Is there any way to get a waiver from NFPA standards over vehicle speed?
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 51
Thread: nfpa1901
-
12-01-2009, 09:54 AM #1Forum Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Posts
- 48
nfpa1901
-
12-01-2009, 09:59 AM #2MembersZone Subscriber
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Location
- CO
- Posts
- 655
-
12-01-2009, 10:04 AM #3
-
12-01-2009, 10:28 AM #4
In the nicest possible way of asking, why in the world would you want to do this?
And you realize you are talking about a complete re-design of the vehicles?
Why is the question that is begging an answer.
-
12-01-2009, 11:51 AM #5
-
12-01-2009, 11:55 AM #6Forum Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Location
- Upstate (Albany area), NY
- Posts
- 422
Tell the Assistant Chief from NYS that went to jail for not following an NFPA Standard that it's just a "suggestion"! Far from a "suggestion", the NFPA Standards are consensus-based best practices that our performances are continually being measured against. And if that measurement is being made by a judge or jury, then a FD better have an OUTSTANDING explanation as to why their plan, policy, or procedure is so much better than the national consensus standard...
LAWYER: "So Chief Smith, please explain to the jury why you decided to ignore the national standard on maximum speed of a piece of fire apparatus, and instead deliberately specified that the apparatus that killed my client's wife, son, and two daughters, be built with maximum speeds that allowed such reckless operation?"
CHIEF SMITH: "Aaahhhhh... Because we wanted to to go fast?"
Somehow, I'm not thinking that it's a winner.....Last edited by DFDCar1; 12-01-2009 at 11:59 AM.
"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking."
George S. Patton
-
12-01-2009, 12:08 PM #7Forum Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Posts
- 48
-
12-01-2009, 12:33 PM #8
-
12-01-2009, 12:42 PM #9Forum Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Posts
- 48
-
12-01-2009, 02:13 PM #10
Have you done the math to see how much (or little) time you would save increasing your speed? Yes, minutes count, but when you already have a 20 minute response time, saving maybe 1 minute off that vs. the increased risks traveling at a higher speed.......to me I'd rather get there in one piece......
-
12-01-2009, 02:35 PM #11MembersZone Subscriber
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Location
- CO
- Posts
- 655
-
12-01-2009, 02:45 PM #12MembersZone Subscriber
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
- Location
- Northeast Coast
- Posts
- 3,541
Not to split hairs here, but there are no other laws on the books regarding burning of occupied structures for fire training so in lieu of any State or local laws, a national consensus standard could be used to to prosecute. I think it might be a little more difficult to prove this in a speeding apparatus case where state law specifically allows it (if it does?)
Now of course varying specifically from this national consensus standard may not result in prosecution, but it certainly will open up the civil liability issue.
So your response time goes from 25 minutes to 18 minutes? Now what's left that is a true emergency? The exposure or the exposure's exposure?
Don't forget speed limits are set using stopping, cornering and other factors as sen in a passenger car, not a heavy vehicle with exempted drivers hopped up on adrenaline. Tell those people living in the hinterlands to start their own FD if they want a better response time instead of killing yourself or someone else getting there. The further you drive the more time you make up, but also the more civilians you expose to danger.Last edited by RFDACM02; 12-01-2009 at 02:48 PM.
-
12-01-2009, 03:04 PM #13
I thought some states had adopted NFPA into their states OSHA regs.
A civil suit will bring up NFPA, and it will come back to phuck you over. NFPA is set up for safety, so disregarding them will look like negligence. Even if they are over safe and hinder our job performance.FF/Paramedic
-
12-01-2009, 03:18 PM #14Banned
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
- Posts
- 8,677
-
12-01-2009, 03:19 PM #15Banned
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
- Posts
- 8,677
-
12-01-2009, 03:21 PM #16Forum Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Location
- Upstate (Albany area), NY
- Posts
- 422
I agree. Your statement is, in fact, correct. I was pointing out the frailty of it, for those that don't think to, or those that refuse to think it out to the next step. As much as I struggle with some of the NFPA regs, and I sometimes wonder what kind on a vacuum they were developed in, I still have to remember that it's the professional standard that my actions will be measured by, by a jury of my peers. And folks need to remember that they don't have to do anything wrong to be sued... It's just as costly in $$$ and stress to prove that you acted correctly as it is when you didn't act correctly.
"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking."
George S. Patton
-
12-01-2009, 03:24 PM #17Forum Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Location
- Upstate (Albany area), NY
- Posts
- 422
Wrong again. They passed a law, entitled "Bradley's Law" (Bradley Golden was the recruit killed in that LODD) which states that a live victim cannot be used during live fire training. that's only one little part of NFPA 1403. However in the guilty finding, and in the sentencing, the judge cited non-compliance with NFPA 1403 as a part of the finding.
"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking."
George S. Patton
-
12-01-2009, 03:52 PM #18
I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.
"The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."
"When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."
-
12-01-2009, 03:57 PM #19Forum Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
- Posts
- 259
-
12-01-2009, 04:06 PM #20
Not to nitpick, and I agree with you in principle; however, he was not convicted for "not following an NFPA standard".
He was convicted of criminally negligent homicide, for his wreckless and criminal actions at a "controlled" burn. While it's true he did not follow nfpa standards, he also didn't follow good sense and do what someone in his position should have done.
Again, it's nitpicking, but you seem to want to set the record straight, so we should keep it straight.
.I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.
"The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."
"When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
new proposed NFPA1901-2008
By firetruck101 in forum Apparatus InnovationReplies: 1Last Post: 05-28-2007, 09:01 AM

LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks





