Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse

Firehouse.com Forum Rules & Guidelines

Forum Rules & Guidelines

Not Permitted or Tolerated:
• Advertising and/or links of commercial, for-profit websites, products, and/or services is not permitted. If you have a need to advertise on Firehouse.com please contact sales@firehouse.com
• Fighting/arguing
• Cyber-bullying
• Swearing
• Name-calling and/or personal attacks
• Spamming
• Typing in all CAPS
• “l33t speak” - Substituting characters for letters in an effort to represent a word or phrase. (example: M*****ive)
• Distribution of another person’s personal information, regardless of whether or not said information is public knowledge and whether or not an individual has permission to post said personal information
• Piracy advocation of any kind
• Racist, sexual, hate type defamatory, religious, political, or sexual commentary.
• Multiple forum accounts

Forum Posting Guidelines:

Posts must be on-topic, non-disruptive and relevant to the firefighting community. Post only in a mature and responsible way that contributes to the discussion at hand. Posting relevant information, helpful suggestions and/or constructive criticism is a great way to contribute to the community.

Post in the correct forum and have clear titles for your threads.

Please post in English or provide a translation.

There are moderators and admins who handle these forums with care, do not resort to self-help, instead please utilize the reporting option. Be mature and responsible for yourself and your posts. If you are offended by another member utilize the reporting option. All reported posts will be addressed and dealt with as deemed appropriate by Firehouse.com staff.

Firehouse.com Moderation Process:
Effective immediately, the following moderation process will take effect. User(s) whose posts are determined by Firehouse.com staff to be in violation of any of the rules above will EARN the following reprimand(s) in the moderation process:
1. An initial warning will be issued.
2. A Final Warning will be issued if a user is found to be in violation a second time.
3. A 3-day suspension will be issued if the user continues to break the forum rules.
4. A 45-day suspension will be issued if the user is found to be a habitual rule breaker.
5. Habitual rule breakers that have exhausted all of the above will receive a permanent life-time ban that will be strictly enforced. Reinstatement will not be allowed – there is no appeal process.

Subsequent accounts created in an effort to side-step the rules and moderation process are subject to automatic removal without notice. Firehouse.com reserves the right to expedite the reprimand process for any users as it is deemed necessary. Any user in the moderation process may be required to review and agree to by email the terms and conditions listed above before their account is re-instated (except for those that are banned).

Firehouse.com reserves the right to edit and/or remove any post or member, at any time, for any reason without notice. Firehouse.com also reserves the right to warn, suspend, and/or ban, any member, at any time, for any reason.

Firehouse.com values the active participation we have in our forums. Please ensure your posts are tasteful and tactful. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
See more
See less

Traffic vests or not?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • tree68
    replied
    Inconvenient or not, why not use a tool that may help save your life and limb?

    Ironically, the first firefighter killed in a highway incident after the law went into effect was wearing a vest...

    We generally wear them. Not all MVA situations require full turnouts, but anybody in the road should be protected.

    Leave a comment:


  • emt161
    replied
    Originally posted by BKDRAFT View Post
    No we do not wear them. Mainly because they are inconvenient.
    When one of you gets plastered and the feds deny PSOB benefits because you weren't taking federally mandated precautions on a roadway, go with that. I'm honestly curious how it will pan out.

    Don't believe me? Life insurance companies have been known to deny payment to beneficiaries of MVA fatalities who weren't wearing a seatbelt. What makes you think the federal government will be more forgiving?

    Leave a comment:


  • DFDMAXX
    replied
    Originally posted by nmfire View Post
    The reflective material on bunker gear is not designed or intended for roadway safety. It is for seeing eachother at night. And once you go in a fire, that reflective material is compromised making it even more worthless for traffic safety.

    The standards governing the traffic vests that we are required to wear are far far far greater than what is on our gear. It isn't just reflective striping. It is also the florescent color of the vest. The standards require X square inches of hi-vis color such as the neon green and orange that you've seen plus a certain square inches of retroreflective striping and all of this has requirements for front, back, and side visibility.

    The vests have to be either ANSI 107 Class II or ANSI 207. The 207 standard is the "public safety vest" and it has some features like breakaway fasteners and side enclosures that won't interfere with belt mounted stuff like guns. The jacket like I have is ANSI 107 Class III which is the highest you can get. The Class III rating is because it is 360 degree with sleeves hi-visibility and reflective material.

