|
|
Post by papacheese on Nov 5, 2008 10:08:30 GMT -5
The Federal standard for highway worker protection is scheduled to go into effect on 11/24.....anyone caught unawares by this? We're in the process now of ramping up an operational directive and training guide for wearing the hi-viz vest when operating on a highway (or in our case, anywhere there's vehicular traffic).
As always, no one actually thought of the fire service when they came up with this regulation; the vests appear to be made of material that will burn quite nicely or get easily caught while we're trying to work at an extrication. There's a movement afoot to have the regulation modieifed in the future to allow our PPE to comply with the regualtions's intent.
|
|
|
|
Post by fireman1190 on Nov 5, 2008 11:38:41 GMT -5
Does that mean our PPE will change to meet to requirement, or the requirement will change to meet the PPE?
Dont let us forget that turnout gear has reflective stripes for that very reason, but unfortunately I do not think turnout gear is effective enough for use on highways, especially in the daytime. so even though i hate the vests, i find them necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by papacheese on Nov 6, 2008 6:28:56 GMT -5
According to the information I read, a proposal will be prepared and forwarded to the regulating agency (Federal Highway I think) asking for modifications to the existing regs to allow firefighters to be exempt from wearing the flammable vests while engaged in firefighting or extrication operations......right now, there are no exceptions allowed. As far as grandfathering existing PPE designs, I don't see that happening since an integral part of the standard (as you pointed out) is the vest being obnoxiously bright for daylight operations...which our black/tan gear certainly does not meet. For anyone needing instructional materials, this website is a gold mine: www.respondersafety.com/ They have a downloadable Power Point and short video.... As for scope, we're adopting the site's slogan: "If your feet are on the street, the vest is on your chest" as an easy way to remember applicability...even parking lots. The problem with any regulation such as this are the exceptions, which provide the less-than-enthusiastic personnel with built-in excuses for not complying ("But I was just getting a tool off the truck..."). Let one go and you know how the story ends: everyone starts pressing the issue, a sad but true commentary on the state of our fire service. |
|
|
|
Post by fp43301(RET) on Nov 7, 2008 12:34:57 GMT -5
from what i understand is if you are on the highway 73 206 70 295 130 u are required to wear a vest over turnout gear unless fighting a fire. anyone at an accident scene on these roads needs the class 3 vest over any turnout coat .on side streets it is an option what to wear turnouts are ok. All personel directing traffic should have a class 3 vest and this is supported and is the direction NJ state fire police association recomends class 3 break away. all fire police should be in class 3 . the command vest looking fire police vest is not effective but better than nothing
i think if you are fighting a fire there shouldn be a vest as it is a hazard. the pump operator should be in vest though
|
|
|
|
Post by Kramer on Nov 7, 2008 22:16:35 GMT -5
The class 3 vests just came in here at the 2-7 and I personally think they suck. While trying to put them on over a coat the velcro continuously gets caught and the vest breaks away at the shoulders and then its a pain to get them back on...
|
|
|
|
Post by papacheese on Nov 8, 2008 8:00:38 GMT -5
The class 3 vests just came in here at the 2-7 and I personally think they suck. While trying to put them on over a coat the velcro continuously gets caught and the vest breaks away at the shoulders and then its a pain to get them back on... I can't help but agree, Kramer....they certainly weren't designed with firefighters in mind; in fact, the Class 3's were designed for the police, so they'd have access to their belt mounted items. IMHO, this is just another case where we (the fire service) don't raise our collective voices BEFORE this stuff is regulated to point out why (or why not) something should change. The thought of having one of these solid-fuel vests on around heat and flames gives me the willies...yet not one friggin Federal official gave it a moment's passing thought, did they? Please don't misinterpret my point here; I fully agree that we need to be much more visible on roadways - statistics confirm that - but a "one size-fits-all" garment like this isn't the ultimate answer...at least to me it's not. Our PPE can do wonderous things like protect us from excessive heat and flames; why can't it be modified to meet or at least approach a revised standard for visibility? The short answer is that it probably can, but that's for the future and doesn't address the present hazards. |
|
|
|
Post by Kramer on Nov 8, 2008 16:38:11 GMT -5
I think theres a company in Texas that actually has the chevron print on their turnout gear
|
|
1900
Forum Captain
Posts: 103
|
Post by 1900 on Nov 9, 2008 18:10:55 GMT -5
A side note: JCP&L and required to wear these same vests, however the vets they are required to wear are also required to be FR rated.
