# Reflective Vests on the Highway - 23 CFR 634



## Jon (May 25, 2008)

> Public Safety Vests are MUTCD Complaint
> National Traffic Incident Management Coalition
> 2008 Mar 26
> A Federal Highway Administration official has confirmed that the Public Safety Vest promoted by NTIMC is compliant with MUTCD standards.
> ...


<SNIP>
Article Here

http://www.workzonesafety.org/files/documents/laws_regulations/federal/nov_24_06.pdf
http://timcoalition.org/?siteid=41

So... A little survey and some discussion - Who is wearing vests now? ANSI II+? What are you doing to comply with this regulation, especially if you aren't wearing vests yet?


Additionally... Flight Crews - This seems to cover you too... are you guys going to need to start wearing vests when you are on the ground at an MVC?


----------



## akflightmedic (May 25, 2008)

Good thread.

In Florida, most counties/depts I worked for and surrounding services I was familiar with, all have been wearing vests for years per policy. Glad to see it is becoming a federal mandate as there are many who do not.

Regarding the fllight crews, per our regs we already have reflective striping on our uniforms. However, if I am landing on a road, the road is shut down...no matter how much FHP hates that. So a vest is kind of a moot point when there is no traffic. If I am not landing on scene, I am landing in a secure LZ (ball field, school parking lot,etc) and once again the vest is a moot point as there is no traffic concerns.

I do think it is a great idea and support it entirely.


----------



## Epi-do (May 25, 2008)

While we do have reflective vests on our ambulances, we are required to wear our bunker gear when on the scene of an MVC.  Because we have our gear on (with its reflective striping) we are not currently required to put the vests on.


----------



## Ridryder911 (May 25, 2008)

We have them on most of the units, fastened on the front seats. Unfortunately, I tend to forget them, but tragically I am about the only one that wears them. Ironically, I see most F/F wear them over their bunker gear as well. 

I much wear them and to be seen than to be felt...

R/r 911


----------



## ffemt8978 (May 25, 2008)

We have them on or rigs, but the only ones that wear them are the people we assign to do traffic control.  The rest of us wear either bunker gear or coveralls with reflective striping.


----------



## Flight-LP (May 25, 2008)

Everyone on our units wears one at all times when on an MVA...................


----------



## BossyCow (May 25, 2008)

We have traffic safety vests for all personnel on an MVA. They are generally worn by those who are not in bunker gear. In addition to the vests, we also have reflective tape on our coats and we're getting it on the jumpsuits we have just ordered. We got so much of that reflective tape that our MVA MOI pictures generally look like a UFO landing with all the glowing dark figures


----------



## Jon (May 26, 2008)

Ridryder911 said:


> We have them on most of the units, fastened on the front seats. Unfortunately, I tend to forget them, but tragically I am about the only one that wears them. Ironically, I see most F/F wear them over their bunker gear as well.
> 
> I much wear them and to be seen than to be felt...
> 
> R/r 911


Rid and the others who have talked about turnout gear: 
If you read the article and the law, Bunker gear isn't good enough anymore. It might have enough reflective material, but it isn't on a  high-visibility background (Lime or Orange). Around here, the PA Turnpike mandated ANSI II vests (old ANSI III) for anyone working on the 'Pike a few years back. Many of the local agencies that serve the Turnpike had the Turnpike buy the vests for them.

Many local companies now wear vests over their turnout gear regularly, and often take the vest off when they are packing up for an actual fire call.


----------



## BossyCow (May 27, 2008)

Jon said:


> Rid and the others who have talked about turnout gear:
> If you read the article and the law, Bunker gear isn't good enough anymore. It might have enough reflective material, but it isn't on a  high-visibility background (Lime or Orange). Around here, the PA Turnpike mandated ANSI II vests (old ANSI III) for anyone working on the 'Pike a few years back. Many of the local agencies that serve the Turnpike had the Turnpike buy the vests for them.
> 
> Many local companies now wear vests over their turnout gear regularly, and often take the vest off when they are packing up for an actual fire call.



