2in/2out

[painter]

i am currently with a department made up of around 100 volunteers 1 paid chief and 1 paid fire fighter (myself)and 2 paid ems stations. i understand the 2/2 concept and think it is a good plan, but i don't think osha gave much consideration to volunteer departments. our department has a pretty good response time, but due to the fact that personnel are responding from different locations at different distances it is not always that enough personnel are on the scene in time for the initial attack. generally most of the ems personnel are cross trained firefighters and respond on all structure fires. if there is not enough personnel on scene when ems gets to the scene the medics usually bunker out and assist in fireground operations (usually resulting in the loss of medical control.
this is not usually the case except for daytime hours when most people are at work. i dont want anyone to think that i am knocking the 2in/2out plan , i really do appreciate the fact osha is up there trying to look out for our safety and well being, but in the world we live in time is of the essence and every second counts. i would appreciate any input on how agencies with the same type circumstances operate with the 2in/2out

[fman]

I can understand your concerns, my department, although quite a bit larger, has a similar situation in some of our more rural areas. Hopefully this will increase the availability of jobs, but at the same time what about the two man squad that has a 30 minute response from the next guaranteed crew. During the day that can be a long time, believe me I have been there.

[Halligan84]

I can understand your concerns ref: not enough people early enough for the initial attack. Our area is primarily volunteer as well, however we are fortunate to have quite a few departments in a relatively small area. If you can, I think increasing the companies on the 1st alarm would help. The thing to consider here is that OSHA allows immediate rescue to be made, so if you have that indication you can enter, if not, you have to consider the risk. What happens to the 2 guys inside when something happens and no one is there to help. When I teach this, I remind the classes of Haz Mat and Confined Space incidents. No one has ever questioned the need for a back up team there prior to entry. I feel a structure that is burning is at least as hazardous as those.

[Zim]

I am on a small volunteer fire department with only 10-15 active members. I have been at fires where there are only 3-4 of us fighting fire. 90% of the house fires we respond to are ballon frame construction and average 50-100 years old. If water is not put on the fire pronto, the house is obviously lost along with the house that is less than 5 feet away. I have heard most of the reasons why 2in/2out should be followed, but in my departments case the fire needs to be put out before the whole neighborhood burns to the ground. I know that we risk the chance of being burned and killed, but that is the risk we take when we join the fireservice. If a person is not capable of taking that risk, then they should rethink about joining the fire department.
I find it funny that we spend so much time on making laws on how to fight fires so we can save firefighters lives. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the most common cause of firefighter death is heart attacks. Where is the obesity laws, the out of shape laws, and the laws that will keep people not suitable for the job out of the fireservice. This is one topic that the fireservice plays strong lip service to. If we truly want to save firefighters lets focus on the number one killer.

[Dalmation90]

Have to agree with Zim...
To my mind, there is a greater danger in allowing a fire to grow larger, and further weaken the structure, while waiting for a couple extra guys.
As I recall, the top two causes are heart attacks, and vehicle accidents. Those two account for over half (?) the LODDs...eliminate them because they're the stupid ways to die. Firefighting is dangerous, and you can't legislate that away.
Matt

[Halligan84]

I forget who said it, but "We will risk alot to save alot, we will risk little to save nothing"
Alot = Lives, Little = Property Only. As I stated in the earlier post, would you charge into a haz mat or a confined space or a trench because you couldn't take the couple of extra minutes? In the end, its real simple, you either plan to make your operation work with 2 in/2 out or you let your elected officials know you need more resources and your taxpayers and firefighters are endangered due to a federal law.

[painter]

halligan84 this an excellent way to show the official just how bad we do infact need more funding for resources i have to agree. i also did not want to give you the wrong idea about the way we sometimes have to operate. it is not very often that this situation occurs,but when it does before any attack is made we try to determine occupancy and also building integrity. i did not want you the idea that we are a john wayne fire dept and i thank you for your input

[Dalmation90]

would you charge into a haz mat or a confined space or a trench because you couldn't take the couple of extra minutes?
_____
The fundemental differences are that generally the hazmat, confined space, or trench rescue are:
a) Not making the situation worse be leaving it alone. The fire is or will be attacking the structure of the buidling, weakening the structure making future efforts to fight it less successful and more dangerous.
b) Immediate action is not generally needed to mitigate the three examples you cited. In a fire situation, you can have people trapped remote from the origin. Generally, in those three, and especially confined space and trench, the only people who will ever be in trouble, already are...that's why you were called. If it's an IDLH, the damage has probably already been done, and won't get worse taking an extra few minutes to prepare special equipment.

I guess it just comes down to a fundamental philosophy in me -- use your head. I don't believe in mandating things such as 2in/2out. Those are decisions that should be left to the those on the fireground to decide their comfort with the situation, and their tools, training, and techniques to decide.

Matt

[Blitzattak]

I am all for 2in-2out. We have to remember that we are not on suicide missions. Our mission is to save lives and protect property. We must not be in the business of sacrificing lives for lives. If it means waiting a couple of minutes to be safe we should be doing it. OHSA allows us to go in before 4 are on the fireground in life or death situations, but remember whose live are we saving, the public or ourselves. Lets start thinking about ourselves for once and forget the macho FF image. I have fought fire for 30+ years and saved a lot property over the years. I really think its time to save ourselves by learning self-rescue techniques and by having stand-by rescue teams FAST or RIT or what ever it takes to save our brothers and if it takes a couple of more minutes to do it, so be it. Wayne

[HHoffman]

Dalmation think about your post. Haz Mat's don't become more dangerous with time? The incident will not effect more people then those that called? Most times we have an IDLH situation inside the structure. I think if the 2 in and 2 out along with RIT are used we can save some lives ( Our own people ). Stay Safe Brothers and Sisters !!!