    The "law" is a federal DOT requirement. It's touchy because it is an unfunded mandate with no enforcement. There is no way to actually enforce it, however it is required and for good reason.

    People who argue tooth and nail against wearing vests on the road suffer from a typical fire service mentality... "Hundreds of years of tradition uninhibited by progress." Younger people take it to it much easier. I thought traffic vests were really cool when I was a teenager in the department so I'm a big proponent of it now.
    That very well covers everthing I could have said, except for one thing. We wear yellow vests, not orange. Why? Because the construction barrels are orange and some people do aim for them. Don't look like a barrel!

    The vest does not take the place of watching out for your own ***. I've seen firefighters wander around the interstate like it's their front yard, and wonder why they get reprimanded. They just don't get the danger.

    You can tell which of us work in road construction. We're the ones who peek around the corner of the engine before walking out. Just in case. Always always always keep an eye on traffic, NO MATTER WHAT TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES ARE IN PLACE. Road closed means nothing to some people.

    Leave a comment:


  • pasobuff
    replied
    I have one I keep on my barn coat pretty much all year - especially during hunting season.....some people look at me funny if I run to the store etc, but oh well!

    Here too, if you respond to a highway that receives federal funding it is required.....even the NYS Troopers are wearing them!

    Leave a comment:


  • BKDRAFT
    replied
    No we do not wear them. Mainly because they are inconvenient. Constantly taking them on and off is not practical.

    We already have plenty of reflective material between the turnouts, truck/engine, lights. We cannot prevent every situation. It's a dangerous job. We need to take responsibility where we are on the roadway and no vest will effect the outcome of walking out in front of traffic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Firehouse_Chick
    replied
    Originally posted by nmfire View Post
    The reflective material on bunker gear is not designed or intended for roadway safety. It is for seeing eachother at night. And once you go in a fire, that reflective material is compromised making it even more worthless for traffic safety.

    The standards governing the traffic vests that we are required to wear are far far far greater than what is on our gear. It isn't just reflective striping. It is also the florescent color of the vest. The standards require X square inches of hi-vis color such as the neon green and orange that you've seen plus a certain square inches of retrospective striping and all of this has requirements for front, back, and side visibility.

    The vests have to be either ANSI 107 Class II or ANSI 207. The 207 standard is the "public safety vest" and it has some features like breakaway fasteners and side enclosures that won't interfere with belt mounted stuff like guns. The jacket like I have is ANSI 107 Class III which is the highest you can get. The Class III rating is because it is 360 degree with sleeves hi-visibility and reflective material.

    The "law" is a federal DOT requirement. It's touchy because it is an unfunded mandate with no enforcement. There is no way to actually enforce it, however it is required and for good reason.

    People who argue tooth and nail against wearing vests on the road suffer from a typical fire service mentality... "Hundreds of years of tradition uninhibited by progress." Younger people take it to it much easier. I thought traffic vests were really cool when I was a teenager in the department so I'm a big proponent of it now.

    thanks NM for all of the info. That's good enough for me

    Leave a comment:


  • nmfire
    replied
    Originally posted by Firehouse_Chick View Post
    I'm just curious to know if a vest is really safer than the reflective material on turnouts or other jackets.
    The reflective material on bunker gear is not designed or intended for roadway safety. It is for seeing eachother at night. And once you go in a fire, that reflective material is compromised making it even more worthless for traffic safety.

    The standards governing the traffic vests that we are required to wear are far far far greater than what is on our gear. It isn't just reflective striping. It is also the florescent color of the vest. The standards require X square inches of hi-vis color such as the neon green and orange that you've seen plus a certain square inches of retroreflective striping and all of this has requirements for front, back, and side visibility.

    The vests have to be either ANSI 107 Class II or ANSI 207. The 207 standard is the "public safety vest" and it has some features like breakaway fasteners and side enclosures that won't interfere with belt mounted stuff like guns. The jacket like I have is ANSI 107 Class III which is the highest you can get. The Class III rating is because it is 360 degree with sleeves hi-visibility and reflective material.

    The "law" is a federal DOT requirement. It's touchy because it is an unfunded mandate with no enforcement. There is no way to actually enforce it, however it is required and for good reason.