The newer bunker gear we've ordered does have the Orange or green background on it. Maybe this is in response to the law. We have a wide band of the orange with the silver reflective tape in the middle.


----------



## karaya (May 27, 2008)

BossyCow said:


> The newer bunker gear we've ordered does have the Orange or green background on it. Maybe this is in response to the law. We have a wide band of the orange with the silver reflective tape in the middle.


 
I'm under an impression from reading somewhere (can't remember) that U.S. bunker manufactures have yet to develop firefighting gear that is also ANSI Class II compliant.  Don't hold me to this (still researching).

Anyhow, any gear that is ANSI compliant will have a tag attached stating which ANSI class (if any) the garment meets.


----------



## Grady_emt (May 27, 2008)

When in orientation and ordering our initial uniform orders, we are issued an ANSI II vest.  SOP says that we are to wear them at all MVCs, as well as Fire/Police standbys to make us more visible and identifiable on scene.  If on an MVC and you are not wearing a vest, and struck by a vehicle, you not only are subject to potential disciplinary action, but may/may not be covered under workers comp.










Also, our rain gear has triple-trim similar to bunker gear, however it is nowhere near enough for our idiot Atlanta drivers, and I will throw my vest on over it as well.










 I keep my vest in the pocket of the door and grab it as I step out of the unit when arriving onscene.  I do sometimes notice that I am occasionally the only one in a vest between EMS, Fire and PD:huh::censored::censored::censored::censored:.  The DOT H.E.R.O. (Highway Emerg Response Operators) have triple trim on their uniform pants, as well as ALWAYS wearing their vests.


----------



## mikeylikesit (May 27, 2008)

we have them on our rigs to. they look foolish but hey i'm still alive because of them. almost got wiped out by a truck while responding to a MVA a few months back...i had to get a new pair of pants after that call but i was still alive.^_^


----------



## ErinCooley (May 28, 2008)

We have them on the trucks, I havent worked a night MVC yet but living in the state of idiot drivers, you can bet your sweet asscheeks that I will be wearing it!

Gradyemt, have you met Kaj yet?  He is still 3rd riding, I think he finishes orientation week after next.


----------



## Pittsburgh Proud (May 29, 2008)

We have them, each person has there own issued to them and are kept in there gear bag that they throw in the truck at the beginning of each shift. If we pull up on an accident then you better have it on.
They suck and you look like a dork but I'd rather be an alive dork than a dead cool dude.B)


----------



## karaya (May 29, 2008)

Moments after I took this very photograph (about 4 years ago), I backed away while still looking through the camera's view finder to get a wider shot of the scene. Unknowingly, I was backing into an intersection and in a fraction of a second it felt like someone tugged very hard on the back of my photographer's vest causing me to spin around. As I spun around, I could see a car proceed inches by me. I remember the hair standing up on the back of my neck realizing that the car had nearly hit me and the tugging I felt a second or two earlier must have been something that my vest snagged onto from the car.

Later that night I took a closer look at my appearance. My EMS Photo Unit uniform is all black and the photographers vest was also all black. One would think that with that getup I was trying purposely to not be seen.

The next day I ordered a Gerber ANSI Type 3 coat / jacket which is highly visible day or night. Waterproof and warm with the removable liner, it's perfect for crappy weather as well as MVA's, etc. Lots of pockets for my photo accessories and I always wear it on every MVA.


----------



## mikeylikesit (May 29, 2008)

yeah that ninja look is a big no-no, but atleast you made it out with all your senses.h34r:


----------



## rescuepoppy (May 30, 2008)

We are currently required to wear vests on mvcs. How ever I have to question thier use after one of our members slipped while working a wreck snagging his vest on a part of the truck We found him hanging by his vest with his feet off the ground. He was released from the hospital after two days with no long term effects. But this is a case of the equipment we have to wear working against us.


----------



## BossyCow (May 30, 2008)

rescuepoppy said:


> We are currently required to wear vests on mvcs. How ever I have to question thier use after one of our members slipped while working a wreck snagging his vest on a part of the truck We found him hanging by his vest with his feet off the ground. He was released from the hospital after two days with no long term effects. But this is a case of the equipment we have to wear working against us.