[Halligan84]

Dalmation, I generally agree with you even though we don't see eye to eye. Its true that fires in quite a few cases require immediate action, like I said, I think most places can make a plan to deal with this. I also don't like the idea of a federal mandate for everything we do, I think a good, trained firefighter can make a good risk analysis and do what he has to, BUT.. this law protects US and forces our administrations and elected officials to pay attention. In Jersey there were alot of companies wearing junk PPE prior to PEOSHA in the late 80's, the state mandated proper equipment and took away the town's excuse by allowing them to exceed budget caps to make the purchase. Something like this could have a similar effect

[cla123]

Every time we try to improve the margin of safety in our dangerous profession, some fossil steps up to shoot us all in the foot. "We never had that minimum manning (SCBA, turnout gear, etc. etc.) and WE always put the fire out." That's true- it's just that more guys got killed doing it. You might as well say we don't need penicillin because a lot of people recovered from illnesses without it. We all know, and studies have shown, that fire engines and ladder trucks just can't do the jobs required of them SAFELY unless four people arrive on them at a working fire. 2in/2out will go a long way toward preventing cities and towns from staging "parades" of empty apparatus responding to alarms. If your town is full of 5' exposures and you're relying on a dept. that might respond with adequate manpower and might not, then you've got problems-and I don't mean with the Feds.

[ECBURT]

<2in/2out will go a long way toward preventing cities and towns from staging "parades" of empty apparatus responding to alarms. >

Over the last 20 years 2 in 2 out would have effected maybe 9% of the fatalities but further review shows 74 deaths over 20 years or 3.5 a year. Of course the IAFF says it will save 30 or 40 a year. There never have been 30 2 in 2 out deaths in year and maybe not in the last 20 years either.

50% of firefighter deaths every year are due to life style. Heart attack, did you read how many 70 year old heart attacks there were last year, big surprise they'd die from a heart attach eh? When do we get a federal government mandate Twinky bill?

15% of the deaths are responding to and returning from calls. Half of those are in peoples own vehicles. We need a 1901 from the government that madades 4 door cabs for cars, and gauges, and red lights, and seat belts, and , and and. That would save us from our stupidity. Look how many deaths occur responding to non-sense calls.

For every 2 in 2 out death which by the way those 74 deaths over 90% had 2 out onscene some were even RIC teams with good accountability ...5 times that number each year die walking in parades, turning on fire hydrants, die in the station, teaching classes, etc.

So should we expect last months non-2 in 2 out death fire department to get sued, fined and officer's locked up? It will never happen. Where has OSHA ever collected a fine or pushed an public enitiy into anything? Seattle was fined, never paid them and they were later dropped, politics I guess. Any others?

9 guys died to bleve's in the last 3 years, where is our government mandate to stop being stupid on the fireground? Popularity contest elections and beer allow results like that on the fire ground.

Who in the country follows NFPA to the letter? All of it? Half of it? Even a handful of it? ZILCH!

We despirately need more rules we don't follow. Government will take care of us.

[cla123]

Has anyone in this group thought that the 50% heart attack death rate rate might not all be from "lifestyle issues"(twinkies),but that some of it might be due to the stress, mental and physical, of doing the work of several firefighters at an undermanned scene? As far as deaths from MVA's, the safest way to arrive at a fire or incident is properly turned out and in an engine or ladder. Backfilling stations during an incident is one thing, but having half(or all) the dept. racing around town in their own cars is just asking for trouble. "2in/2out deaths" aren't limited to guys responding to a fire alone and getting lost in a bldg or having a roof collapse on them.

[Halligan84]

Interesting point on the stress deaths.. any feeling that we could also increase our save rate on the stress related sudden deaths that occur on the fireground? Firefighters that are at least first responder trained with AED's could provide rapid intervention in medical emergencies too. I wonder how many guys went down inside of the building with a heart attack and died because the removal effort took too long?

[ECBURT]

<Has anyone in this group thought that the 50% heart attack death rate rate might not A*L*L* be from "lifestyle issues">

I'm sure their had to be at least one.

[HarryRCarterPhD]

This is topic of great importance to us all. As a Battalion Commander in the Newark, NJ FD, I am frequently the first command-level officer to arrive on location. I have great faith in the company commanders who work for both my brother, also a BC, and me. I am working with them to create an understanding of the situations which call for a use of the less than 2-in/2-out exception. In many of my firefighting magazine articles, and in my new textbook from IFSTA, I stress that Incident Commanders must be careful in their commitment of fire personnel to a hazardous environment. It is our job to create order where chaos exists. It is not our job to hurl the bodies of firefighters at burning buildings. I applaud the introduction of the new regulations into my state and will work diligently to insure that no firefighter under my command will KNOWINGLY violate this rule. I urge all to work for compliance, and, as one of the previous respondants to this thread stated, use it to assist you in resource and budgeting battles. To my fellow volunteers (yes, I still do this in the suburbs) I urge you to be careful. I have never seen a burning building say thank you to a fallen firefighter. There is no rule that states we have to come back alive. One of the best SOP's I have seen for 2-in/2-out comes from Chief Bill Dukes in Mt. Laurel, NJ. Take care.

[This message has been edited by HarryRCarterPhD (edited 01-30-99).]

[BCFD761]

THIS IS REGARDING TH 2/2 RULE, THINK ABOUT IT,THERE IS A REASON FOR THIS, THE SAFETY OF ALL YOUR MEN,THIS SHOULD BE FIRST PRIORITY. I BELONG TO A SMALL DEPT. AS WELL, AND I KNOW HOW IT CAN BE AT TIMES, 2 OR 3 OF US THERE AND NO ONE ELSE INSIGHT, BUT THE NEXT TIME THIS HAPPENS,PLEASE TAKE A SECOND AND THINK.

[Phred]

CHIEF CARTER,

Can you give more details re: Mt. Laurel, NJ Chief Duke's 2-in/2-out SOP's? How can he be reached and is either he or you willing and able to sent copies of the SOP? It's probably too much to run as a post, but if it could be e-mailed or looked at on a web site some of us would appreciate it. Thankx!

Phred at Phred322@aol.com (http://Phred322@aol.com)


[This message has been edited by Phred (edited 01-31-99).]

[Ickymow]

This has been a great discussion. I would like to know about Mt. Laurals SOPs also. I am a captain in a moderate sized department in central New York and we just put our own set of SOPs reguarding 2/2 and the use of RIT in place a couple months ago. I would like to remind every one that OSHA is attempting to help us and trying to instute some laws to protect us. This is some thing new to many of us and weather we like it or not, OSHA is here to stay. Our department desided to comply and to attempt to do our best to meet the standard. I would be glad to share what we came up with any one who would like to see them. Thanks for the great insight all of you.

