Closed Thread
Page 2 of 2 First 12

Thread: hose bed nets

  1. #26
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chiefmeyer301 View Post
    ya know reading all this c@#@$$%p about lawyers and such takes me back to when i was prob 19-20. i worked for a old man in a auto shop and this one old boy that came in 2-3 times a week said something that at the time i just blew off. the more things change in this world the more of what he said makes complete sence and i quote " insurance companys and lawyers are like penicyllin (sp) and the clap you dont need one without the other" end quote. even with the misspelling i think the point is there just too many sue happy people and it will not get better till they make the lawyers and judges pay the costs when they lose. this is off subject but a good exsample is about year or so back a jury of 12 and judge awarded a real idiot 350,000.00 for the loss of three fingers on one hand and 4 on the other when he tryed to pickup his push mower and use it to trimm the side of his hedge. where did they find the 12 dumb a##s to sit on that jury. i rest my case.
    So we can assume that if it was your daughter, or your mom, that got killed by hose falling off a fire rig and getting dragged you wouldn't seek damages from the Fire Department involved. Right? Sorry, you live in fantasy land. Of course there are frivilous lawsuits. But if through negligence or error you or a loved one is injured or killed those responsible must be held responsible.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  2. #27
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Sibley,Il.
    Posts
    106

    Smile

    i did not say that i disagreed to the subject just that every hangnail dont need a 250,000.00 payment. yes the should be compinsated for there loss and such. just think the line of people to get there pockets picked needs to be limited to who is the tru one or ones at fault, not every one down to the dalmation dog.
    Randy Meyer Chief S.T.F.P.D.

  3. #28
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,868

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    So we can assume that if it was your daughter, or your mom, that got killed by hose falling off a fire rig and getting dragged you wouldn't seek damages from the Fire Department involved. Right? Sorry, you live in fantasy land. Of course there are frivilous lawsuits. But if through negligence or error you or a loved one is injured or killed those responsible must be held responsible.
    I'm not disagreeing with doing the right thing and preventing tragedies such as the one that caused this, but this country lets far more things go and one or two tragic accidents and NFPA makes a knee jerk reaction. I'd be just as angry if my daughter or mom was killed by a drunk driver, when the technology exists to prevent them from driving, yet we fail to require it of all vehicles. Or how about a reckless speeding car? Why do cars exceed 65-70 MPH? Heck right now we have the technology to ensure the car doesn't exceed the posted speed limit wherever the car is, yet we don't mandate it?

    The fact is that a very sad tragic accident caused this change. Maybe it's not a huge issue, but it's just one of the many mandates that come about from very low frequency events in this business. Yet other far more frequent tragedies fail to have interventions. We kill about 100 of our own a year, yet fail to ensure proper staffing that likely could reduce this number more than any other single factor. Why is this?
    Last edited by RFDACM02; 05-14-2010 at 12:42 AM.

  4. #29
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chiefmeyer301 View Post
    i did not say that i disagreed to the subject just that every hangnail dont need a 250,000.00 payment. yes the should be compinsated for there loss and such. just think the line of people to get there pockets picked needs to be limited to who is the tru one or ones at fault, not every one down to the dalmation dog.
    So Chief are the 2 people mentioned here, the little girl and the elderly lady, that were both KILLED by loose hoses flying around of adequate injury that their families can seek compensation?

    Frankly this comment by you is so far off topic as to be ludicrous.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  5. #30
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    I'm not disagreeing with doing the right thing and preventing tragedies such as the one that caused this, but this country lets far more things go and one or two tragic accidents and NFPA makes a knee jerk reaction. I'd be just as angry if my daughter or mom was killed by a drunk driver, when the technology exists to prevent them from driving, yet we fail to require it of all vehicles. Or how about a reckless speeding car? Why do cars exceed 65-70 MPH? Heck right now we have the technology to ensure the car doesn't exceed the posted speed limit wherever the car is, yet we don't mandate it?