|
|
RngrVnc33
Forum Captain
Keepin' It Moist
Posts: 131
|
Post by RngrVnc33 on Nov 11, 2008 22:12:49 GMT -5
It was my understanding that vests were not required if you will be actively engaged in suppression?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kramer on Nov 11, 2008 23:30:41 GMT -5
It was my understanding that vests were not required if you will be actively engaged in suppression? affirm...thats what i've read... |
|
|
|
Post by WebBoss on Nov 12, 2008 7:45:15 GMT -5
Very True, however electric company employees are required to have a certain amount of flash protection and are not allowed to wear certain flammable/combustible materials. This is why you see them dressed much like the forestry guys.
We could very easily get turnouts in safety colors (Lime Green, Safety Orange) but the outter shells would be nomex, which is the "Low End" these days. PBI/PBO/P84 dosen't take dyes nearly as well, which is why you get Gold/Tan (The natural color) or Black. Even White Chief coats have to be the lesser Nomex color because PBI won't take White dye.
Dying PBI also decreases the thermal values a bit too. Black isn't so bad, only by a 100-200 degrees or so, but other colors ahve a very negative reaction to the material. So those who need to have different colors drop down in quality to a lesser nomex based material such as advanced. See the new RED instructors gear? That's Nomex Advanced. They haven't had it a year and it's not doing so well. Just like their older blue stuff.
I know this is a little off on a tangent, but I thought I would help by giving some background into the problem.
The easiest way to know if your following the rules safely is when your on the way to the call, if your not donning SCBA, then don your vest. Better safe then sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by papacheese on Nov 12, 2008 8:07:47 GMT -5
Just a quick side note to the above; in my department, we're extending the exemption to any personnel actively engaged in extrication operations, ie: those with tools in their hands. This may be stretching things a bit, but I think it's inherently unsafe to be wearing these solid-fuel vests while crawling around inside a cramped space possibly loaded with flammable liquids and fumes. Same for the members on the protection line; they should have SCBA on, so that means the vests are off.
Again, not to place too fine a point on it, this would only apply to those members directly engaged, not manning the tool tarp. As soon as they are finished their tasks, they should put one on.
|
|
17101
Forum Candidate
Posts: 6
|
Post by 17101 on Nov 12, 2008 8:52:49 GMT -5
We could all wear State Police uniforms. They seem to protect them on the highway. lol  |
|
|
|
Post by breakingsomemirror on Nov 13, 2008 8:50:51 GMT -5
Just wanted to offer my two cents. I know a lot of people out there think it sucks, it really is for our own good.
The biggest problem most departments will have is just getting people into the mindset of putting them on. My department has been mandating the use of traffic vests for about 4 or 5 years now, so we're pretty used to it. We're currently in the process of replacing them, because they don't meet the new standard but until that time, they are better than nothing.
At first it was tough because most guys thought they looked "dumb" or somehow uncool. As time when on, however, people got used it it and now it's pretty much second nature.
I found in the beginning that it helped when I just explained to my guys that in reality, it was no different from putting on an SCBA. If you know you're going to a call that requires it, you put it on. The one thing I do harp on, and I guess it's just a pet peeve of mine (Yeah, I know, another one! ;D) is that they are to put them on either before they leave the station or before they exit the vehicle. What I don't want is guys standing up or moving around trying to put a vest on when they should be sitting and seatbelted! The same goes for an SCBA too.
Am I saying that there's 100% compliance? No, there's not. There are times when I have to remind people to put them on. However, most guys are pretty good about it and we haven't had many issues.
Also in that time, we've never had a problem with people wearing them into a burning structure. That's not what they are there for and people know that. Long and short, if you are going to be standing on a roadway, whether it be for an accident, a wires call or whatever, just wear them.
As for accidents where tools are in service, I think Papacheese brings up an interesting point. I never really thought about it before. I guess it'll be up to each department to come up with a procedure for whether or not their personnel who are actively involved with extrication should wear them. I don't know what the "right" answer is but I guess time and experience will tell. I guess in my opinion, that's where you have to rely on your other safety measures (proper blocking with apparatus, use of cones/flares/emergency signage, etc.) to help protect your personnel. The reality is, you can wear all the reflective gear you want and if some idiot is intoxicated or whatever, bad things can happen.
On a side note, my department has also been using the DOT or NHTSA (not sure which one) reflective flourescent pink "Emergency Traffic" signs for the same amount of time. I think those things are a bigger pain in the butt than any vest could be! However, even though it's a pain, we still put it up and like the vests, it's just become second nature for our drivers to put them up as soon as possible when we are on scene.