------------------

[Chief51]

I agree with Halligan's comments on risk analysis. Firefighters working short handed must be able to assess their scenes intelligently and not put themselves at undue risk. I work in a community which is predominately older buildings and row homes with little or no fire stopping. The potential for creating even more dangerous conditions exists by delaying an attack on the fire. I am not condoning a total disregard for our personal safety but, rather, educating our firefighters better so that they are smart enough to know when to take action and when to hold back until more help arrives. Therefore it is the responsibility of every chief to see that his people are properly educated. I would LOVE to have 4 firefighters on my first due engine but that is never going to happen in a lot of communities due to the age old problem (or should I say excuse?) of economics. Sure, everyone says to pressure the politicians but over 24 years I have seen them come and go. The faces change but the attitudes stay the same; the apathy carries on. Hey, sometimes you can even fire up the citizens, particularly after a serious fire, but as time goes by they too forget and their only concern is how can the tax rate be held down. Fortunately for me our first due mutual aid company is a fully paid department. Now, when we are dispatched to a working structure fire, I get them rolling at the same time. Maybe it's not a good practice to always rely on mutual aid but until a better solution comes along for us, it's the next best thing.

[Medic019]

My feelings about the 2in/2out mandate being handed down from OSHA are mixed. First, I agree that Firefighter Safety is a major priority However, like many other departments my department is located in a small community with only 15 to 20 active volunteer members and 2in/2out will hamper operations at times. A firefighter's risk analysist of the incident is a key factor in whether to procede with an offense attack with lacking manpower while awaiting of the arrival of the next due companies from the first alarm assignment. Our Department builds practice our risk analysis during training session, building Safety into each other minds. This seems to have worked so far, as that we have not had any John Wayne style operations for unnesseciated reasons.

[firesmith]

With the threat of appearing sarcastic, if I can't protect my own, I've got no business protecting anything else. I work in a career company which under most circumstances can meet this "minimum" standard, but I also volunteer for a small company who is like most, is trying every day to do more with less. Yes, I work those fires with only 4 or 5 people...but I continue to ask myself, risk vs. gain, what should we risk to gain a "structure." If its a rescue situation, OSHA allows for dievation from the standard, that is not an issue. We as a family, must look beyond the term REGULATION and focus on our most valuable resource, our own personnel. If we are not careful some of those traditions that render our service static every day, will prevent us from making tremendous strides in the protection of our own. We don't have any business kidding ourselves thinking it won't happen to me. As I write this I am looking at the posting of three lost brothers, today. My thoughts and prayers to the brothers and their families.

[This message has been edited by firesmith (edited 02-15-99).]

[This message has been edited by firesmith (edited 02-15-99).]

[This message has been edited by firesmith (edited 02-15-99).]

[Dalmation90]

Protecting our own is certaintly very important. And the most critical assest there is to protecting yourself and your co-workers is your head.
The risk analysis points hit it on the head -- you have to be able to rationally analyze the risks. 2in/2out says you can't -- it makes a decision for you without any reference what so ever to the situation that is before you.
Matt

[Wolf2980]

I think it is real easy for Dr. Newark-Battalion Chief to say that his FF will not violate the 2/2 rule. After all he gets paid one way or the other. In a community where the victims could be my family and neighbors, the decision to go in must be made based on the situation on hand. Firefighting is dangerous, I think we should be more concerned with saving lives then saving property.

[dc45b]

In Prince George's County, MD, we are having a staffing problem on most days. What we have done is added one engine company to the assignment. Our county I beleive has already been fine for not putting the 2in/2out into effect. But there is one loop hole. And that is if you beleive that there are people trap then you can go in. You could say the any residential home could be in this situation. Most business after hours we do not go in until we have a RIT. Osha has made it's bed now let's try to make this better. To solve this is to hire more or recruit more people. More people on the first peice than we have no problem. Good discussion-

------------------

[tfd205]

Just jumping in on this conversation. I work on a full-time department in a city of 120,000 people. Our department did the same as several others I saw here. They are having a lot more "signal-2" fires to bring extra crews in. We run four man companys with three minimum. We have eighteen companies. I also am on a township department. We face the same issue there with manning during the day. The answer there is to call mutual aid if required, but it is not automatic for structure fires. My real reason for looking here was to see if anyone has any other on-line suggestions for this topic as I am writing a college paper on this topic and need some reference materials to look in. Have researched the back issues here but need more. You can E-mail any ideas to me to save bulletin board space. Thanks all

[cla123]

to wolf2980-
It is amazing to me to hear from someone so willing to risk his own life, the lives of his friends, and most importantly the lives of the people in his community so foolishly for the sake of his hobby. Face the facts-if you don't have, at the VERY least, four trained people to send out the door when the alarm rings, you don't HAVE a fire department-- you have a fire truck. If you want to drive a fire truck around by yourself, go to a muster. Don't fool the public into thinking they're protected when they're not.
Oh, one more thing,since "Dr. Newark Batt. Chief" is probably too polite to say it( something nobody's ever accused me of) he's probably FORGOTTEN about more fires than you (or I) will ever go to in our entire lives--maybe we should listen to him.

[Ickymow]

First I would like to thank painter for starting this fantastic thread. There have been some great oppinions expressed here and each one carries it's own weight. Second I would like to say that we are all entitled to our own oppinions and way of doing things. If some one says some thing and we din't think it is right we don't have to insult that person. That is not what we are here for. We are here to learn and to see how other departments do things in the hopes of bringing some value back to the department we belong to. If we all did things right then there would be no FFs deaths to prompt OHSA to instatute this standard. We all could use some help once and a while. We are all brothers out to save lives and property in that order. I am proud of what I do and I will accept any critisum that comes my way if it helps me to be a better fire fighter in the long run. I know not all departments are blessed with tons of people. Some of us need more help, and that is why we came here looking for help. We didn't come here to see brother fire fighters insunting one another because of how they do things or what they think should be done. If we all work togather we might come up with answers to a few of the problems that do plague the fire service today. As I stated earlier weather I agree with it or not, we have to abide by it because it is now the law. So the next thing is how can we do our best to comply with it? Thanks for letting me have a say and I hope I didn't offend any one. That was not my intent. I just would like to see us keep this thread open and not have it closed because of the insulting of others. It's to good to have it closed.

------------------

[Wolf2980]

To cla123,
During a day call my dept. gets out one engine right away with a driver, an officer, and three FF. There will be more arriving. My point was that with a limited day crew your options are limited. The driver will be pumping, the officer is IC, one team for a line and one for search. That is all the reasources on that engine. If there is a report of people inside we are going for the grab, with or without 2FF standing by. Mabe for you this is a hobby, but to me it is a second job and I take it seriously.
The Fed makes great recommendations, but to force rules only leads to problems. This is all about situation on scene. We must be able to determine the situation for ourselves and figure out the risks. The world is not black and white. If you fight every fire by the letter of thre rule only civilians will be hurt. Mabe that is acceptible losses for you.