    The fact is that a very sad tragic accident caused this change. Maybe it's not a huge issue, but it's just one of the many mandates that come about from very low frequency events in this business. Yet other far more frequent tragedies fail to have interventions. We kill about 100 of our own a year, yet fail to ensure proper staffing that likely could reduce this number more than any other single factor. Why is this?
    Drunk drivers to this issue? Irrelevant...
    Firefighter deaths to this issue? Irrelevant...
    Fire crew staffing to this issue? Irrelevant...

    I had never had a hose load fall off a rig in 33 years. Until last week. We had a fire reloaded the crosslay and on the way to the next run, BOOM, there it all went laid out straight down the road. What did we do wrong? Not a damn thing and yet it still fell off the rig.

    Hose bed covers or nets? Not an option, a necessity for our citizens safety.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  6. #31
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,868

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Hose bed covers or nets? Not an option, a necessity for our citizens safety.
    I don't see it. How is this protection determined to be a necessity when far more people are killed by drunk drivers? Nothing is irrelevant if your looking to make the roads safer for our citizens.

    BUt, fine I get it, this is your thing and all of us have one or two of these, so rail away, I'm certainly not fighting hosebed nets, merely the means by which some of these mandates come about.

  7. #32
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    I don't see it. How is this protection determined to be a necessity when far more people are killed by drunk drivers? Nothing is irrelevant if your looking to make the roads safer for our citizens.

    BUt, fine I get it, this is your thing and all of us have one or two of these, so rail away, I'm certainly not fighting hosebed nets, merely the means by which some of these mandates come about.
    You are making a really common high school debating class error in your argument. You can't logically debate against hose bed nets or covers having the potential to save lives so you expand the topic into totally unrelated areas. Essentially you have surrendered the argument.

    Are drunk drivers an issue? Of course but they have nothing to do with this topic.

    Are firefighter deaths an issue near and dear to all of us in this business? Of course but they have nothing to do with this topic.

    Is fire apparatus staffing an issue near and dear to us in this business. Of it is but it has nothing to do with this topic.

    You call it this my thing, not really. I thought they sucked at first. That whole one or 2 seconds it took to move it seemed an eternity. But I see a different picture now and if I were driving, or the officer, or the guy that loaded that hosebed that fell off and killed someone that would be damn tough to live with. Mandates are a pain in the *** especially the ones that seem to have no basis. But this one makes complete sense to me and the opposite view has nothing to stand on except "We've always done it that way."

    Sorry if I seem a little over zealous, but this topic seems a complete no brainer to me.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  8. #33
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,868

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    You are making a really common high school debating class error in your argument. You can't logically debate against hose bed nets or covers having the potential to save lives so you expand the topic into totally unrelated areas. Essentially you have surrendered the argument.
    Win, lose, whatever, you missed my point. I'm not arguing against hosebed nets. My issue is with continually allowing NFPA to make snap judgements or other decisions that may have a negative impact on the fire service while selling them as "safety".

    Let's make it slightly more relevant shall we: Why don't we have a national apparatus driving standard mandate? Do we not injure and kill more civilians by crashing into them than flapping hoses? You see what I am dong here is using your example of a low frequency occurrence to question why higher frequency occurrences are overlooked.

    Honestly, the nets are fine with me. They're cheap, and when properly specced or designed don't add more than 2 seconds to the stretch. Happy?
    Last edited by RFDACM02; 05-15-2010 at 01:20 PM.

  9. #34
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    What happened to the two guys in the front seat? They CAN'T see a hose coming loose? I can think of about twice in 40 years we've had a load shift,both times the nozzle just about made it to the step. Now the nets/covers are a good idea but a little of the prevention needs to fall on the crew. T.C.

  10. #35
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,802

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    Win, lose, whatever, you missed my point. I'm not arguing against hosebed nets. My issue is with continually allowing NFPA to make snap judgements or other decisions that may have a negative impact on the fire service while selling them as "safety".

    Let's make it slightly more relevant shall we: Why don't we have a national apparatus driving standard mandate? Do we not injure and kill more civilians by crashing into them than flapping hoses? You see what I am dong here is using your example of a low frequency occurrence to question why higher frequency occurrences are overlooked.

