Traffic safety vests?

[Tmg]

Does anyone else work for a PD that makes you were one of these?

Mine does and i hate the damn things. We have to wear them for all accidents. Personally i feel if the person does not see the 5 police cars 2 fire trucks and the ambulance with all there emergency lights on then the vest wont help any.

I guess this is more of a rant cause i hate wearing the damn thing. So who else has to wear them?

[LA DEP]

Being discussed here:

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98176

Our union would be going to war if my agency did anything this stupid......

We actually want to be LESS visible here in LA.....not more......

[KenW.]

We're going through CALEA now, and they require them to be issued. We've placed a bulk order.

[simplyacop]

I know they are not the most comfortable things, but they are designed to be the extra line of protection. Yeah people see lights on all the cars, but wouldn't you like to have that vest on if you were ever hit and the guy's insurance company says "well my client didn't see you..you were not visible?"

[creolecop]

We have to for traffic accidents while the vehicles are still on the roadway, or if we have to block off some of the roadway as a result. Also if we have to work traffic control. I hate mine also, but it's really not that big of a deal. We can take ours off as soon as we clear the roadway at a crash. I usually have them pull into a parking lot and finish the paperwork and investigation so I can take off that thing.

[DeputySC]

Our recently revised policy is to have them on during traffic stops, directing traffic, or traffic accidents.

It gets better.....We have these 'special duty' assignments we can volenteer to work for extra money here and there. Powers to be wants us to wear the traffic safety vest whenever we work these gigs and we are not inside a vehicle. It does not matter if the assignment is inside a mall or outside at a baseball game.

[2971511]

I had a co-worker killed in the line of duty. He was in a marked car, with lights on directing traffic at a highway closure, and he was struck and killed by a drunk driver. Vests are a GREAT idea for anyone working on the highway at night or during periods of low visibility. There is a new OSHA requirment that all personnel operating on a highway that receives federal funding be wearing a type whatever glow vest.

I never used to wear it, but I put it on whenever I get out of the car @ any crashes I work.

I think wearing them in certain venues, like inside a mall is a little overkill

[nebraska_deputy]

Moved it to the other forum

[simplyacop]

Wear it during a traffic stop?!?!?! now that is too much

[PeteBroccolo]

My Force's National policy now REQUIRES us to wear at least a green / yellow with silver reflective striped vest, if not a jacket, that complies with the current North American safety standards, whenever conducting traffic duties (traffic stops, road blocks, check points). OH&S rules never used to apply to members of my Force until about 13 years ago. The Criminal Code of Canada now has sections that codify criminal liability for supervisors of any workers if the workers are not using / wearing proper safety equipment properly.

I am on a Traffic enforcement Unit, so I wear my vest all the time, as it is easy to remove if I have to respond to back up the General Duty members on a call. I also have a full Gore-Tex jacket. My vest is personal issue, while the jacket is Unit issue. Both of them are sized to fit over my patrol jacket (with liner or sweater) or parka.

[Red Swan]

where mine for most traffic accidents..basically whenever i am on the road way..not mandatory just something i think is a good idea..but for traffic stops.........lol...that's a little extreme

[SgtCHP]

23 CFR 634: Use of High-Visibility Apparel When Working on Federal-Aid Highways

Summary: There are several outstanding issues concerning the new requirement for emergency responders to wear high-visibility clothing on federal-aid highways. Please read this summary for some additional information and links to download original documents.
Description:

Federal Government Begins Mandating High-Visibility Vests for Emergency Responders

On November 24, 2008, a new federal regulation (23 CFR 634) goes into effect mandating that anyone working in the right-of-way of a federal-aid highway must be wearing high-visibility clothing that meets the requirements of ANSI / ISEA 107; 2004 edition class 2 or 3. This requirement will apply to all emergency responders.

The Code of Federal Regulations Title 23 (Highways) Part 634 was originally published in the Federal Register Vol 71, No 226, pp 67792 - 67800. The Rule itself (634.3) simply states that:

"All workers within the right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway who are exposed either to traffic (vehicles using the highway for purposes of travel) or to construction equipment within the work area shall wear high-visibility safety apparel."

Definitions (634.2) within Part 634 cover what is meant by "Workers" and "high-visibility safety apparel". Emergency responders are included in this definition anytime they are working "within the right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway" with some exceptions for law enforcement officers working on an incident involving criminal activity (see below).

"High-Visibility Safety Apparel" is defined to mean "personal protective safety clothing that is intended to provide conspicuity during both daytime and nighttime usage, and that meets the Performance Class 2 or 3 requirements of the ANSI/ISEA 107–2004".

ANSI 207, Public Safety Vests

After 23 CFR 634 was finalized, a new standard for Public Safety Vests was published as ANSI / ISEA 207; 2006 edition. Because ANSI 207 was not published until after 23 CFR 634 was finalized, the federal regulation could only reference ANSI 107.