[HHoffman]

The Fire Service cuts it own neck by sitting on it's butt. Then we get mad that rules and regulations are put in place to save lives. OSHA and others would not make rules just for something to do. If the Fire Service wants to run it's own show then we need to get off our butts and do it! We have some of the best minds in the world in the American Fire Service but they are not used.

Remember folks we did'nt start the fire or crash the cars... We are here to clean up the mess as safe as we can.

[Lt621]

to wolf2980. the five man crew should be plenty for a safe attack. Let the officer stand on a line and the next due company establish command. I agree command is neccessary but would you sacrifice a person needed to complete the 2/2 in order to have an ic ? In the event there is no entrapment and you have a working fire would you wait for the next due company and hope that scene is still stable enough for interior attack ?
Not to knock your plan but if your resources are limited , then prioritize your personnel so that you can handle the situation. There is still property to save and protect

[cla123]

There seem to be a number of posters to this forum that enjoy telling us that their depts. are just dripping with manpower ("1+4 on the engine and more on the way" just to name one example) --but they're also the ones complaining the loudest about 2in/2out. What gives? Is it that this reflects more of what they'd LIKE to see than what they see? If you truly respond to scenes CONSISTENTLY with fully staffed apparatus, this rule should be no problem to you. If you're not,and you don't have the sense to do something about it on your own,then the Feds will do it for you. As I see it, this rule has two groups opposing it-city managers who would rather attend firefighters' funerals every once in a while than spend more money on staffing,and volunteer fire dept politicians who would rather die than risk their fiefdoms to full-time day help or a larger, regional dept. As I said before, I have been a part of volunteer systems where the public-and the firefighters-are routinely put at risk due to woefully inadequate staffing. Anyone who opposes this rule "for their friends and neighbors" sake should examine their true motivations.

[Wolf2980]

to LT621
I would love to be able to use that officer, but another pain in the a!! law put into effect by the state of NJ requires that the senior officer on all fireground scenes establish an IC. So that first engine officer must establish command until relieved by a senior officer.

[Wolf2980]

to cla123
I know what your "regional" dept.s look like. One fire house to cover five towns with a day crew of five paid FF who either don't come from the towns they work in or could care less about the local population. Economicaly your plan is great, but I like knowing the FF and cops in my town. We provide not only fire protection but also community relations. Volunteers do it better, faster, and with a smile.

[cla123]

......I'm still waiting to hear about your imaginary staffing...........

[ka]

CLA 123


We average according to an independant audit by the ISO 61 personnel on all structure fires. I don't think that is imaginary coming from a third party. Lighten up, you'll live longer.

[ka]

cla123

"Has anyone in this group thought that the 50% heart attack death rate rate might not all be from "lifestyle issues"(twinkies),but that some of it might be due to the stress, mental and physical, of doing the work of several firefighters at an undermanned scene? "

I thought that too, it sure sounds romatic doesn't it? "Firefighter works hinmself to death because chief and city manger hate firefighter." The facts just don't bear it out.

It gets down to the big fat over weight and the old timers kicking the bucket on duty. They are line of duty deaths only because they were looking for a place to die and did it on duty. I bet you can look around your fire company and predict who is next to go.

Here is the romance of what they were doing when they had their heart attacks and their ages in 1997: Age 49 meeting at fire station, 70 removing turnouts, 63 died charging line, 58 meeting at fire house, 71 marching in parade, 62 onscene, 47 end of shift in station, 60 died in station, 38 setting up equipment, 36 fighting fire, 75 drirecting traffic, 54 turning a fire hydrant on, 48 storing gear, 24 rookie school, 45 teaching, 47 eating smoke, 49 pulling initial attack line, 67 at memorial service, 53 attending class, 55 boarding apparatus, 58 driving pov, 46 driver training, 61 at fire scene, 34 small brush fire, 46 in station, 50 swimming, 59 fell off truck, 75 at fire, 54 PT, 47 in station, 55 responding to, 78 directing traffic, 69 directing traffic, 44 commander, 52 returning from, 49 in station, 38 watching TV, 53 going to ems call.

Average heart attack victim age? 54. Average age of US fire service? 32.

This year already Emmittsburg lost 4 old guys already. That would be 24 for the year at this rate. Extrapolate that to 44,000 fd's and will kill off 1.1 million firefighters this year.

This year we read of 90 year olds dropping driving rigs, old guys at leaf fires, backing trucks in station, etc etc etc.

I think the union needs to get OSHA in on this too. Only 4 to 7 die each year in 2 in 2 out situation why not focus on the 50 deaths not the 4 to 7?

I can't wait for the new NFPA 2026, 2047 and 2048. They will finally establish a safety officer, rehab sector, constant real time monitoring of firefighters blood pressure and well being using trained medics and psycologists engaged in the most demanding, stressful, dangerous and heart attack prone fire ground assignmnts, namely, turning on a hydrant, hanging out at the station and directing traffic. 11 died performing those difficult tasks in 1997. It is high time we operate in a 2 in 2 out mode at these arduous tasks like turning on a hydrant. We need to pace our selves. If we can some how through public education teach firefighters to wear their face pieces another 5 would disappear from the death roles.

I'm sure at least 1 firefightert out of the 50 or so FD deaths due to heart attack each year had to be stress related and due to improper staffing. Only one firefighter was listed as dropping from stress in 1997.

[Gill]

I don't think OSHA did much planning before they made this 2 in/2 out rule. They mean well, but like you volunteer firemen, there are times when you can't get four people to the scene in enough time to save the structure, if you can get four people to the fire at all.

But, the 2 in/2 out works great for bigger city departments, where all the chief has to do is call another company in to stand-by as a RIT.

So I believe that as firemen, there comes a time to break the rules, and do your job...be a fireman. If someone is trapped in the building, and you only have 3, guys there. I say go in and save the victim, put the fire out, whatever needs to be done to save that person's life. It will be much easier to deal with breaking the rules, than it will be to let someone die because of a "stupid" rule.