In order to be compliant with the regs, the vests are supposed to be velcro with tear away straps. This way, if the incident you mention occurs, the vest is torn loose and can't pull the worker with it.


----------



## rescuepoppy (May 30, 2008)

BossyCow said:


> In order to be compliant with the regs, the vests are supposed to be velcro with tear away straps. This way, if the incident you mention occurs, the vest is torn loose and can't pull the worker with it.



Yeah I know but the way his vest hung and crossed in front of him it made a great noose. I am not saying vests dont have a place I just dont think people should wear them while crawling around in unstable situations, In our area F.D. usually does a great job of keeping traffic off of us so imho vests should be required only for those exposed to traffic.


----------



## karaya (May 31, 2008)

Some very important things to keep in mind on this matter. This FHWA mandate goes into effect this November and if you read the mandate, as far as EMS and Fire Services are concerned, there are no exceptions.

The wearing of ANSI compliant vests, etc. has become increasingly "standard" since the first draft of the mandate went into effect back in 2006. After November 2008, a clear standard of highway scene safety will be established. I feel that any emergency service that tries to circumvent the new law or bend the law in such a manner as to only wear the vests when certain conditions exist are in my view arrogant and reckless with the safety of their personnel. 

Should an EMS, Fire, etc. responder get injured or killed in a mandated highway area and he or she is not wearing an ANSI compliant vest, this could bring very serious litigation against the responder's service. Lack of following standards are what lawyers love to go after.

I've been summonsed to testify in several EMS lawsuits over the years (as a result of my photographs) and I seen very savvy plaintiff attorneys pick apart an accident scene. Some attorneys have even hauled in their own EMS expert witnesses to testify. They go in to win and win they usually do.

As I indicated in my earlier post, I too was almost a victim while photographing an accident scene several years ago and I have since been wearing an ANSI type 3 jacket on ALL MVCs. I hope this new law will be embraced by all emergency services for it's been long overdue.


----------



## enjoynz (May 31, 2008)

We have to wear a High Vizibility Vest to MVA's in New Zealand and any other incident where we need to be seen. Each member has their own vest, which the service supplies. Also the trucks carry High Vizibility rain coats, for us to wear in wet weather.
I have to admit I feel safer for wearing it! They also have our Service logo and Ambulance in large letters, so it makes it easier for the other emergency services to pick us out at the scene!

Cheers Enjoynz


----------



## Grady_emt (May 31, 2008)

karaya said:


> Some very important things to keep in mind on this matter. This FHWA mandate goes into effect this November and if you read the mandate, as far as EMS and Fire Services are concerned, there are no exceptions.
> 
> The wearing of ANSI compliant vests, etc. has become increasingly "standard" since the first draft of the mandate went into effect back in 2006. After November 2008, a clear standard of highway scene safety will be established. I feel that any emergency service that tries to circumvent the new law or bend the law in such a manner as to only wear the vests when certain conditions exist are in my view arrogant and reckless with the safety of their personnel.
> 
> ...





Do you know what the official title/name of this law is, or where it can be found online.  Did a quick google search with no luck.


----------



## karaya (Jun 1, 2008)

Grady_emt said:


> Do you know what the official title/name of this law is, or where it can be found online. Did a quick google search with no luck.


 
It is known as Federal Regulation 23 CFR 634.  If you look at Jon's very first post on this thread, you will see that he has provided a link to the regulation.


