AJU

We're getting into the territory of probability again. Just because there are examples of exceptions to the rule doesn't negate the rule.
The FDNY has determined that there is a higher probability of the characteristics and attributes they want in their officers present in firefighters that have completed a college education. Does this mean they are all qualified for the position? No, but it certainly makes the assessment and evaluation process much easier. It's not the only qualification by a long shot, but the fact that it is one simplifies the process and attempts to ensure a certain level of quality.
As difficult as it may be to accept this concept, the fact is that the fire industry is a highly romanticized customer service business. The larger the business the more it must rely on standard practices and qualifications to maintain a certain level of quality in its resources. This is simply because the larger the business gets the more decentralized things like hiring and personnel management become. A small department in Westchester with a career department can probably stand to weigh each candidate for an officer position based on their individual merits (and without regard to education), but should Westchester consolidate this practice may not be possible because of the need to ensure all officers county-wide meet certain minimum standards.

The most valuable part of getting a college degree has almost nothing to do with what is studied. It's about learning HOW to learn. These are valuable skills that can be applied to the fire service, and they can put someone with a college degree well ahead of those without.
Sure, drive and determination are important in any industry, but without certain skills all that drive and determination will lead to simply spinning your wheels. Some people acquire skills in unconventional ways, but when you look at groups of people you have to look at patterns of behavior and the correlations that can be used to draw conclusions about the likelyhood of causality. You can't make a rule out of the exceptions (and there always will be exceptions). This is like the thread about teen drivers where the teens all thought the rules should be changed because they themselves were capable.
I think a college education also increases the ability of the firefighter to operate safely on scene. For example, take two firefighters who encounter a scenario that has been studied by a governing body, say NFPA. Both have read the NFPA reports but one has been through college and the other hasn't. The insight, or lack thereof, into the methods of studying these scenarios and aggregating statistics about it may lead the two to different conclusions and a different level of understanding. The person who has a deeper understanding of what was being studied has a much better chance of being mentally flexible than the person who takes the report at face value when it comes to dealing with the situation themselves.
I think being mentally flexible, adaptive and able to improvise are some of the most important abilities a good firefighter must possess. And a college education can certainly help this.

The most valuable part of getting a college degree has almost nothing to do with what is studied. It's about learning HOW to learn. These are valuable skills that can be applied to the fire service, and they can put someone with a college degree well ahead of those without.
Sure, drive and determination are important in any industry, but without certain skills all that drive and determination will lead to simply spinning your wheels. Some people acquire skills in unconventional ways, but when you look at groups of people you have to look at patterns of behavior and the correlations that can be used to draw conclusions about the likelyhood of causality. You can't make a rule out of the exceptions (and there always will be exceptions). This is like the thread about teen drivers where the teens all thought the rules should be changed because they themselves were capable.
I think a college education also increases the ability of the firefighter to operate safely on scene. For example, take two firefighters who encounter a scenario that has been studied by a governing body, say NFPA. Both have read the NFPA reports but one has been through college and the other hasn't. The insight, or lack thereof, into the methods of studying these scenarios and aggregating statistics about it may lead the two to different conclusions and a different level of understanding. The person who has a deeper understanding of what was being studied has a much better chance of being mentally flexible than the person who takes the report at face value when it comes to dealing with the situation themselves.
I think being mentally flexible, adaptive and able to improvise are some of the most important abilities a good firefighter must possess. And a college education can certainly help this.

The most valuable part of getting a college degree has almost nothing to do with what is studied. It's about learning HOW to learn. These are valuable skills that can be applied to the fire service, and they can put someone with a college degree well ahead of those without.
Sure, drive and determination are important in any industry, but without certain skills all that drive and determination will lead to simply spinning your wheels. Some people acquire skills in unconventional ways, but when you look at groups of people you have to look at patterns of behavior and the correlations that can be used to draw conclusions about the likelyhood of causality. You can't make a rule out of the exceptions (and there always will be exceptions). This is like the thread about teen drivers where the teens all thought the rules should be changed because they themselves were capable.
I think a college education also increases the ability of the firefighter to operate safely on scene. For example, take two firefighters who encounter a scenario that has been studied by a governing body, say NFPA. Both have read the NFPA reports but one has been through college and the other hasn't. The insight, or lack thereof, into the methods of studying these scenarios and aggregating statistics about it may lead the two to different conclusions and a different level of understanding. The person who has a deeper understanding of what was being studied has a much better chance of being mentally flexible than the person who takes the report at face value when it comes to dealing with the situation themselves.
I think being mentally flexible, adaptive and able to improvise are some of the most important abilities a good firefighter must possess. And a college education can certainly help this.