Stay safe brothers,
Gill

------------------

[cla123]

ka-
You might find that if you take a look at the 1997 professional firefighter deaths, the facts don't bear YOUR claims out---

Of the 26 professional firefighters' line-of-duty deaths in 1997, here is the breakdown: 34.6%-burns/asphyxiation after being trapped-15.4%-air crashes-11.5%-internal trauma-19.2%-apparatus crashes-7.7%-explosions-7.7%-heart attack/stroke-3.8%-infectious diseases.
Is that "romantic" enough for you? If you got rid of the fat, the elderly, the infirmed, and the untrained, would you have any volunteers left?
And before any poster clucks their tongue and asks us all to get along, go back and look at the posts of ka and wolf 2980 from the point-of-view of a professional firefighter. If anybody wants to talk volunteer/professional issues, i'll talk about it with them-but be warned we might not agree. I agree this debate is heating up a bit, but I haven't needed CISD over any posts about me (us) so far. I do think we're straying from the topic of 2in/2out, though-so if the moderators allow it(and I hope they will), maybe we should start another topic, either here or in "Firefighters Forum" I hope to see you there. I don't dislike you guys, I just think you're wrong, that's all--let's talk about it. Isn't that what this is for?

[ka]

cla123

<<<You might find that if you take a look at the 1997 professional firefighter deaths, the facts don't bear YOUR claims out---Of the 26 professional firefighters' line-of-duty deaths in 1997, here is the breakdown: -7.7%-heart attack/stroke-..>>>

You're right!!!!! <<The FACTS DON'T BEAR OUT YOUR CLAIMS>>>

Hmmm 7.7% X 26 total deaths = ONLY 2 DIED OF HEART ATTACK OR STROKE ??? Two is a nice number BUT. The actual number of career deaths was 36 not 26.

This outfit called the USFA says: Two so far in 1999 backing a rig in the station 64 and at an auto extrication 46.

It lists 10 for 1998 causes, at burner fire 58, at structure fire 47, at car fire 50, returning from call 49, at air pack drill 61, responding to car fire 46, at structure fire 49, at structure fire 56, at grass fire 50, and at a vehicle accident 43. average age 52.

It lists 12 for 1997 NOT 2! I guess I'll need to repeat yesterdays post but you brought up the question, heart attack at the end of the shift 47, heart attack at station 57, heart atack in burn building 24, on the way to work 48, on the fire ground 47, pulled attack line 49, small grass fire 34, at fire 52, mandatory PT 54, on fireground 27, running a call 44, in station 49, and sitting watching tv 38. Ave age 48.

Look around your station, I bet you can predict who is the most likely next one to go.

I'm sure you know the volunteers out number you 6 to 1 and maybe as high as 8 to 1. Of course they had more deaths.

It doesn't change the facts, old and out of shape is the reason for the deaths not stress of the job.

<<< I think we're straying from the topic of 2in/2out,>>>

Not really the most likely reason year in and year out to have to save a fellow firefighter is a heart attack, rarely does it occur in side a building. A radio transmitting pass is essential to locate these folks in the first seconds, not at some 5 or 10 minute PAR or when someone stumbles upon them. It appears with the career service guys should be wearing a pass device in the station, over 16% of their deaths occurred there!

<<<<I just think you're wrong, that's all--let's talk about it. >>>

It is ok to think I'm wrong, that is why I typed the above facts so now you can think I'm right.



[This message has been edited by ka (edited March 03, 1999).]

[Brian]

If everyone would look forward to change and try to make the transition, they may find that it does not really drastically change the way they operate already. Recently our department (all volunteer) adopted the standard as part of our SOP/SOG's.
It seems to me that the physical I took before doing the mask fit test does take a step toward addressing the health issue. The biggest challenge for us for the 2in/2out was the mindset of members. I heard someone say it will only affect 9% of the LODD etc. etc. (If it saves one brother fireman I'm all for it).
We have a very progressive all paid department on our eastern border and to address their staffing level problems they simply expanded their mutual aid aggreement with us, to include our platform and engine on the scene instead of in their station. We now have a relationship with them that the union endorses as well as all the fire fighters. It is a win/win situation. This came about due to the 2in/2out. The worst part of this legislation is the funding aspect. Most small departments like ours are running our members into the ground trying to fund every new mandate coming down the pike. Most of us have to be selective about which policies we plan to adopt due to the fiscal picture. We all know that not one department in the country can afford to meet all of the standards published or legislated. Over all you can put me down as in favor of it.
Cpt Brian Holbrook
LaVale Vol. Fire Dept.
LaVale Md.

[HHoffman]

I work as a Federal Firefighter, we get a physical every year. The physical consists of:

A. CBC Triglycerides, Chloresterol and Bloodborne Pathogens
B. Vision Exam
C. Audiometric Exam
D. Baseline Chest X-Ray
E. Urinalysis
F. Baseline EKG
G. Pulmonary Function Test
H. Signed off by the Doctor

I think all firefighters, Paid and Volunteer should have a fitness for duty physical every year.

Physical Fitness Training should also be part of every firefighters training.

[Gill]

I think ka has a point. Firefighters' health needs to become a priority. But not for OSHA. I don't agree with legislating everything. Each firefighter should be concerned about his health enough to do everything he/she needs to do to stay healthy. If not for his job, than for his loved ones.

But I also agree that if 2in/2out saves even one life, it is a good thing.

I have a question though. Is this OSHA 2in/2out a guidline, or is it the law?

[ka]

it is a law but not in your state of Kansas or 26 other states

[Ickymow]