----------



## Ridryder911 (Aug 4, 2008)

*New OSHA rule, vests at scene of MVC*

Topic off the staging and dangers of MVC's. Many are unaware of a new Federal Regulation describing that  safety  workers (FIRE, EMS, LEO, and even tow truck drivers) must wear a reflective vest at all times at the scene. Now, these vest  must class 3 or higher (have tear away capability). This law takes affect *Nov. 2008*. By not complying States may loose Federal Highway funding .. (which all needs to keep roads open). 


http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/E6-19910.htm

_
Background

    On April 24, 2006, at 71 FR 20925, the FHWA published a NPRM 
proposing to establish a policy for the use of high-visibility safety 
apparel for workers who are working within the Federal-aid highway 
rights-of-way. This NPRM proposed regulations implementing the 
requirements of Section 1402 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) 
(Pub. L. 109-59; August 10, 2005), which directed the Secretary of 
Transportation to, within one year, issue regulations to decrease the 
likelihood of worker injury and maintain the free flow of vehicular 
traffic by requiring workers whose duties place them on or in close 
proximity to a Federal-aid highway to wear high-visibility safety 
apparel. The comment period for the NPRM closed on June 23, 2006.
    There has been an increase in the amount of maintenance and 
reconstruction of the nation's highways that is being accomplished in 
stages while traffic continues to use a portion of the street or 
highway for purposes of travel. This has resulted in an increase in the 
exposure of workers on foot to high-speed traffic and a corresponding 
increase in the risk of injury or death for highway workers.
    High visibility is one of the most prominent needs for workers who 
must perform tasks near moving vehicles or equipment. The need to be 
seen by those who drive or operate vehicles or equipment is recognized 
as a critical issue for worker safety. The sooner a worker in or near 
the path of travel is seen, the more time the operator has to avoid an 
incident. The FHWA recognized this fact and included language in the 
2000 Edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 
\1\ to address this issue.'
_

Our State EMS is now looking at taking actions against the EMT's or the EMS if they are found not participating in this safety issue. Enough, that I am ordering new vests, and *we will wear them*. Many are unaware, that by NOT wearing such if it was offered to you may exempt your employer from liability if an occurrence so happens. As well, why not? I much rather be seen than felt!....

R/r 911


----------



## enjoynz (Aug 4, 2008)

In New Zealand we have to wear them to MVA's, etc.
If we are not wearing them, we will be fined if we are caught.
Occupational Health and Safety ruling!
They only take a second to put on and zip up!
Safety first:excl:

Cheers Enjoynz


----------



## 2serveothers (Aug 4, 2008)

A great recommendation for increasing the safety of those on scene. Hi-Visability Lime Green and Orange are the proposed colors for the vests, I can remember a day when all of the EMS uniforms in my town were Flourescent Orange and White tops with Dark blue trousers with Scotchlite stripes.

There were often ribbing and complaining that they felt like a walking pumpkin. But the moral of it is, when it really mattered, they were visible. They have now went to dark tops and dark trousers (with Scotchlite as an option) which can admittingly be difficult to see under some of the best conditions. It will be interesting to see if this will have any future impact on uniform color selection also.


----------



## karaya (Aug 4, 2008)

Ridryder911 said:


> Topic off the staging and dangers of MVC's. Many are unaware of a new Federal Regulation describing that safety workers (FIRE, EMS, LEO, and even tow truck drivers) must wear a reflective vest at all times at the scene. Now, these vest must class 3 or higher (have tear away capability).
> R/r 911


 
I think you meant to say _class 2 or higher _since class 2 is the minimum standard indicated by the FHWA notice.  Tear away has been left optional.


----------



## MedicPrincess (Aug 4, 2008)

In preparation for this change, our company has ensured the vests are on all rigs.  They have published a S.O.P change  that allows for "progressive disciplinary action" for violations of the rule/law.  Currently, when caught without them, we are receiving verbal councelings.  Effective Nov 1, we will begin with the write ups, ect.

And YEP... I got my verbal a couple shifts ago.  It is such a "habit" to climb out and get to work.  Its a mindset change.  Being a part of our Safety Team, I am expected to "not forget" on the changes we are making.  And considering my truck is posted about 4 blocks from where our owers, VP of SE Region, and Medical Director all live...  I stand a great chance of getting noticed without mine on.


----------



## daedalus (Aug 4, 2008)

Thanks for the post rid/ryder. I will be asking that our units are so equipped. I am so tired of hearing of incidents of injury on the side of the highway.