    People who argue tooth and nail against wearing vests on the road suffer from a typical fire service mentality... "Hundreds of years of tradition uninhibited by progress." Younger people take it to it much easier. I thought traffic vests were really cool when I was a teenager in the department so I'm a big proponent of it now.

    Class II Vest


    Class III in the form of a jacket


    207 Public Safety Vest


    FF Coat
    Last edited by nmfire; 12-18-2010, 02:28 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChiefDog
    replied
    Originally posted by Blulakr View Post
    State of California requires them for everybody on highway incidents unless you're directly involved with fire suppression or extrication. I've noticed that highway patrol officers often don't bother with them even though they are also required to use them.

    Personally I think they help make you visible. I'm a big guy and for me they are a P.I.T.A. With turnouts on they just aren't big enough. The velcro comes loose and they fall off
    I agree and will expand with....

    I think they are actually a Federal DOT requirement now. Bottom line for me, I have seen it myself, person with vest in low light has better visibility than someone in just turnouts. The ANSI 207 vests are for FD use, they do not require them for fire or threat of fire. They are for the people in the road "not involved with" fire suppression. If someone gets hit and doesn't have it on, the people involved (OIC,Chief etc) up to the municipal elected officials will be in court to explain why they were not being used.

    Arguing about it will get you no where fast, just suck it up and cover your butt and the people above you so we all go home after the call. The people above you in rank might want to have a home to go to afterward and not have some lawyer take it away from them because you did not feel like putting on a vest to meet a federal / state law.

    Leave a comment:


  • Firehouse_Chick
    replied
    Originally posted by nmfire View Post
    Yes they are worn for incidents on the road when not wearing an SCBA. There is no good reason not to.

    I personally have my own personal Hi-Vis ANSI Class III jacket that I wear in the fall/winter/spring if I'm on the bus or otherwise not needing turnout gear. It far exceeds the specs of the vest and and keeps me warm. It's damn sexy too.
    This makes sense^^^

    A large part of why I started the thread is because I've seen posters on here state that when it comes to the roadway, a reflective vest should be worn at all times on the roadway because turnouts "alone" do not provide the same visibility.

    They've stated that the reflective materials on jackets or bunker gear do not meet the same reflective standards as vests and therefore are not as safe. Are they really not as safe? Studies or points of reference? I don't know enough to disagree, however, common sense seems to be what NM said and what fyred said regarding wearing a bunker jacket OR vest.

    I'm just curious to know if a vest is really safer than the reflective material on turnouts or other jackets.

    Leave a comment:


  • blazergnik
    replied
    vests

    Every department that I know of in Alabama is required to wear them on every accident on major roads. Unless fire supression is going on. To my knowlege this is required by DOT regulations..... Its the law

    Leave a comment:


  • nmfire
    replied
    Yes they are worn for incidents on the road when not wearing an SCBA. There is no good reason not to.

    I personally have my own personal Hi-Vis ANSI Class III jacket that I wear in the fall/winter/spring if I'm on the bus or otherwise not needing turnout gear. It far exceeds the specs of the vest and and keeps me warm. It's damn sexy too.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blulakr
    replied
    State of California requires them for everybody on highway incidents unless you're directly involved with fire suppression or extrication. I've noticed that highway patrol officers often don't bother with them even though they are also required to use them.

    Personally I think they help make you visible. I'm a big guy and for me they are a P.I.T.A. With turnouts on they just aren't big enough. The velcro comes loose and they fall off

    Leave a comment:


  • FyredUp
    replied
    My career FD requires either the vest or turnout coat on every call that is not a fire response.

    If it is a fire response or you will be wearing SCBA the vest is not required.


    My volly FD has the same guidelines.

    Leave a comment:


  • Firehouse_Chick
    replied
    Originally posted by LVFD301 View Post
    You got to be s hi ting me Crow.
    LVFD, where in NYC did you work EMS?

    I'm thinking of going to John Jay in the future for EMS.

    (I don't mean to go off topic, anyone else, please let me know your thoughts about vests and why).
    Last edited by Firehouse_Chick; 12-18-2010, 12:06 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Firehouse_Chick
    replied
    Originally posted by LVFD301 View Post
    You got to be ****ting me Crow.
    I don't get it ^^^

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X