The most valuable part of getting a college degree has almost nothing to do with what is studied. It's about learning HOW to learn. These are valuable skills that can be applied to the fire service, and they can put someone with a college degree well ahead of those without.
Sure, drive and determination are important in any industry, but without certain skills all that drive and determination will lead to simply spinning your wheels. Some people acquire skills in unconventional ways, but when you look at groups of people you have to look at patterns of behavior and the correlations that can be used to draw conclusions about the likelyhood of causality. You can't make a rule out of the exceptions (and there always will be exceptions). This is like the thread about teen drivers where the teens all thought the rules should be changed because they themselves were capable.
I think a college education also increases the ability of the firefighter to operate safely on scene. For example, take two firefighters who encounter a scenario that has been studied by a governing body, say NFPA. Both have read the NFPA reports but one has been through college and the other hasn't. The insight, or lack thereof, into the methods of studying these scenarios and aggregating statistics about it may lead the two to different conclusions and a different level of understanding. The person who has a deeper understanding of what was being studied has a much better chance of being mentally flexible than the person who takes the report at face value when it comes to dealing with the situation themselves.
I think being mentally flexible, adaptive and able to improvise are some of the most important abilities a good firefighter must possess. And a college education can certainly help this.

Driving is more about judgment and executive function than anything else. The simple fact is that the prefrontal cortex (the part of the brain responsible for executive function) is still developing up until hit our 30s, so there's the physiological backing to these age limits. Does it mean a "kid" can't do it? Anyone can be taught the basics as long as they are able to reach all of the controls. However, conceptually, a mature and safe driver is at odds with an 18-25 year old (especially male) as we are generally pushing limits and greatly overconfident at that age.
@melillo719: Just because you've done something without incident doesn't make it safe. Can you get lucky 5/6 times playing Russian Roulette? General rules and standards are in place for a reason. If you look to understand the rules and their reasons for existing, you will, when the time is right, be a great driver. This is because behind good judgment is a good understanding of consequences - basic cause and effect. Rules are generally put in place to mitigate situations that resulted in incidents with significant damage to people or property in the past. It's far better to learn from others' mistakes as you can't make them all yourself.

Driving is more about judgment and executive function than anything else. The simple fact is that the prefrontal cortex (the part of the brain responsible for executive function) is still developing up until hit our 30s, so there's the physiological backing to these age limits. Does it mean a "kid" can't do it? Anyone can be taught the basics as long as they are able to reach all of the controls. However, conceptually, a mature and safe driver is at odds with an 18-25 year old (especially male) as we are generally pushing limits and greatly overconfident at that age.
@melillo719: Just because you've done something without incident doesn't make it safe. Can you get lucky 5/6 times playing Russian Roulette? General rules and standards are in place for a reason. If you look to understand the rules and their reasons for existing, you will, when the time is right, be a great driver. This is because behind good judgment is a good understanding of consequences - basic cause and effect. Rules are generally put in place to mitigate situations that resulted in incidents with significant damage to people or property in the past. It's far better to learn from others' mistakes as you can't make them all yourself.

You know, I'm pretty annoyed by this one-line pot stirring comment. Like I said before, if you don't like it, then get your ambulances out the door and don't depend on outside people to do it for you. OVAC may not be the pinnacle of EMS in your eyes, and that's fine because everyone is entitled to their opinion. But to made such a childish remark which basically insults every single person who is employed by or volunteers for OVAC is unfair, unprofessional, and in poor taste coming from an individual who is in a position of leadership and is supposed to set a good example of professionalism and leadership. OVAC has some highly respected, experienced, and competent providers who day in and day out not only provide excellent prehospital emergency medical care, but do so with little to no necessary supervision, and I think I speak for every single one of them when I express my disgust with your comment. To lump us all together in a public forum and make all of us sound like a bunch if morons is unfair and in poor taste for someone who should be setting a better example.