----------



## medicdan (Aug 4, 2008)

Excellent news. I have been waiting for someone to flex their political-mucle and mandate it. 
In Israel, every personal vehicle (actually, every vehicle period) is required to carry one reflective vest, for the driver if/when they need to stop on the side of the road. It has become such a part of the culture that LEOs check the vests at every traffic stop.


----------



## Ridryder911 (Aug 4, 2008)

karaya said:


> I think you meant to say _class 2 or higher _since class 2 is the minimum standard indicated by the FHWA notice.  Tear away has been left optional.



Actually, apparently that is debatable. I did not post the full content because there is states debating the issue, some are requiring "tear away". It will be interesting though, to see Troopers and LEO to have to wear them apparently even on traffic stops...

R/r 911


----------



## Bosco578 (Aug 4, 2008)

We have all been issued vests, as well as extra traffic vests are kept on all units. Any time we are dispatched to an MVC I put it on prior to responding so it's on when I get out on scene. Otherwise some staff drape them over the back of the seats or hang them on the hook just behind the seats.


----------



## karaya (Aug 4, 2008)

Ridryder911 said:


> It will be interesting though, to see Troopers and LEO to have to wear them apparently even on traffic stops...
> R/r 911


 
Yes, that will be very interesting!


----------



## Bosco578 (Aug 4, 2008)

karaya said:


> Yes, that will be very interesting!



Our FD and PD are issued and wear vests at all MVC's here as well.


----------



## karaya (Aug 4, 2008)

I'm working on a new book project for one of the EMS publishers and for one of the chapters they want an image of the new vests being worn on an MVC.  I told my editor it might be a few weeks or so until we get closer to the November deadline, but I'm curious what it will look like with all that sea of green and orange.  Cops, hose jockeys and EMS all in vests!


----------



## Bosco578 (Aug 4, 2008)

karaya said:


> I'm working on a new book project for one of the EMS publishers and for one of the chapters they want an image of the new vests being worn on an MVC.  I told my editor it might be a few weeks or so until we get closer to the November deadline, but I'm curious what it will look like with all that sea of green and orange.  Cops, hose jockeys and EMS all in vests!



Yes it looks like a rainbow melted....lol


----------



## FireResuce48 (Aug 5, 2008)

I can't argue against being more visible.

But the people over here are putting the wrong ideas in peoples heads. They are making it sound like if you put the vest on you won't get hit and I have seen responders thinking they are invincible on the highways.

So just remember. The vest reflects, not protects.
Always be aware of traffic.

Ha 
I just came up with that. I like it.


----------



## motownems (Aug 5, 2008)

can anyone confirm that it has to comply with class 3 standards?  no wonder the class 2 compliant jacket I just bought was on such a great sale.:glare:


----------



## karaya (Aug 5, 2008)

It is class 2 or higher.  I'll dig up the link to this and post it.  Now keep in mind this is the FHWA ruling.  Some states have other rules for traffic safety that may require a higher class.


----------



## FireResuce48 (Aug 5, 2008)

Id have to look up the exact numbers but at highway speeds a class 3 is req.


----------



## Ridryder911 (Aug 5, 2008)

FireResuce48 said:


> I can't argue against being more visible.
> 
> But the people over here are putting the wrong ideas in peoples heads. They are making it sound like if you put the vest on you won't get hit and I have seen responders thinking they are invincible on the highways.
> 
> ...



..."Don't let your feet hit the street
Without a vest to help protect"....


----------



## karaya (Aug 5, 2008)

Okay, lot's of confusion on the FHWA ruling that goes into effect this November, but I'll try to help point some folks in the right direction. You've got a FHWA requirement known as 23 CFR Part 634 that references an ANSI certification standard known as ANSI/ISEA 107-2004. Yeeesh!

First, 23 CFR Part 634 requires that safety apparel (vests, etc.) to meet ANSI/ISEA 107-2004 certification. Here is a link to the requirement from the Federal Register: http://www.workzonesafety.org/files/documents/laws_regulations/federal/nov_24_06.pdf

This document covers the history of the ruling and results leading to the order going into effect November 28, 2008

Second, the ruling states that the high visibility apparel meet the performance class of Class 2 _OR _Class 3 requirements of ANSI/ISEA 107-2004. (see section 634.2 _Definitions_). 