    Honestly, the nets are fine with me. They're cheap, and when properly specced or designed don't add more than 2 seconds to the stretch. Happy?

    I can answer that question. Hose bed covers are a product that you can be sold, training standards for drivers will probably be done by State Fire Bureaus and not involve much income. So obviously NFPA zeros in on the hosebed covers because it creates another product for the fire service to buy.

    I agree though its silly the NFPA focuses on these little things, when tackling bigger fish can have a profound impact on firefighter and civilian safety. Billy Bob buried the fire engine into that mini van because he had no training on vehicle operations, but thank god the hose was secured in the bed.

  11. #36
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nameless View Post
    I can answer that question. Hose bed covers are a product that you can be sold, training standards for drivers will probably be done by State Fire Bureaus and not involve much income. So obviously NFPA zeros in on the hosebed covers because it creates another product for the fire service to buy.

    I agree though its silly the NFPA focuses on these little things, when tackling bigger fish can have a profound impact on firefighter and civilian safety. Billy Bob buried the fire engine into that mini van because he had no training on vehicle operations, but thank god the hose was secured in the bed.
    YOU let Billy Bob DRIVE? He was suspended for DWI Lawnmower. Whats up with THAT? hehe T.C.

  12. #37
    Forum Member
    GTRider245's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Augusta,GA
    Posts
    3,064

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    I don't see it. How is this protection determined to be a necessity when far more people are killed by drunk drivers? Nothing is irrelevant if your looking to make the roads safer for our citizens.
    Becuase it is the one we as a fire department can control. We have all of the control in the world over securing hose loads and none what so ever on drunk drivers.

    I agree with Fyred, irrelevant.
    Career Firefighter
    Volunteer Captain

    -Professional in Either Role-

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue101 View Post
    I don't mind fire rolling over my head. I just don't like it rolling UNDER my a**.

  13. #38
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    69

    Default

    RFDACM02 said:

    > Let's make it slightly more relevant shall we: Why don't we have a
    > national apparatus driving standard mandate?
    Do we not injure and
    > kill more civilians by crashing into them than flapping hoses? You see
    > what I am dong here is using your example of a low frequency occurrence
    > to question why higher frequency occurrences are overlooked.

    Check out NFPA 1451 Standard for a Fire Service Vehicle Operations Training Program and/or you can refence NFPA 1500 Occupational Safety and Health Program, Chapter 6 Fire Apparatus, Equipment, and Drivers/Operators which also calls for training for operators.

    Here is the thing on NFPA standards: Unless you are in a state that has adopted them as a code, there is no requirment that you comply. That being said, when you ignore them and bad things happen, you may have to explain why you didn't follow them, seeing as you were told. The NFPA 1901 requirments seem to tweak everyone each time, while others like 1500 or 1451 sneak by under the radar to the point where you don't even know they exist. The reason for this is because the NFPA 1901 recommendations are read by the Apparatus Manufacturer who then insists on building those new adaptions in. Mainly because they know they will be named in the lawsuit when bad things happen if they skipped steps in NFPA 1901. There is no manufacturer that is going to insist that NFPA 1451 be in place, so it flys under the radar.

    Brian
    Last edited by SWFD22; 05-17-2010 at 10:29 AM. Reason: Quoted section didn't show up as "quoted"

  14. #39
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,868

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SWFD22 View Post
    Check out NFPA 1451 Standard for a Fire Service Vehicle Operations Training Program and/or you can refence NFPA 1500 Occupational Safety and Health Program, Chapter 6 Fire Apparatus, Equipment, and Drivers/Operators which also calls for training for operators.
    Trust me, I know what standards are out there. Why we cannot actually require they be followed is the real question. Money is the real answer.
    Quote Originally Posted by SWFD22 View Post
    Here is the thing on NFPA standards: Unless you are in a state that has adopted them as a code, there is no requirment that you comply. That being said, when you ignore them and bad things happen, you may have to explain why you didn't follow them, seeing as you were told.
    OK, so which is it? We have to follow NFPA or don't we? Non-mandatory standards can be used in court to show an industry standard, but name 10 cases where this has actually happened. The apparatus standards become mandatory because they saddle the builders with liability so they refuse to bend (for some) on these safety standards. Most FD's in the US ignore a large portion of the NFPA standards, and bad things don't seem to happen at all...