ANSI 107 requires that class 2 garments (vests) have at least 775 square inches of high-visibility, fluorescent background material and at least 201 square inches of reflective material. While the ANSI 207 requirement for reflective material is the same (201 in2), it requires only 450 square inches of background material. Therefore, ANSI 207 vests do not meet the requirements of ANSI 107 and therefore do not currently meet the requirements of 23 CFR 634.

The DOT Federal Highway Administration’s Associate Administrator for Operations has written a letter to the Emergency Responder Safety Institute that is being circulated in discussions about this issue. (Click here to download a copy of the letter.) The letter acknowledges that they have reviewed ANSI 207 and “found this standard compatible with the ANSI/ISEA [107] Class II requirements for night-time visibility.” Those affected by 23 CFR 634 should understand that the high-visibility clothing must be worn day and night, so this statement by the FHWA does not officially validate the use of ANSI 207 vests in place of ANSI 107 where legally mandated.

Proposed Changes to the Rule

The DOT/FHWA has proposed a number of changes that will affect 23 CFR 634. Of the most immediate concern is that they propose allowing ANSI 207 vests for emergency responders. This change cannot go into effect in time for the November 24 deadline and is not likely to go into effect until the 2nd or 3rd quarter of 2009. In a much more comprehensive change, the current proposals would incorporate 23 CFR 634 into the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). This would make high-visibility garments (under the proposal, either 107 or 207 certified) mandatory for anyone working on “all roads open to public travel in accordance with 23 CFR Part 655, not just Federal-aid highways.”

The proposed changes concerning 23 CFR 634 can be read by downloading a pdf document of the proposed changes for the MUTCD. The items already mentioned are:

• 362 (page 317) – incorporation into the MUTCD and extending high-visibility clothing mandate to all roads
• 375 & 376 (page 318) – allowing ANSI 207 vests for first responders and law enforcement personnel.

The proposed changes are open for public review and comment until July 31, 2008. If you would like to comment on proposed changes to the MUTCD you are encouraged to do so at www.regulations.gov. You can also mail your comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,SE., Washington, DC 20590, or fax them to (202) 493–2251. Be sure to include the docket number no matter which method you chose for submitting comments.

The docket number for the MUTCD Notice of proposed Amendments (NPA) is FHWA-2007-28977.

Exceptions for Emergency Responders

Due to "comments from State and local police, national police organizations, and State DOTs" the original publishment in the federal register includes exceptions for law enforcement officers working in potentially adversarial or confrontational roles. This includes traffic stops and searches. Officers are still required under 23 CFR 634 to wear high-visibility clothing during other times, such as "directing traffic, investigating crashes, and handling lane closures, obstructed roadways, and disasters within the right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway." (The language for this exception can be found in the 2nd column of page 67797 of the publication in the Federal Register Vol. 71, No 226 which can be downloaded using the link below)
Currently no such exception exists for firefighters. Some fire service personnel have expressed concern about the idea of adding a layer of potentially flammable material between their turnout gear and SCBA while battling car fires or during an extrication. Because those views were not expressed during the comment period of 23 CFR 634 no exceptions or interpretations for fire service operations were published along with the rule.

Further, all fire department personnel should be aware that turnout gear alone does not meet the visibility requirement. No turnout gear currently manufactured meets the color requirement for the fluorescent background material of these high-visibility garments. Even if turnout gear could be dyed to meet the color standard when manufactured, it would no longer be compliant after the first exposure to fire, smoke, and soot. Fire departments should consider fire resistance of materials (and their limitations) as part of their criteria for selecting vests and writing department protocols and procedures.

NFPA 1901

Complicating the issue further, the National Fire Protection Association is set to release the 2009 edition of NFPA 1901: Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus. This edition (as written) will apply to all fire apparatus "contracted for on or after January 1, 2009" and will require "one traffic safety vest for each seating position, each vest to comply with ANSI/ISEA 207, Standard for High-Visibility Public Safety Vests, and have a five-point breakaway feature that includes two at the shoulders, two at the sides and one at the front." This requirement is included for each type of fire apparatus, for example see sections 5.8.3 (18), 6.7.3 (15), 7.7.3.1 (14), etc.

Although some vests can be purchased that are certified to meet the requirements of both ANSI 107 and 207, vests compliant only with ANSI 207 may not meet a strict legal interpretation of the 23 CFR 634 requirements scheduled to take effect in November. This is a potentially confusing liability issue that deserves close attention by all departments as the deadline approaches.

Summary

Part of the RKB mission is to try to keep our users informed of equipment-related issues, and we hope that this mission critical hint has accomplished that. The timing of 23 CFR 634 and ANSI / ISEA 207 was unfortunate, but the complications are being addressed by the MUTCD proposed changes. The difficulty and confusion will be in the short term, between the effective date of 23 CFR 634 on November 24th and the time the proposed changes are implemented. Every source contacted by the RKB staff has made it clear that the eventual intent is for either the ANSI 107 or 207 vests to be used.

However, no one has been able to say with certainty what will happen if there is a serious injury or fatality to a responder wearing a 207-compliant vest while the unchanged 23 CFR 634 is in effect. That may be decided in court. Departments should consider getting an opinion from their counsel to assist in deciding their compliance strategy.