Older definitions of the ANSI 107 standard that referenced environments with vehicular speed have been dropped in the 2004 revised ANSI 107 version. It should be noted that Class 3 vests have sleeves and Class 2 vests are sleeveless under the new 2004 ANSI 107 revisions. 

This link discussed the changes from ANSI 107-1999 to ANSI 107-2004.
http://www.occupationalhazards.com/...ty_Apparel_and_Headwear_Near_Publication.aspx

Hope this helps!  Good luck.


----------



## daedalus (Aug 5, 2008)

Friends don't let friends rescue on the highway with out vests!


----------



## mikie (Aug 5, 2008)

I didn't read the article in full.  For rescue crews/FD, does turnout gear suffice?  

We have always had in our SOP that on all MVAs we wear vests, or on any scene at night that involves being on the road.  Although none of us like our vests, they're these HUGE yellow vests that you could probably see from space.  They're not very flexible, we need new ones!


----------



## karaya (Aug 5, 2008)

mikie333 said:


> I didn't read the article in full. For rescue crews/FD, does turnout gear suffice?
> 
> We have always had in our SOP that on all MVAs we wear vests, or on any scene at night that involves being on the road. Although none of us like our vests, they're these HUGE yellow vests that you could probably see from space. They're not very flexible, we need new ones!


 
No, the ruling clearing spells out Class 2 or Class 3 ANSI 107-2004 performance rating.  ANSI 107-2004 certification mandates x amount of square inches of fluorescent green or orange material for daylight visibility and x amount of square inches of reflective material for night visibility.   Most turnout gear does not meet this specification.


----------



## mikie (Aug 5, 2008)

karaya said:


> Most turnout gear does not meet this specification.



Considering mine was black with a few yellow reflective bars, it probably doesn't meet that specification.


----------



## Jon (Aug 5, 2008)

Rid... I started this topic a few months ago... I merged the 2 discussions.

Jon


----------



## mikie (Aug 5, 2008)

Can someone provide a link that shows/has the difference between the different ANSI classes of protective ware?


----------



## karaya (Aug 5, 2008)

mikie333 said:


> Can someone provide a link that shows/has the difference between the different ANSI classes of protective ware?


 
Here you go... 

http://multimedia.mmm.com/mws/mediawebserver.dyn?6666660Zjcf6lVs6EVs666NA8COrrrrQ--


----------



## zippyRN (Sep 15, 2008)

karaya said:


> I'm under an impression from reading somewhere (can't remember) that U.S. bunker manufactures have yet to develop firefighting gear that is also ANSI Class II compliant.  Don't hold me to this (still researching).
> 
> Anyhow, any gear that is ANSI compliant will have a tag attached stating which ANSI class (if any) the garment meets.




 there's serious problems with the EU market and en471 compliance from fire gear - most are wearing en471 class wwasitcoats over fire gear and  fudge the risk assessment by counting the reflective o nthe fire gear to up the fire gear + HV to class 3 standards


----------



## Jon (Nov 18, 2008)

I'm bringing this thread back up - this is next week.

Does everyone have their vests?


----------



## Pittsburgh Proud (Nov 18, 2008)

Jon said:


> I'm bringing this thread back up - this is next week.
> 
> Does everyone have their vests?



I carry mine in the truck for every shift and keep it looped on my gear bag in the back of the suv. 
Any accident we pull up on it is on. I like staying alive.B)


----------



## Sapphyre (Nov 18, 2008)

we are starting to be issued these http://www.globefiresuits.com/lifeline/products/ems-gear/ems-jacket.asp as required by fire in the area.  Um, as far as I can tell though, they're not compliant.


----------



## Pittsburgh Proud (Nov 18, 2008)

It's a shame. I went to a fire show this past year where there was an agency that gives away free vest there. I stopped and talked with the gentleman for a few minutes and watched a video they had showing on the TV right there. The video showed a fireman with full bunker gear on in a dark night walk to his truck and pull a ladder or something. Showing how hard it really was to see him with all his reflective on the gear. The next shot was the same dude with a vest on and how he really GLOWED! 
I didn't care for them at first, but it is a habit. Once you start you can make the change. Like I said, I'm all about staying alive.