How often are motorcyclists killed by a driver turning left in front of them without any charges being filed? It happens all too often, and with little more than a "whoops, my bad, I didn't see him" as a defense. Should those drivers be stripped of their licenses? Or is it simply the fact that the victim is "one of us" that is driving your desire for blood? Accidents happen.

How often are motorcyclists killed by a driver turning left in front of them without any charges being filed? It happens all too often, and with little more than a "whoops, my bad, I didn't see him" as a defense. Should those drivers be stripped of their licenses? Or is it simply the fact that the victim is "one of us" that is driving your desire for blood? Accidents happen.

So often these things are done in the name of "safety", which to me is a real misnomer. I think risk management is more appropriate as there's no guarantee of safety no matter what you do. The chevron, by the nature of its shape does seem, at least in abstract theory, to mitigate some of the risk of operating in traffic. And all of the equipment we wear in the name of safety will mitigate a certain type of risk.
Target fixation is a phenomena that I believe is often responsible for crashes. You see this in action when riding a bike (especially as a new rider) - you tend to run over that object that you were trying to avoid because you were so focused on avoiding it. Quite simply, you steer towards whatever it is that you're looking at. This is especially true when a driver is impaired, be it drink, drugs, sleep deprivation, texting, or otherwise distracted. Having the presence of mind to focus on an escape path in an emergency can often mean the difference between succumbing to an accident and avoiding it.
The shape of the chevron directs your eyes away from the vehicle and you are less likely to fixate on it. In theory it takes your focus away from the vehicle and places it exactly where you want it - on the way around it. However, the execution in the photo in this thread looks like there is SO much reflective material used that the chevron isn't even visible when lit up. This seems to counter the benefits and may even cause drivers to fixate on the vehicle. Placing the apparatus properly is important, but once this is done, and the vehicle is completely out of traffic, being LESS visible would probably be more beneficial.
Because rigs are used in such a wide variety of situations it's tough to find the right balance for most situations. I think the idea, when executed properly, is an effective risk mitigation tool. It won't prevent all accidents, but it could divert an impaired driver that otherwise might have seen the apparatus and driven into it.
I think the marketing part of the question is a good one, but to me it's more about competition than marketing. Whose truck shines brightest when a headlight hits it? Who's got the most bling? That's the execution of the strategy and it has nothing to do with the strategy itself. Lines, numbering, lights, etc can all be overdone.

The only people this law is likely to make a difference for are those who would likely seek to abuse the supposed protections it grants. It provides a cause for entitlement and defiance. If I'm working a job all night and can't make it to work I can always call in sick. Maybe it's a luxury in my profession, but I'd be surprised if most people didn't have sick time. And if I couldn't, I'd have to make it through the day somehow.
I think this law will only come up when someone is using it to essentially tell their employer to suck it, that they're going to do what they want whether it works for the company or not.
If attendance and promptness are so important that I needed to use this law to justify being late or absent then volunteering and my career choices are not really compatible and maybe some aspect of my choices needs to change. The employer shouldn't have to make any concessions for an employee because of the employee's choices, however I've found that when you're an asset to whoever you work for they are always, without exception, willing to work with you to accommodate your needs in some way.

The only people this law is likely to make a difference for are those who would likely seek to abuse the supposed protections it grants. It provides a cause for entitlement and defiance. If I'm working a job all night and can't make it to work I can always call in sick. Maybe it's a luxury in my profession, but I'd be surprised if most people didn't have sick time. And if I couldn't, I'd have to make it through the day somehow.
I think this law will only come up when someone is using it to essentially tell their employer to suck it, that they're going to do what they want whether it works for the company or not.
If attendance and promptness are so important that I needed to use this law to justify being late or absent then volunteering and my career choices are not really compatible and maybe some aspect of my choices needs to change. The employer shouldn't have to make any concessions for an employee because of the employee's choices, however I've found that when you're an asset to whoever you work for they are always, without exception, willing to work with you to accommodate your needs in some way.