Reflective Vests on the Highway - 23 CFR 634

[Grady_emt]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[karaya]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Play nice people...