I wish those clips could be found on the web. They were really good to show the difference.


----------



## rjz (Nov 22, 2008)

*we wear ours*

We have had these vest for about two years now. We used to be able to chise between the vest or turnouts, but now we are required to wear teh vest no matter what. the only time we don't have to put it on is when we are fighting active fire along side a federal funded roadway. all other times the vest must be worn. I feel there is pretty good compliance it is jsut another part of our PPE.

On another note, the private ambulance provider I work for does not have anything close to this, nor have I seen the local AMR guys wearing them.


----------



## Tincanfireman (Nov 23, 2008)

Pittsburgh Proud said:


> I wish those clips could be found on the web. They were really good to show the difference.


 
Here's one from YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmsB54pwAGQ

Illustrated article from Firehouse.com (Reprintable for personal use): http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/printer.jsp?id=32419

Another video from Responder Safety: 
http://www.respondersafety.com/FeaturedVideo.aspx
(This one is geared towards the Po-Po but has good illustrations of the pull-away style vests)

A PowerPoint show with great pictures from Responder Safety:
http://www.respondersafety.com/Download.aspx?downloadID=e41bbf4b-1a6a-4862-9c6c-1d10463592f1

"If your feet are on the ground you should have a vest on your chest"


----------



## ride2k (Nov 23, 2008)

We JUST got them and now it is required that they be used on the highway. 
The reflectors on our firegear though are better than those on the vests, but we still need to wear them.


----------



## boingo (Nov 23, 2008)

Our rain jackets are compliant, so until they decide to buy vests, our rain jacket must be worn on roadway calls.  Not too bad this time of year, but will really suck in the summer.


----------



## silvercat354726 (Nov 23, 2008)

We purchased jackets last year with reflective tape on them but we got the break away vest a few months ago.  They are all loaded on our rig ready to go in a pinch!


----------



## JPINFV (Jan 14, 2009)

Bumping a thread for a question.

How can a jacket that looks like this carry a tag stating "ANSI 107-2004 Class 3" if it's not in an approved background color?


----------



## Grady_emt (Jan 14, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> Bumping a thread for a question.
> 
> How can a jacket that looks like this carry a tag stating "ANSI 107-2004 Class 3" if it's not in an approved background color?




Because it may well be....

The new standard is ANSI 207-2006, and it would not be compliant with the new one


----------



## karaya (Jan 14, 2009)

Grady_emt said:


> Because it may well be....
> 
> The new standard is ANSI 207-2006, and it would not be compliant with the new one


 

Just adding a little clarification...

The ANSI 207-2006 is not a new standard that is intended to replace ANSI 107-2004. The ANSI 207 standard is designed for specific needs of emergency first responders and in comparison to the ANSI 107 standard, the ANSI 207 only requires 450 square inches of fluorescent material while the minimum Class 2 requirements for ANSI 107-2004 is at 775 square inches.

The FHWA 23 CFR 634 mandate was already finalized when ANSI published the new 207 standard. Therefore, it is anticipated that the FHWA 23 CFR 634 mandate will not be modified to allow the ANSI 207 standard until the 2nd or 3rd quarter of this year. After the modification to the mandate, both ANSI 107 Class 2 or ANSI 207 will meet the FHWA 23 CFR minimum requirements.


----------



## motownems (Jan 16, 2009)

What do you guys think about gear that meets ANSI/ISEA 107-1999 class 2 standard? I haven’t read anything about clothing items complying with that being grandfathered in, have you?


----------



## Grady_emt (Jan 16, 2009)

No they will not be grandfathered in, unless they meet the new standard as well.   Ex...My issued traffic vest was compiant to the old standard and is also complaint to the new standard so it doesnt need to be replaced.   Something like the blue jacket pictured above that may be compliant to the old standard, is not compliant with 207 and may not be your primary gear.


