Turnout Gear on Roadway Incidents

[DeputyMarshal]

"Not necessarily flaggers but, in addition to blocking off a buffer zone around them as well as practical, somebody should be watching their backs."

I agree. To me, this is much better protection than a vest.

And all that and wearing the vest too for everyone who doesn't have a specific reason not to wear one is better protection still.

[HuntPA]

Call me stupid, but to me, I would like to see Globe, MP, and the others develop the materials in the gear so that they can be ANSI compliant on their own. I don't think that it would be that great of a problem to do so, but I am not a textile engineer. As we are "supposed" to wash our gear any time that it becomes even slightly soiled, it should stay nice and bright.

Personally, I would still wear the vest so that I could take the coat off when prudent and still be able to be more visible.

[ChiefKN]

Call me stupid, but to me, I would like to see Globe, MP, and the others develop the materials in the gear so that they can be ANSI compliant on their own. I don't think that it would be that great of a problem to do so, but I am not a textile engineer. As we are "supposed" to wash our gear any time that it becomes even slightly soiled, it should stay nice and bright.

Personally, I would still wear the vest so that I could take the coat off when prudent and still be able to be more visible.

I hear you... In the summer, I always liked the option to not wear my structural coat if working on the roadway and the gear wasn't needed.

[johnsb]

I hear you... In the summer, I always liked the option to not wear my structural coat if working on the roadway and the gear wasn't needed.

I like the option of a lighter extrication type suit, lighter but still protects against flash fires and sharp edges. If they could come out with brighter dyes in the nomex or other fire resistant material, then it would make the vest moot.

[ChiefKN]

I like the option of a lighter extrication type suit, lighter but still protects against flash fires and sharp edges. If they could come out with brighter dyes in the nomex or other fire resistant material, then it would make the vest moot.

Really hate that darn vest, huh?

[johnsb]

Really hate that darn vest, huh?

Yep.

Another thing I been wondering about is that since it seems any employee that works within 50' of a street or parking lot is wearing one, are people going to become desensitized to seeing them? Just a thought.

[ChiefKN]

Yep.

Another thing I been wondering about is that since it seems any employee that works within 50' of a street or parking lot is wearing one, are people going to become desensitized to seeing them? Just a thought.

You better hope not, or then you will be required to wear the blinking light vest.

[bcjack]

Call me stupid, but to me, I would like to see Globe, MP, and the others develop the materials in the gear so that they can be ANSI compliant on their own. I don't think that it would be that great of a problem to do so, but I am not a textile engineer. As we are "supposed" to wash our gear any time that it becomes even slightly soiled, it should stay nice and bright.

Personally, I would still wear the vest so that I could take the coat off when prudent and still be able to be more visible.

Where is the money going to come from to pay for the new "High Tech" turnout gear meeting the ANSI requirements??? What is the timeline for making the transition from the old to the new???

[HuntPA]

I am sure that the additional cost will be pushed directly to us that will be purchasing the units as is the case with most unfunded government mandates, but it would be an option as I do not see all departments going with this (if it does ever become available) and going away from tradition.

I am asking for it to be done and I am in no way in any position to make it happen. Even if my department put its full purchsaing power behind the "movement" to accelerate the process, I doubt the 3 sets of gear a year will prompt much action. It is just something that I would like to see for all safety concerns.

I like the vests on all incidents, just to have the visibility among myself and the crews is enough reason for me, let alone the public. To me, being able to do a quick visual scan and see where people are and how many I can't see is a great parallel to other accountability practices.

[johnsb]

You better hope not, or then you will be required to wear the blinking light vest.

Like this??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTLoR...eature=related

[Tlagow]

This is an extrication jacket from Lakeland.

Ansi Class 3 Extrication coat using flame resistant (hi-vis yellow) Tecasafe Plus fabric.

[MemphisE34a]

I am looking to find out what others' opinions and departments guidelines are on roadway incidents and proper PPE. Currently, our department does not have a guideline on this particular topic and does not have the best practice on wearing full PPE on roadway incidents. I am trying to change and make it standard practice that any and all incidents involving working on a roadway require full turnout gear (pants, coat, helmet) and traffic safety vest. We have a constant habit of having responders show up in bunker pants only and a vest, or even less.

My standpoint is to lead by example and so EVERY roadway incident (MVA, car vs. pedestrian, bicyclist down without car) I wear full turnout gear and vest. I think that it is hard to argue with safety when I expect the same out of incoming crews and members of the company in which I am assigned. But it is hard to set this example with other officers not being on the same page and newer members seeing there is no continuity and agreeance among officers.

You ever consider that you are the one that is wrong? You wear turnout gear when you need to for thermal protection or warmth depending on climate, not just because you have it.

We spend a lot of $$ buying the best stuff possible for you, and we expect you to wear the stuff and be protected.

Same answer as above.

[bcjack]

You ever consider that you are the one that is wrong? You wear turnout gear when you need to for thermal protection or warmth depending on climate, not just because you have it.



Same answer as above.

What would you suggest as appropriate apparel to protect your firefighters and comply with Federal law????

[HuntPA]

Let's see. . . .

My standpoint is to lead by example and so EVERY roadway incident (MVA, car vs. pedestrian, bicyclist down without car) I wear full turnout gear and vest.

If it is an incident without car, what are your protecting yourself from? The DOT uses jeans, steel toe shoes, hard hat, vest, and leggings. Why do we need more if we are only directling traffic / loading a patient?
Aren't you creating more of a hazard on a humid 90 degree day by standing on the asphalt wearing full turnouts when the aforementioned is all that is required?

We spend a lot of $$ buying the best stuff possible for you, and we expect you to wear the stuff and be protected.

So am I supposed to be in SCBA as well? The exaust from those passing cars could give me CO poisoning. And we spent a lot of money on those shiny trucks, should we then run every one to every call? Or, should we run them when necessary and not induce unnecessary wear and tear when they are not needed?

[MemphisE34a]

What would you suggest as appropriate apparel to protect your firefighters and comply with Federal law????

I apologize for the extremely long delay in resonding -just saw this.

My response that you quoted was to an individual that stated he wears full structural PPE and a vest to ALL roadway incidents.

My point is that full structural turnout gear is not needed at ALL roadway responses. There are times when it is perfectly acceptable and legal to not wear turnouts and only a vest.