. I mean unless your a medic with a drug box, and Defib, and a bunch of first line cardiac meds. If your a basic which is what I expect, do you all have a BLS kit, o2 bottle and a AED in your trunk???? If that is so maybe they should save money and stop buying all that crap and start paying for some full timers!

I think if you truly understood finances, then you'd realize that when you hire personnel your budget for equipment goes down. The smaller the department the more crucial this is.
I wouldn't call good equipment "Crap". I think if it saves lives then it's good.

[XRaysJL]

wow

So, may not have been exact words, but that was somewhat implied.

That was never said, nor implied.

[XRaysJL]

I agree.

I do need lights, and here's why:

Because my town's insurance company requires them.

Two points I would draw from this:

1. Blanket statements about "not needing" lights are idiotic;
2. Insurance companies make their livings by judging risk, and have apparently in at least this case decided that the risk of not having the lights outweighs the risk of having them.

I agree 100%:
"Blanket statements" are idiotic.

[natedog54]

That was never said, nor implied.

You don't read your own posts? You did say that you keep medical equipment with you...

[NewHampshireFF]

I agree 100%:
"Blanket statements" are idiotic.

Not all blanket statements are idiotic.

But blanket statsments to the effect of, "no one needs lights?"

Idiotic.

[mcwops]

The truth is the type of person who would drive wrecklessly with a blue light, is also the type of person who would drive wrecklessly without one. The accident the OP posted about was about a young kid getting into an accident, could have happened with or without the light. The problem is, because of his connection to the FD, and possession of a light, it gives the rest of us a black eye as well.

I do have a single blue light mounted to my windshield. I do not use it for all calls, or all the time. I primarily use it to get around someone doing 30 in a 45 on the long stretch of two lane highway I have to get to the station.

[XRaysJL]

Wrong quote.

You don't read your own posts? You did say that you keep medical equipment with you...

I think you need to go back and read my posts again. You will find the error in your statement. If you are unable to, just let me know and I will show you where you are going wrong.

[XRaysJL]

Works for you.

The truth is the type of person who would drive wrecklessly with a blue light, is also the type of person who would drive wrecklessly without one. The accident the OP posted about was about a young kid getting into an accident, could have happened with or without the light. The problem is, because of his connection to the FD, and possession of a light, it gives the rest of us a black eye as well.

I do have a single blue light mounted to my windshield. I do not use it for all calls, or all the time. I primarily use it to get around someone doing 30 in a 45 on the long stretch of two lane highway I have to get to the station.

If this safely works for you and your department, then keep it up. I think that type of person you mentioned is the same type of person that would wreck a department apparatus.

[CaptOldTimer]

I do need lights, and here's why:

Because my town's insurance company requires them.

Two points I would draw from this:

1. Blanket statements about "not needing" lights are idiotic;
2. Insurance companies make their livings by judging risk, and have apparently in at least this case decided that the risk of not having the lights outweighs the risk of having them.

If your town's insurance provider says you are required to have lights, does the town provide them and have them installed in your POV?

If not then their requirement is null and void.

Maybe it's a New England thing, but for the most part it isn't an requirement to be a volunteer.

Down our way there is no such requirement. I worked for many years for a career department and had a smooth top fire sedan, provided by that department, for over 15 years. I had a dash light, which stayed on the metal plate on the right side of the transmission hump. I rarely ever put it on the dash or the roof of the car.


I guess if you need one and are required by the town and or department then so be it.

[NewHampshireFF]

If your town's insurance provider says you are required to have lights, does the town provide them and have them installed in your POV?

If not then their requirement is null and void.

I don't know where you got that idea, but it is not true.

If I get in an accident and am not running lights, and say to the insurance company, "But the Town didn't give me any lights!" they will say, correctly, "That's between you and the Town."

We received written notice that lights were required in order for our responses to be covered. If we choose not to have the lights, no insurance.

I had nothing more that a $15 kojak light from the auto parts store for years, and never used it. I still don't get the people who feel the need to be lit-up like a Christmas tree. But the, "Nobody needs lights" crowd need to get over it. Some people DO need lights, they are frequently useful, and they don't cause accidents any more than pencils cause spelling mistakes.

[natedog54]

I think you need to go back and read my posts again. You will find the error in your statement. If you are unable to, just let me know and I will show you where you are going wrong.

I quoted your post. That's all there is to it...

[CaptOldTimer]

I don't know where you got that idea, but it is not true.

If I get in an accident and am not running lights, and say to the insurance company, "But the Town didn't give me any lights!" they will say, correctly, "That's between you and the Town."

We received written notice that lights were required in order for our responses to be covered. If we choose not to have the lights, no insurance.

I had nothing more that a $15 kojak light from the auto parts store for years, and never used it. I still don't get the people who feel the need to be lit-up like a Christmas tree. But the, "Nobody needs lights" crowd need to get over it. Some people DO need lights, they are frequently useful, and they don't cause accidents any more than pencils cause spelling mistakes.

You wrote this yesterday at 2:29 PM:

"I do need lights, and here's why:

Because my town's insurance company requires them."

If the insurance carrier requires your department to have LIGHTS to respond in your POV to a call then yes they need or the department needs to supply such lights.

Do you furnish your own turnout gear because the insurance carrier says you must conform to a NPFA standard and be protected?


Why don't you drive normal and obey the traffic laws and arrive safe without doing something that could cause you to have an acciednt.

I have no idea what the New Hamshire motor vehicle codes says. I can look them up. I can only tell you about Virginia's, and that it does not allow you to run traffic signals, be it a traffic light or stop sign in your POV with the "kojak" light on. You must obey all traffic laws.

[NewHampshireFF]

You wrote this yesterday at 2:29 PM:

"I do need lights, and here's why:

Because my town's insurance company requires them."

If the insurance carrier requires your department to have LIGHTS to respond in your POV to a call then yes they need or the department needs to supply such lights.

Do you furnish your own turnout gear because the insurance carrier says you must conform to a NPFA standard and be protected?


Why don't you drive normal and obey the traffic laws and arrive safe without doing something that could cause you to have an acciednt.

I have no idea what the New Hamshire motor vehicle codes says. I can look them up. I can only tell you about Virginia's, and that it does not allow you to run traffic signals, be it a traffic light or stop sign in your POV with the "kojak" light on. You must obey all traffic laws.

Again, I don't know where you are getting this, but your understanding of the law of contract is profoundly flawed. You may feel that there is a moral or ethical obligation that the insurance company or town provide lights, but there is absolutely no legal or contractual obligation that they do so.

I do drive "normal" and safe. But believe it or not, accidents happen. And I would prefer to be covered by insurance if and when I am involved in one.

I'm also not sure why you care about running traffic signals in New Hampshire, since nowhere in my posts do I indicate that I ever do so. Perhaps you are just projecting. But since you are so curious, in New Hampshire I can proceed against a traffic signal if I am running lights and sounding an "audible warning device." Which can mean horn, but also (and usually) means a siren. I can travel the wrong way down a one-way street under the same conditions. I can exceed the posted speed limit with just lights.

So there you have it.

Now, I have to tell you that the only thing more silly than a teenage whacker with his truck decked out like an airport runway is a pedantic old fart claiming that, "What works for me is good enough for anyone, darn it!"

Lights serve a useful purpose. Deal with it.