Well said Brian. It seems like quite a few people out there are ready to put down OHSA and the 2 in/ 2 out standard. They are into insulting others more than trying to help us with the issue at hand. Yes OSHA standards are basicly laws except in states that run there own safety programs like NY where I live. In NY we have our own state run program called PESH ( public employees safety and health) witch is a division of the department of labor. PESH enforces the health and safety laws for state or public employees like highway workers and the fire service, paid or vol. Here we have to meet the federal OSHA standard or do better then the standard.
The problem is that we are only looking at one small part of the standard. We have taken the small 2in/2out part and based all we are doing on that and complaining about it. Then we say why doesn't OSHA go after the over weight, out of shape people keeling over from heart attacks. Well if you look at the standard it is trying to deal with these problems. It also mandates yearly physicals with pulmonary function test. It also mandates fit testing, training, and acountability. This is a start aimed at trying to deal with the problems that many of you brought up. One other major thing you need to remember is this: OSHA was not put in place to deal with the fire service. They were put in place to deal with general industry and the fire service just happens to fall into that catagory. Why I have no idea but that is where it is. The main goal of OSHA is to try to right the wrongs in general industry that kill workers all the time. This standard was updated at the same time the confined space standard was implamented. These two standards go hand in hand needless to say. The reason for the new standards, people were dying in these spaces. Thus the up date in respatory protection and that relates to some one being avalible to get some one out when they go down. The part we are complaining about is what spilled over to the fire service due to us using SCBA's. However as stated in previous post if this standard saves even one fire fighters life then it has accomplished what it was intended to do. Now with that said lets focus on what this thread was intended to do. How do we come up with inventive ways to comply with this new standard? This is the fire service isn't it? We are the one that gave new meaning to the words over come and adapt. We have done that for years. We have faced harder challenges and we most likely will face even harder ones in the future. Lets put our brains togather and come up with a solution instead of tearing the vols or the paid people down, and complaning about some thing we can't do any thing about. We are all in this to provide a service to the communities we live in. Lets act like the brothers and sisters we say we are and figure this one out.
By the way I noticed that through out the various threads many sign at the bottom with things like "keep safe" or "be safe out there". Yet some of these people are the same ones opposing a standard designed to keep us safe. A little ironic isn't it?

------------------

[ka]

My innovative suggestion is have four people on scene, or wait until four get on the rig before responding, or wait and make exterior fire attack until you do.

[cla123]

wow..... someone note the date and time-- I think we agree on something.........

[KenNFD]

OSHA standards don't just drop out of the sky. There is a history of injuries or deaths that prompts NIOSH to start the regulatory ball rolling.

If the fire departments and the town or city governments worked toward firefighter safety, there would not be a need for OSHA regulations in the fire sevice.

The 2 in/2 out rule states that a minimum of 2 employees enter an IDLH atmosphere (an incipient fire is NOT IDLH) and stay in visual or voice contact. Two employees must stay outside for rescue or assistance. SCBA's must be used. 1910.134(g)(4)(i)

There are 2 notes at the end of section (g) Procedures for IDLH Atmospheres:

Note 1:
One of the two individuals located outside of the IDLH atmosphere may be assigned an additional role, such as incident commander or safety officer, so long as this individual is able to perform assistance or rescue activities without jepordizing the safety or health of any firefighter working at the incident.

Note 2:
Nothing in this standard is meant to preclude firefighters from performing emergency rescue activities before an entry team is assembled.


It is up to the department to decide if an engineer or IC can be a safety team member.

I would hope that there is not a firefighter or fire officer that would not attempt a rescue because there was not a formal RIT team on scene.

However, while the intent of the rule is to allow firefighters to make a rescue, it does not give license to attack every fire with a 2 man crew and say afterward that they thought they heard someone inside.

The fire service and local governments need to come to terms with this rule. Firefighting is dangerous work. Sometimes firefighters die on the fire ground. Sometimes back at the fire station or at home from stress related to the job (remember, there are no sudden heart attacks, it takes years of preparation)

Proper staffing for all department, paid, combination, and volunteer will protect our most valuable assets-the firefighters. The fire does'nt care if you are big city or small town. The dangers are the same.

We firefighters also need to take care of ourselves. Keeping in shape, watching what we eat and drink helps keep us physicaly prepared to fight the next fire. How long do you think it will be before OSHA tightens up the physical requirement to wear SCBA due to the very high number of cardiac deaths and disabilities every year?

Stay safe!


------------------
Ken Hanks
Captain Naugatuck FD,CT
Instructor,CT Fire Academy


[This message has been edited by KenNFD (edited March 06, 1999).]

[ka]

<<OSHA standards don't just drop out of the sky. There is a history of injuries or deaths that prompts NIOSH to start the regulatory ball rolling.>>

Or in theis case it took a union.

<<It is up to the department to decide if an engineer or IC can be a safety team member.>>

Not really, OSHA clearly states the engineer and the IC can be part of the out team, one can even be at the hydrant, or performing other duties like holding a hose.

How many events can you think of other than the guy in Indiana where there wasn't a 2 out team? Can you recall even one? Anybody?? Just one? Lake Worth? NO. Memphis, Syracuse, Mark, Philly, Pittsburg, New York, Chicago, Seattle, Oakland, Chesapeek? It doesn't appear it would have helped any of these folks.

If we can't recall the event that required this standard what is it based upon? Could it be 100% union?

Just one please!

[KenNFD]

>Not really, OSHA clearly states the engineer and the IC can be part of the out team, one can even be at the hydrant, or performing other duties like holding a hose.<

Per Connecticut OSHA, one firefighter is assigend to rescue and the second may have another, non-critical function. Up to the department to determine what makes up a critical function.

Actually, the 2 in\2 out rule evolved from the hazardous waste operations standards (HazWoper). It was just a natural progression from requiring safe operations for employees working in IDLH atmospheres at chemical incidents to firefighters working in IDLH atmospheres at structure fires. Dead is dead, injured is injured, regardless of where it occurs.

Of course the fire union had some input into the standard, as does everyone else. Safety of our firefighters, paid and volunteer, is my main concern. Unions, by their nature, want to have more personnel on the job. There is safety in numbers, especially on the fire ground.

Why would the rule only call for 2 in\2 out if this was a 100% union written standard?

How about requiring an IC, safety officer, 2 man attack team, 2 man backup, 2 man RIT, outside vent team, interior search team for ever floor or 1000 square feet, roof vent team, water supply crew, engineer restricted to apparatus only and mandatory relief after 1 air bottle, etc.

Now that would be a rule to make the union happy.

The 2 in/2 out rule makes problems for all but the largest departments in the country. My first alarm assignment is 2 officers and 6 firefighters total on 2 engines and an aerial.

Some of the small volunteer departments around here are lucky to even get that amount of personnel.

The answer is to get more firefighters on the fireground. Towns and cities will need to hire additional personnel or make real incentives for the volunteers. A $100 a month pension after 20 years is nice, but hardly an incentive.

Automatic mutual aid, or <gasp> combining or regionalizing department may work.

We need to educate the politicians who look at the fire service as a necessary evil and have them answer as to why there is a shortage of firefighters, OSHA or no OSHA rule. Why do towns that have no problems hiring teachers or police officers, lighting ball fields, and building walking trails in the woods have fits whenever funding of fire protection is brought up, especially for personnel.

To fight among ourselves over this rule is destructive. Politicians love to see members of the fire service fight and bicker. Keeps them off the hook.