We hope that every department will plan now for this new requirement under 23 CFR 634, and also plan ahead with funding and training for the later changes that will likely extend the safety-vest requirements to all public roads.

Additional Information
• 23 CFR 634 can be downloaded here as a pdf
• Click here to read the original publication in the Federal Register
• Proposed rule revisions for incorporating 23 CFR 634 into the MUTCD
• Download the DOT letter concerning 23 CFR 634 and ANSI / ISEA 207 by clicking here
• Click here to dowlload a draft copy of NFPA 1901; 2009 edition from the NFPA website
Knowledge Links
Related AEL/SEL Item(s)

[01ZA-06-VEST] Vest or Outer Garment, High-visibility

[bigcitypolice06]

Being discussed here:

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98176

Our union would be going to war if my agency did anything this stupid......

We actually want to be LESS visible here in LA.....not more......

Exactly! I like my dark blue uniform and black gear....DOT can wear the shiny vest and play target....I'll stick to stalking my prey in the shadows...

[LA DEP]

SgtCHP,

Does this apply to only 'federally funded' roadways?.....such as the freeway ect?.....

[SgtCHP]

SgtCHP,

Does this apply to only 'federally funded' roadways?.....such as the freeway ect?.....

Any FEDERALLY FUNDED roadway. Freeways, InterStates, Highways, Roadways, etc. I think there are a couple of surface streets throughout L.A. County that still qualify as such.

[LA DEP]

Any FEDERALLY FUNDED roadway. Freeways, InterStates, Highways, Roadways, etc. I think there are a couple of surface streets throughout L.A. County that still qualify as such.

copy....thanks.....

Unless things have changed in the last few months, we dont even issue these......never mind actually wearing them......

I would take one of the 'invisibility cloaks' that they were talking about on Discovery in a heartbeat if I could.....:D

[btfp]

You need to re read the law. NOT federally funded, but FEDERALLY AIDED.
That is a huge difference.
Will you be in trouble for not wearing one?
No one is going to arrest you, but heaven forbid if you are struck by a vehicle and injured. The defense lawyer will have a field day. "Officer, you did not feel like wearing your vest"... It could come down to a workers comp issue that they deny your benefits or give you a hard time about getting them because you were not wearing your vest.
Do yourselves a favor. Please wear these things, so that we don't have to read about another officer stuck by auto article.......

[SgtCHP]

Federal-aid highways and Federally funded highways is a matter of semantics. In either case, they pertain to the use of Federal Monies being used to build, repair, modify or rebuild highways, roadways, etc either totally or with matching funds. They may also include surface streets the intersect with Interstate Highways or Federally numbered roadways.

The law is definitive in its intent and mandatory in its application. A violation of the mandate can lead to a cancellation of federal participation or monies allocated for the project. Much like the old 55 MPH law of 1974. If states fail to comply they risk heavy sanctions of fines and losses of contracts.

[Frank Booth]

23 CFR 634: Use of High-Visibility Apparel When Working on Federal-Aid Highways

Summary: There are several outstanding issues concerning the new requirement for emergency responders to wear high-visibility clothing on federal-aid highways. Please read this summary for some additional information and links to download original documents.
Description:

Federal Government Begins Mandating High-Visibility Vests for Emergency Responders

I believe the same rules will require police to establish a uniform system of signs, barricades, etc for crashes of various types. The requirements state how far down the road the signs, barricades and/or flare patterns are set up in advance of the crash. I think some of them require signs to be set up as much as two miles down the road. As was already mentioned, you probably won't get sent to Leavenworth if you DON'T comply, but God help you if someone gets rear ended and killed waiting in traffic upstream from your crash and you your set-up wasn't compliant with the rules.

[katseiye]

It certainly comes in handy at night while working a TA. There are enough light sgoing that its hard to discern a mag or streamlight of an officer directin traffic. After all the driving public is in tunnel vision mode wanting to see brains, blood and such.

Admitted its a pain but I'd raather not be an additional statistic if I can help it.

[Rush817]

We are required to wear them on all accidents where we are on a public roadway. I think anything that helps the driving public see me, while working an accident at night is a plus!

[Five-0fromSoCal]

Being discussed here:

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98176

Our union would be going to war if my agency did anything this stupid......

We actually want to be LESS visible here in LA.....not more......

I agree. Actually, I've never seen any SoCal dept wear them. Except for CHP wearing the reflective rain gear. I couldn't imagine any Dep wearing a vest.

[wirefire2]

I know they are not the most comfortable things, but they are designed to be the extra line of protection. Yeah people see lights on all the cars, but wouldn't you like to have that vest on if you were ever hit and the guy's insurance company says "well my client didn't see you..you were not visible?"

Its sad that the fact some jerk-off missed the half dozen emergency vehicles and hits someone and comes down if the person was wearing a vest or not. Forget the blatant neglect on the driver it somehow becomes the victims fault that he/she was run over. I hate attorneys.

[Zamkn]

We wear them when directing traffic and working accident scenes. No traffic stops. That seems excessive.