Reflective vest info from NYS OFPC

[38ff 250]

So if Im reading this correctly, if your in turnouts on a Federally funded highway you dont NEED the vest? You could argue that with a PIAA, you could be exposed to bodily fluids (hazardous materials) and be OK with turnout gear"

"Firefighters or other emergency responders working within the right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway and engaged in emergency operations that directly expose them to

flame, fire, heat, and/or hazardous materials may wear retro reflective turn-out gear that is specified and regulated by other organizations, such as the National Fire Protection Association. Firefighters or other emergency

responders working within the right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway and engaged in any other types of operations

shall wear high-visibility safety apparel.”"

Im not saying it not a good idea to have it..

VestinfoOFPC.pdf

Edited August 9, 2009 by 38ff

[gfd89 0]

So if Im reading this correctly, if your in turnouts on a Federally funded highway you dont NEED the vest? You could argue that with a PIAA, you could be exposed to bodily fluids (hazardous materials) and be OK with turnout gear"

"Firefighters or other emergency responders working within the right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway and engaged in emergency operations that directly expose them to

flame, fire, heat, and/or hazardous materials may wear retro reflective turn-out gear that is specified and regulated by other organizations, such as the National Fire Protection Association. Firefighters or other emergency

responders working within the right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway and engaged in any other types of operations

shall wear high-visibility safety apparel.""

Im not saying it not a good idea to have it..

If you are operating at a motor vehicle accident with out fire or hazmat you should be wearing a vest. The key word is directly expose them. If you are not directly involved with fire suppression or hazmat mitigation you are required to have a vest on. Command officers, equipment operators and other support personnel should have vests on.

[abaduck 123]

So if Im reading this correctly, if your in turnouts on a Federally funded highway you dont NEED the vest? You could argue that with a PIAA, you could be exposed to bodily fluids (hazardous materials) and be OK with turnout gear"

"Firefighters or other emergency responders working within the right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway and engaged in emergency operations that directly expose them to

flame, fire, heat, and/or hazardous materials may wear retro reflective turn-out gear that is specified and regulated by other organizations, such as the National Fire Protection Association. Firefighters or other emergency

responders working within the right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway and engaged in any other types of operations

shall wear high-visibility safety apparel.""

Im not saying it not a good idea to have it..

I think you're twisting things there mate. The 'flame fire heat' etc. is an exemption so you don't have to wear vests when wearing packs!

If you're looking for 'excuses' not to wear vests, which it sounds like you might be angling at, then it's simple; you only need to wear the vests when exposed to traffic. Close the road. No traffic = no compulsory vests. At least that's my understanding of what the law says.

[38ff 250]

Im not trying to "get ot of wearing a vest" Im just trying to figure out what the story is so if my district needs to get vests, they will, but if turnouts are acceptable and satisfy the requirement for reflectivity, then we can spend the $ on other needed equipment.

I think the root of the problem is that one Federal agency does something without consulting another, and we the "end user" are left to figure the mess out. The bulletin from OFPC helps though.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

Im not trying to "get ot of wearing a vest" Im just trying to figure out what the story is so if my district needs to get vests, they will, but if turnouts are acceptable and satisfy the requirement for reflectivity, then we can spend the $ on other needed equipment.

I haven't read the material you are refering too. However I would say that common sense should be the prevailing factor here. Say you have a car fire or pin job on the highway. All the members involved (including the supervising officers) should be in full turnout gear with SCBA for fires, maybe sans the SCBA for Pins.

I think it would be a good idea to have at least a few vests in let's say a command vehicle; so they are available to your Fire Police, or others members the IC might designate to assist PD with traffic issues, and even sometimes fill in for PD if they are busy and not available for your run.

~Stay safe

[helicopper 1,050]

Im not trying to "get ot of wearing a vest" Im just trying to figure out what the story is so if my district needs to get vests, they will, but if turnouts are acceptable and satisfy the requirement for reflectivity, then we can spend the $ on other needed equipment.

I think the root of the problem is that one Federal agency does something without consulting another, and we the "end user" are left to figure the mess out. The bulletin from OFPC helps though.

The cost of a few reflective vests is negligible when you consider the added margin of safety they provide and how it will compare to the cost of an FF's medical/rehab/PT bills if he/she is hit by a car in a right-of-way.

[Bnechis 3,961]

If you're looking for 'excuses' not to wear vests, which it sounds like you might be angling at, then it's simple; you only need to wear the vests when exposed to traffic. Close the road. No traffic = no compulsory vests. At least that's my understanding of what the law says.

One interpretation that I saw said that closing the road does not count if there is any vehicle movement, such as the tow vehicle or EMS, fire apparatus, etc.

[markmets415 524]

One interpretation that I saw said that closing the road does not count if there is any vehicle movement, such as the tow vehicle or EMS, fire apparatus, etc.

Exactly the same we have heard, bottom line is most dept's have the vests and have been wearing them, so continue to wear them, it's pretty simple. All of our officers have been issued them and there is one in each of our apparatus for every seating position and I also carry a few extra as well. We do have more and will issue them to all "certified" active members so they have their own.

I really like what I saw when I visited the Beekman fire station recently, all the gear hanging at the station already had the vest on over the coat, it's the way to go, the same way I have mine.

[efdcapt115 1,511]

I really like what I saw when I visited the Beekman fire station recently, all the gear hanging at the station already had the vest on over the coat, it's the way to go, the same way I have mine.

Are you saying the members there are wearing reflective vests underneath their SCBA then? Or do they remove the vest from the turnout coat before donning SCBA....

[FiftyOnePride 100]

I was told that having the vest already mated with a structural coat was the proper procedure, and to remove it when necessary (Fire Suppression, etc.). The only problem I have had with that is when I am handling traffic control, when I have to pull out the coat and remove the vest. Not much of a hassle, but it was the only negative I found of having it setup that way.

Edited August 9, 2009 by FiftyOnePride