I am amazed that not only on message boards, but even at classes and meetings, the 2 in/2 out rule almost always degrades to a paid\volunteer issue. Don't think I am anti volunteer. I volunteered for 3 years before I was hired. As an instructor, I get to work with many outstanding volunteer departments in Connecticut. Some of these guys can get water out of a stone if they need to.

I tell my firefighters and citizens. We (the FD) don't set the level of protection for the town. Thats up to the politicians and the taxpayers. We just perform to the best of our abilities with the tools we are provided.



------------------
Ken Hanks
Captain Naugatuck FD,CT
Instructor,CT Fire Academy

[Wolf2980]

"How about requiring an IC, safety officer, 2 man attack team, 2 man backup, 2 man RIT, outside vent team, interior search team for ever floor or 1000 square feet, roof vent team, water supply crew, engineer restricted to apparatus only and mandatory relief after 1 air bottle, etc."
Welcome to the great state of New Jersey! By the year 2000 this discription above will emulate the firefighting situation in Jersey. Each year "let the legislature set the standards" makes it more and more difficult for understaffed Paid's and Vol. depts to do the job. If the legislature is going to make rules, then they should shoulder the cost.

[This message has been edited by Wolf2980 (edited March 07, 1999).]

[ka]

<Per Connecticut OSHA, one firefighter is assigend to rescue and the second may have another, non-critical function. Up to the department to determine what makes up a critical function.>

They'll send it to you in writiing. Any state will get the same answer from the state and then from the feds. Worked in Tolland last month.

The politicians answer, wait, not more, not increased staffing to 4 even osha says that.

[steese19]

I'm glad someone finally refered to the actual wording of the OSHA final decision. (Thanks KenNFD) It really allows a lot of flexibility to meet the individual situation. Also this is not something new. OSHA's research shows that this has actually been around for over 25 years. NFPA 1500 has spelled it out for a long time.

I know our department has dragged its feet for two years while the A/C's and Captians all claimed it would never work. Finally last November the Chief and I wrote a DOG and just said this is the way it is. Everyone bought right into it. There's still a lot of confusion over just what you can and can't do as we discovered this weekend in a tactics class for FO-1 candidates, but we can fix that. I think this is going the right way. Medical and fitness are our next big issues(as "We can't afford it"s echo down the hallways)

------------------
Alan


[This message has been edited by steese19 (edited March 08, 1999).]

[Tanker]

ka

As I read these I found that you are very WRONG about Kansas being one of the 26 states where this is not law. Kansas does adopt OSHA and volunteers are considered employees. This must be a shock but you can't be right all the time.

Several have missed the point that if t first arrival's on the scene determine that a rescue is needed then you may do so and not violate the OSHA 2 in 2 out.

------------------

[ka]

TANKER

<This must be a shock but you can't be right all the time.
>

I'm so sorry, but I'm reading from an officialpiece of OSHA paper work, I'll be glad to scan it for anyone reading this post, just emailme. Kansas is not listed

[ka]

TANKER

<This must be a shock but you can't be right all the time.
>

I'm so sorry, but I'm reading from an officialpiece of OSHA paper work, I'll be glad to scan it for anyone reading this post, just emailme. Kansas is not listed

[ka]

TANKER

<This must be a shock but you can't be right all the time.
>

I'm so sorry, but I'm reading from an officialpiece of OSHA paper work, I'll be glad to scan it for anyone reading this post, just emailme. Kansas is not listed

[ka]

TANKER

<This must be a shock but you can't be right all the time.
>

I'm so sorry, but I'm reading from an official piece of OSHA paper work, I'll be glad to scan it for anyone reading this post, just emailme. Kansas is not listed

[Halligan84]

Ka is right, the IAFF was the impetus for this standard being clarified. If you look at their web page <http://www.iaff.org> you'll find a complete chronology of their efforts to have this section of the respiratory protection standard clarified. Official discussion with the DOL began in 1994. One question for KA... what is the info on the 26 states? I know NJ is not an OSHA state, but our PEOSH adopted the OSHA standard this year.

[ka]

jusy the list of states that osha says 2 in 2 out applies

[ka]

TANKER

<you are very WRONG about Kansas being one of the 25 states where this is not law>

This is for you. It is from the IAFF, written by OHSA. Is Kansas spelled with a K??? They still seem to be missing.

All professional fire fighters, whether state, county, or municipal, in any of the states or territories where an OSHA State Plan agreement is in effect have, at a minimum, the protection of all the health and safety standards promulgated by federal OSHA, including the above interpretation on the use of SCBA and safe fire ground staffing practices. The following twenty-five states/territories have State OSHA Plans:

Alaska
Arizona
California
Connecticut
Hawaii
Indiana
Iowa Kentucky
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Nevada
New Mexico New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Puerto Rico
South Carolina
Tennessee Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
Wyoming

refernce: http://www.iaff.org/iaff/Health_Safety/regs_1.html

[jpm]

one thing i notice as i sit here and read.is that opinions in the fire service are like elbows everyboby has two

[Tanker]

ka

I do not know where you do your research? But I did quite a bit. Talked with OSHA officials and State of Kansas reps. It is law one way or another. Either OSHA applies or state laws do, by adopting OSHA. Either way we take it as law and will follow it for FF safety.

------------------

[montezumaf]

Tanker

"""I do not know where you do your research?"""

KA was very clear on his references... IAFF web page. It's ther read it! I'm the third person to tell you this.

[steese19]

You Guys, You're both right.

a) The state adopts and enforces the OSHA Standard.
ie. the 26 states.......or

b) The feds enforce the OSHA Standard.


Either way the OSHA Standard applies.