Stay safe everyone. Take care.
|
|
|
|
Post by voyager9 on Nov 13, 2008 13:49:20 GMT -5
The reality is, you can wear all the reflective gear you want and if some idiot is intoxicated or whatever, bad things can happen. Ding.. ding..ding. Maybe its just me.. but at a typical accident scene you have cones, flares, big blinking signs, 10+ fairly sizable vehicles with blinky flashy lights, and somehow a new vest is supposed keep me safe? You could be dressed in a head-to-toe neon-green bunny suit with a 4-foot 1000 candle-power flashing carrot and its not going to make any difference when drivers aren't paying attention! I'm not saying that I think the vests are bad, I just don't think its going to be the highway safety panacea. The best thing we can do to protect ourselves is 1) shutdown the highway, or baring that 2) position apparatus to protect the scene, 3) buddy up and keep an eye out for your brother. |
|
ENG27SQ
Division Supervisor 
MS Paint Guru
Posts: 653
|
Post by ENG27SQ on Nov 13, 2008 22:30:51 GMT -5
We could all wear State Police uniforms. They seem to protect them on the highway. lol Oh, can we wear the hats too?  LOL |
|
1900
Forum Captain
Posts: 103
|
Post by 1900 on Nov 14, 2008 0:08:52 GMT -5
The reality is, you can wear all the reflective gear you want and if some idiot is intoxicated or whatever, bad things can happen. Ding.. ding..ding. Maybe its just me.. but at a typical accident scene you have cones, flares, big blinking signs, 10+ fairly sizable vehicles with blinky flashy lights, and somehow a new vest is supposed keep me safe? You could be dressed in a head-to-toe neon-green bunny suit with a 4-foot 1000 candle-power flashing carrot and its not going to make any difference when drivers aren't paying attention! I'm not saying that I think the vests are bad, I just don't think its going to be the highway safety panacea. The best thing we can do to protect ourselves is 1) shutdown the highway, or baring that 2) position apparatus to protect the scene, 3) buddy up and keep an eye out for your brother. A FUCKING MEN! |
|
|
|
Post by TaskForce25 on Nov 14, 2008 4:01:42 GMT -5
You could be dressed in a head-to-toe neon-green bunny suit with a 4-foot 1000 candle-power flashing carrot I would PAY to see something like that!!! |
|
|
|
Post by papacheese on Nov 14, 2008 6:39:30 GMT -5
Like everyone posting, I don't think these vests are a panacea or a silver bullet for keeping bad things from happening; to me, it's all about percentages and probabilities. We could wax poetic about whether something like this is good, bad, or inconsequential, but the bottom line is that it's just good risk management. All we can ever so is address the hazards we KNOW about and hope that we recognize the hidden ones in time to keep someone from getting hurt.
I understand breakingsomemirrors comments regarding compliance; like seatbelts, it's all about the message. Compliance won't take place overnight; it's more like a war of attrition. This is where (IMHO) the officers play a key role and why THEY have to buy into the reduced risk theory in order for this stuff to happen. Regardless of what you may think, firefighters - especially young, inexperienced firefighters - draw their behavioral cues from the officers. If they see their LT, Captain, or Chief disregarding the rule, then the message is crystal clear. If mirrors has a pet peeve, here's mine: officers who knowingly abdicate their responsibility to the members and department just because something isn't readily accepted or "cool". Yes, wearing all this gear won't stop the drunk shithead from hitting a brother or sister...but the inverse perspective is just as valid: what if the gear does stop ONE shithead from hitting a brother or sister?
If you don't want to lead, then why are you wearing the horns?
|
|
tootall
Special Operations Command
BurlCoFire EMS Moderator
Posts: 98
|
Post by tootall on Nov 16, 2008 20:19:47 GMT -5
As Kramer stated we got the new ones here in Westampton. I used them for the first time the other day.
From a Tall Fat Kid point of view I had major problems with them going on over my gear. Every time I put one arm through and reached back to put my other arm through it the rip away Velcro at the top would tear away. I would than have to take it all off fix the Velcro and start all over again. Maybe I am a little retarded as I have been called before but it took me easily 5 times to put on an Fing Traffic Vest!!!!
So next time your coming through Westampton and see someone fighting with a traffic vest don't laugh too hard!!!
|
|
[My5:]
LOL