----------



## Sapphyre (Jan 16, 2009)

Grady_emt said:


> Something like the blue jacket pictured above that may be compliant to the old standard, is not compliant with 207 and may not be your primary gear.



Which is why I now have to wear not only 






but on top of it, I also have to wear...


----------



## cookiexd40 (Jan 16, 2009)

in vernon we wear....

during the winter





and these during the summer....over our turnout gear on wrecks and such





i dont like it...nor does anybody else on the department but we do...


----------



## JPINFV (Jan 16, 2009)

cookiexd40 said:


> i dont like it...nor does anybody else on the department but we do...


I'll take yours if you don't like it. It shouldn't be too hard to white out the "fire" on the back of the vest.


----------



## Anomalous (Jan 16, 2009)

Does anyone know how to get the actual ANSI/ISEA standards without having to buy the whole thing?  We have winter gear that meets the 207-2006 standards but are looking for summer vests.  In particular, do they have to have to sleeves?  I have heard it both ways but I prefer to go to the source.  Google has been no help.  One supplier sells sleeveless only but they have a link for more information and it says sleeves are required.  _I'm sooo confused._:wacko:


----------



## karaya (Jan 16, 2009)

Anomalous said:


> Does anyone know how to get the actual ANSI/ISEA standards without having to buy the whole thing? We have winter gear that meets the 207-2006 standards but are looking for summer vests. In particular, do they have to have to sleeves? I have heard it both ways but I prefer to go to the source. Google has been no help. One supplier sells sleeveless only but they have a link for more information and it says sleeves are required. _I'm sooo confused._:wacko:


 
ANSI 107-2004 Class 2 is the minimum vest requirement per the FHWA 23 CFR 634 mandate. Class 2 is a sleeveless garment with 775 sq. inches of fluorescent material. A Class 3 garment has 1240 sq. inches of fluorescent material and is usually in the form of a coat, jacket, etc. with sleeves. Remember, Class 2 is the minimum. An ANSI 107-2004 Class 3 garment also meets, and in this case, exceeds the FHWA 23 CFR 634 mandate.

Here is a link to a very good PDF on the subject:

http://www.firescope.org/specialist-groups/safety/downloads/FIRE%20SERVICE%20USE%20OF%20HIGH%20VISIBILITY%20SAFETY%20VESTS%20Q%20&%20A%20v2_2l.pdf


----------



## WiFi_Cowgirl (Jan 20, 2009)

I often wonder if they will make us more visible, or better targets!?!


----------



## karaya (Jan 20, 2009)

WiFi_Cowgirl said:


> I often wonder if they will make us more visible, or better targets!?!


 
Better targets?  Better targets as in getting shot?  You can't be serious?


----------



## WiFi_Cowgirl (Jan 20, 2009)

karaya said:


> Better targets?  Better targets as in getting shot?  You can't be serious?



Getting shot? Oh my gosh, are you kidding, or are you just thick? I was being sarcastic. The rubberneckers don't pay attention now, so we'll just be rolling off their hood in day-glo green now.

I meant targets along the highway, but having to spell it out, kind of lost the humor.


----------



## karaya (Jan 20, 2009)

WiFi_Cowgirl said:


> Getting shot? Oh my gosh, are you kidding, or are you just thick? I was being sarcastic. The rubberneckers don't pay attention now, so we'll just be rolling off their hood in day-glo green now.
> 
> I meant targets along the highway, but having to spell it out, kind of lost the humor.


 
From the looks of one of your other threads, it appears I'm not the only one who is not picking up on your sarcasm.  So I must be "just thick."


----------



## Sasha (Jan 20, 2009)

WiFi_Cowgirl said:


> Getting shot? Oh my gosh, are you kidding, or are you just thick? I was being sarcastic. The rubberneckers don't pay attention now, so we'll just be rolling off their hood in day-glo green now.
> 
> I meant targets along the highway, but having to spell it out, kind of lost the humor.



It wasn't funny to begin with.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jan 20, 2009)

Play nice people...


----------