  15. #40
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,174

    Default

    http://www.firefighterclosecalls.com.../newsid/107951

    By the way, Wisconsin has some of the NFPA standards. They also have set minimum training standards for the state's firefighters including driver operators.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  16. #41
    Forum Member
    DubyaVFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Maitland, NS, Canada
    Posts
    102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FiremanLyman View Post
    Sort of like new apparatus with seat belt alarms... wouldn't need big brother forcing safety devices if people did the right thing in the first place.
    Sad but true.
    "I've met lots of volunteer firefighters, but I've never seen a volunteer fire!"
    - R. MacLeod, Alma VFD

  17. #42
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    Trust me, I know what standards are out there. Why we cannot actually require they be followed is the real question. Money is the real answer.

    OK, so which is it? We have to follow NFPA or don't we? Non-mandatory standards can be used in court to show an industry standard, but name 10 cases where this has actually happened. The apparatus standards become mandatory because they saddle the builders with liability so they refuse to bend (for some) on these safety standards. Most FD's in the US ignore a large portion of the NFPA standards, and bad things don't seem to happen at all...
    Ok, maybe I don't understand your point, or maybe you have multiple points. You said

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    My issue is with continually allowing NFPA to make snap judgements or other decisions that may have a negative impact on the fire service while selling them as "safety".
    And then you commented on "mandated" driver training. The NFPA standard for operator training is there; you know it and so do I. Is your department complying with that standard? If not, do you think you should? If your point is that we should all strive to properly train drivers to decrease accidents, we agree. If your point is that we should strive to properly train drivers to decrease accidents instead of installing hose bed nets because there are more driving accidents than loss of hose loads, we disagree. We cannot and should not hold off on fixing the small things because we have not yet gotten a handle on the larger things.

    You and I agree that most departments are forced to comply with NFPA 1901 due to the manufacturer realizing that the liability will fall upon them, but other standards are out there looking for voluntary compliance. Actually, though, while the apparatus is delivered compliant with NFPA 1901, it's up to the department to maintain it that way. For instance, one could remove the hose bed nets.

    I could probably come up with a number of cases where a non-mandetory standard is used to show an industry standard, but none of them would have anything to do with an apparatus accident, so I'm not sure it's worth the effort. I will say that NFPA 921, which is titled "Guide for Fire & Explosion Investigations", which by it's own title is a guide, has been used to discredit shoddy fire investigations. (also been used to try to discredit good fire investigations, but that's a topic for a different forum).

    Brian

  18. #43
    Forum Member
    Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,240

  19. #44
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    62

    Default


    10 Days Later. I know it's not a pre connect but my guess would be there was nothing to stop it

    http://www.firefighterclosecalls.com.../newsid/108631

    Good reasons to have nets or tarps or someething to stop that hose from coming off the truck.

  20. #45
    Forum Member
    Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MColley View Post
    10 Days Later. I know it's not a pre connect but my guess would be there was nothing to stop it

    http://www.firefighterclosecalls.com.../newsid/108631

    Good reasons to have nets or tarps or someething to stop that hose from coming off the truck.
    Yep I saw that one today too.

Closed Thread
Page 2 of 2 First 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. ISO Company Personnel
    By FIRE549 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 05-16-2007, 06:15 PM
  2. Required equipment on a pumper
    By taskforce16 in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-27-2007, 04:51 PM
  3. Question Regarding Milwaukee Engine Hose Bed?
    By FFFRED in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 02-10-2006, 04:30 PM
  4. Bed gets too hot for tanning
    By Firebug030 in forum Fire Wire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-22-2002, 09:02 AM
  5. Hose loads
    By smokeater81 in forum Emergency Vehicle Operations
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-31-2002, 09:52 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register