------------------
Alan

[Slash]

I just happened to surf into this thread and it was really timely because I have been researching 2in/2out and NFPA 1500 requirements trying to puzzle out just what is expected of us.
I have read tons of material, and Iam still a little confused, I am on the departments Health and Safety Committee as well as the S.O.G. committee and I think that the OSHA standard is going to have the most profound effect on our department since the invention of water.
Our first,and last, alarm response brings a total of 10 ff to the scene of any incident, thats if both rescues are in service and everyone is available to respond, this is the break down of the personnel available
1 DC
3 Co Off
3 pump op
2 rescue 1Off and 1 ff
1 ff
Now the way that I understand 2in/out is that 2out is fine as long as they are in contact with the attack team and are readily available for rescue. To me this does not mean that the IC or attack pump operator can be used for rescue since taking them away from there duties can jeopordize the entire operation.
Well we can manage this, barely, our problem occurs if the fire is more complicated than an one line fire on the first floor, readily accessible to the initial attack line. In situations where a coordinated fire attack is required with anything more complicated than horizontal ventilation. More than one team is needed and your 2in/2out escalates to; more than one team in/R.I.T. out. We cannot do this, it is a physical impossibility for us to get the required personnel on scene in order to handle anything beyond a one line fire in a timely manner. Help's coming it's just going to take a while before it gets on scene.
Now, finally, to my point.
I feel that we have dropped the ball as an entire organization.
As a result an outside regulatory body is now trying to do our job for us. We are seeing the results.
I have been firefighting for sometime both as a firefighter and a Company Officer, manpower is crucial, if you cannot support a two line operation with enough manpower to cover your basics,Rescue,locate,confine,e xtinguish,ventilation, at a minimum, what are you doing about it. Sure OSHA and the NFPA are trying to tell us how to do our jobs, well somebody has to.
We need to start educating the public about our jobs, they need to understand what is involved so that we can get the resources to staff our departments correctly. I think that OSHA's regulation is one way.
I have made the concious decision to not risk my life or my brother or sister for a building. I've come to realize that the life of a human is not worth the continued existance of a man made object. If the occupants are out and recue is not deemed a priority then stay out until you have the rescources to operate safely. Use your judgment, if you can get at it fine but sometimes you have to cut and run.

[ka]

Tanker

If you have an issue with my post take it up with IAFF they quoted federal sources and they met with them, what I wrote is simply copied verbatum from IAFF.

<<To me this does not mean that the IC or attack pump operator can be used for rescue since taking them away from there duties can jeopordize the entire operation.>>

OSHA will give to you in writting that the IC and the pump operator can be part f the out team without limits.

<<More than one team is needed and your 2in/2out escalates to; more than one team in/R.I.T. out. >>

That is 100% up to the IC, OSHA says so. If the IC wants one ot team that has to run around the building to the second entry that is fine, as long as that is the plan.

<<it is a physical impossibility for us to get the required personnel on scene in order to handle anything beyond a one line fire in a timely manner.>>

OSHA's advice isto simply wait and attack form the outside.

<<I feel that we have dropped the ball as an entire organization.
As a result an outside regulatory body is now trying to do our job for us. >>

Auctually, it was our organization who made the feds act, the IAFF. There wasn't a 2 in 2 out problem or event it was a move for staffing. OSHA says 2 in 2 out does not require 4 on an engine. It is simply an extension of NFPA 1500 effort to increase staffing.

<<We need to start educating the public about our jobs, they need to understand what is involved so that we can get the resources to staff our departments correctly. >>

There advice might be to wait as well, the towns and cities are not burning down, 2 in 2 out events are rare, where someone violated and died, no one on this board could list one.

[Dalmation90]

>>Begin Snip
You Guys, You're both right.

a) The state adopts and enforces the OSHA Standard.
ie. the 26 states.......or

b) The feds enforce the OSHA Standard.


Either way the OSHA Standard applies.
>>End Snip

Errr, WRONG ANSWER
FedOSHA can not enforce it's regulations on State/Local governments (little thing in the way called the Constitution).
The can and do however require if a state chooses to regulate Private Industry itself (i.e. StateOSHA) then it must also enforce the regulations on the State/Local level, and must adopt the FedOSHA regulations as a minimum.

If anyone's ever noticed, very seldom can the federal government tell a state what to do...but it can say "If you don't have a 55 mile speed limit, we'll take away your billion dollar highway grants" Powerful incentive there for bowing down to Congress there! (Ok, I know it's an out-dated example!)

Now, there is some case to be made (although it's strength really depends on how good your lawyers are vs. theirs) that OSHA is a nationally recognized standard, and while you wouldn't be held accountable from a criminal/administrative law standpoint in a FedOSHA state as a state/local government, it could be used against you in a civil liability lawsuit to show negligence by not following generally accepted practices.

[Nozzle32]

I am new to this forum and discussion but I think there are a few things we all agree on. Firefighter safety is important, we don't want to die or be injured when it is preventable, and that some safety guidlines are neccessary.

The question is will 2 in 2 out make the job safer?

First the issue has been raised about the increased burn time while waiting for the next "2" 2-3 minutes of burn time while waiting for the next apparatus can hae a significant negative impact on interior operational safety.

Second,it is pretty common to establish a second line for back-up stairwell protection, egress protection, the second floor etc. with this rule the back up team will not exist until the third company in arrives, further delaying "safe" operations.

Third, if you have 2 or twenty people inside the structure there is no provision for more than 2 out. If something happens inside what will 2 firefighters really be able to accomplish when 4 members are in trouble inside? Additionally a municipal department a friend works at did a "firefighter rescue drill" in this drill 2 firefighters were simulated to have fallen through the floor. It took 20+ minutes with 2 truck companies and an engine to effect the rescue.

The respiratory standard was originally meant for confined space, HAZMAT etc and was applied to interior firefighting operations with the thinking "Well, its an IDLH atmoshere and they are wearing respirators...

Almost 75% of FF LODD are not related to fireground activities and of those that were many were not following already established standards like accountability systems. That means at worst for over 700,000 structural fires a year only 25 are killed. Show me another industry where there is as good a safety record with similar hazards.

Firefighting is not without risk, and the goal of reducing that risk is one which we all should strive for. However ineffective rules that have the potential for increasing our risk which must be obeyed at the peril of our careers and fines levied by an agency who doesn't know how to fight fire does not serve us or our community. I truely blieve their are those who, in their pursuit of ultimate safety, will not rest until we are holding handlines from the curb at every fire...

[This message has been edited by Nozzle32 (edited March 17, 1999).]

[ka]

<<Now, there is some case to be made (although it's strength really depends on how good your lawyers are vs. theirs) that OSHA is a nationally recognized standard>>

OSHA is not a stardard. There already have been deaths in agreement states and non-agreement states. No fines, no one locked up, just compliance needed letters within 30 days.

<<it could be used against you in a civil liability lawsuit to show negligence by not following generally accepted practices. >>

Not likely, because somehting else would be inplace. IE if the speed limit isn't 55 mph it is 35. etc.

if osha OR 2 IN 2 OUT WAS A GREAT IDEA EVERY STATE WOULD ADOPT IT.