ANSI vest law

[MT2658]

Does anyone have any info about this new law? What happens if PD, EMS, Fire are caught not wearing them? I feel like an idiot wearing these things.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u92/EnscoSupply-Eric/CopyofEnsco023.jpg

[NYPO]

Hypothetically your department can lose federal funding. I'm sure they would get warned first but believe me, I feel your pain. We just had to switch to the bright yellow/green vests also. Looks like I'm a sanitation worker, or the construction guys standing in the road with the stop sign...

[madchiken]

There is no penalty.

[FJDave]

What is this new law of which you speak? And, when are we REQUIRED to wear them?

[MT2658]

What is this new law of which you speak? And, when are we REQUIRED to wear them?

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_register&docid=E6-19910


Police, Fire, EMS and anyone else working in the street/highway are required to wear them as of Nov 24th 2008

[tpc]

At a minimum, failure to comply will be evidence of negligence, and it might constitute recklessness sufficient to justify an enhanced workers' comp award if the department does not issue them and an officer is injured as a result.

In addition, if a citizen hits an officer who should be, but is not, wearing a reflective vest, then the officer would be considered partly at fault, reducing (or in contributory negligence states precluding) any award in his favor.

In unusual circumstances, a motorist who is injured, or injures another citizen, as a result of not seeing a signal from an officer not wearing a vest might successfully sue the officer.

[Mabbottusmc]

I still haven't received mine. No one at my station has. We'll see what happens and when we actually get them.

[LA DEP]

At a minimum, failure to comply will be evidence of negligence, and it might constitute recklessness sufficient to justify an enhanced workers' comp award if the department does not issue them and an officer is injured as a result.

In addition, if a citizen hits an officer who should be, but is not, wearing a reflective vest, then the officer would be considered partly at fault, reducing (or in contributory negligence states precluding) any award in his favor.

In unusual circumstances, a motorist who is injured, or injures another citizen, as a result of not seeing a signal from an officer not wearing a vest might successfully sue the officer.

Partially correct.....

The law only effects those agencies that work on a FEDERALLY FUNDED highway or freeway, such as the CHP.....

We have not been issued them, as far as I know, the department has not even purchased them......which is good, as it would be a waste of money....NO ONE will wear them.......

Speaking of negligence, who does the officer sue when he/she gets shot because they are lighting themselves up like a frakkin christmas tree?....:rolleyes:

[tpc]

Partially correct.....

The law only effects those agencies that work on a FEDERALLY FUNDED highway or freeway, such as the CHP.....

We have not been issued them, as far as I know, the department has not even purchased them......which is good, as it would be a waste of money....NO ONE will wear them.......

Speaking of negligence, who does the officer sue when he/she gets shot because they are lighting themselves up like a frakkin christmas tree?....:rolleyes:

My comments only apply to situations in which the officer is required by law or regulation to wear the vest but does not do so.

The last I heard, LASD was considering what to do about the vest issue in late November. I do not know what the decision was.

Many highway projects that are not interstate highways or even US highways receive federal aid. In addition, many programs, such as DUI checkpoints, receive federal funding. LASD participates in these on behalf of contract cities, I believe. I have not read the legislation carefully enough to determine whether the law might apply to DUI checkpoints.

If you get shot, you can of course sue the person who shoots you. Such people are usually judgment-proof (as well as judgment impaired).

[LA DEP]

My comments only apply to situations in which the officer is required by law or regulation to wear the vest but does not do so.

The last I heard, LASD was considering what to do about the vest issue in late November. I do not know what the decision was.

Many highway projects that are not interstate highways or even US highways receive federal aid. In addition, many programs, such as DUI checkpoints, receive federal funding. LASD participates in these on behalf of contract cities, I believe. I have not read the legislation carefully enough to determine whether the law might apply to DUI checkpoints.

If you get shot, you can of course sue the person who shoots you. Such people are usually judgment-proof (as well as judgment impaired).

You most likely wont see anyone from LASD wearing them....ordered or not.....as as DUI checkpoints go, if it becomes a requirement to wear them, then they will have to DRAFT people to work them.....no one will sign up for the overtime.......

I wasnt talking about suing the shooter....that doesnt work.....I'm talking about suing whatever IDIOT started this whole can of worms.....it obviously wasnt well thought out.....just yet another example of feds sticking their noses into LOCAL issues.....and making rules for problems that dont exist everwhere......

[McGruff]

Our motors are required to wear the nice bright yellow ones. I've only worn them during traffic details.

[tpc]

As I recall, far more officers were killed in traffic collisions than were shot in 2008. Some of those officers were directing traffic or on traffic stops.

I have seen reflective vests in use elsewhere in the country. I do not know whether they contributed to an officer being shot.

[LA DEP]

As I recall, far more officers were killed in traffic collisions than were shot in 2008. Some of those officers were directing traffic or on traffic stops.

I have seen reflective vests in use elsewhere in the country. I do not know whether they contributed to an officer being shot.

That is usually how it goes......but I still wont change my viewpoint.....

I have played 'frogger' more than once while working patrol, including diving out of the way of more than one drunk driver......The vest would not have made one damn bit of difference either way.......

My ire is also directed at the Feds.....they need to get their big noses out of everyones' business.....if the local agency somehow feels the need to issue the vests, then leave it up to them or the individual officers.....it is MY life and MY decision......same as wearing a seatbelt or a vest.....