Recently, the Emergency Responder Safety Institute released a report titled “Effects of Emergency Vehicle Lighting Characteristics on Driver Perception and Behavior.”
The study was funded by the U.S. Fire Administration in a contract with the Institute. The Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University provided the science-based research.
Clearly, this was a much-need research project, as we continually hear about emergency responders (fire, EMS, law enforcement, and tow truck operators) being struck while working roadway incidents. In most cases, those being struck are rendering aid at the scene of another accident. The report states that 531 law enforcement officers and 200 firefighters lost their lives between the years 2009 and 2018, while 57% of EMS line-of-duty deaths were the result of being struck while mitigating a roadway incident. In fact, FireFighterCloseCalls.com just reported a struck emergency responder while I wrote this column.
Those of us who have been around a while have seen a lot of changes in emergency lighting ranging from the single flashing or rotating light on top of the cab to the emergence of light bars and departments adding additional lights to the front, rear, and sides of apparatus. This puts an extreme electrical load on vehicle alternators. When I first became active in studying fire apparatus specifications, one of the weak spots that received a lot of attention was the alternator. The best and most powerful alternators were needed to handle the electrical loads generated by the emergency lights, and it was not unusual for these to be overloaded and fail.
Not too many years ago, LED lights became the norm. They were quickly adopted because they were brighter, flashed quicker, and used just a small fraction of apparatus electrical load. Naturally, for many departments, this provided the opportunity to add even more flashing lights to their apparatus. This creates a new problem: Motorists are now being blinded by the flashing lights, and they cannot see the emergency responders working a roadway incident.
It must be understood that this study was conducted for emergency lighting during nighttime operations. There was nothing in the report about daytime emergency lighting.
A key finding in the report was that “higher-intensity lights were judged consistently as more glaring but were only rated as marginally more visible than lights of lower intensity.” The research team examined “lighting color, intensity, modulation, and flash rate.” In addition, they also researched the chevron reflective striping on the rear of apparatus in conjunction with the lighting.
Not surprising, the report did reveal that increasing the intensity of the lights made emergency scene operators “more difficult to detect and identify.” A very interesting part of the report found that flash patterns that are “high-low” rather than “on-off” create less glare and make it easier to navigate past a parked apparatus working a roadway incident.
I find this easy to understand as I reflect on my childhood days of seeing the 1958 pumper respond to fires in the small rural community where I was born and raised. The truck had a single light on the roof that was integrated into the siren. (Yes, it was on the roof.) Though I don’t remember the manufacturer or model number, I do remember that it has a very slow flash rate and it ramped up to “bright” and dimmed down to “glow.”
In those days, the volunteer firefighters were summoned by an audible fire alarm on the roof of the fire station, so the entire community knew when there was a call. When an alarm sounded, I would go out in the yard in hopes the truck would be coming past my house. If it did, I could see it come around the curve a half-mile away and that “flashing light” was as visible as any light on today’s apparatus. It is an image that is forever etched in my mind. I share that to share this: Slowing the flash rate and decreasing the intensity do not reduce the visibility. In fact, I would argue they increase the visibility and make for a safer work environment if the apparatus is parked at a roadway incident.
One finding of the report that many might find surprising is that red and blue lights are more visible than white or yellow lights. Meanwhile, blue and white lights were found to be more glaring than red and yellow lights. Another finding that dispelled what some believe was that there was no “moth-to-flame” effect regardless of intensity or color.
The one very surprising finding of this report was that “the presence of high-reflectivity chevron markings seemed to make it more difficult for drivers to see responders working around their vehicles at night, even when the responders wear safety vests.” Remember, this research was for nighttime lighting; there was no information on dusk, dawn, or daylight conditions.
As to chevron striping, let’s look at all the lighting conditions. As we learned during COVID, sometimes the actual data does not match the scientific research. Look at the decades of history for responders working around reflective striping on the rear of European apparatus.
Maybe it’s time for the smart people to design the appropriate LED lights to be embedded in reflective striping of safety vests and structural turnout gear. We have heated vests, heated jackets, and heated gloves for the consumer market. Surely, we can have lighted reflective striping. Just a thought.
Salutations to the Emergency Responder Safety Institute for doing this report to make our lives safer.
ROBERT TUTTEROW retired as safety coordinator for the Charlotte (NC) Fire Department and is a member of the Fire Apparatus & Emergency Equipment Editorial Advisory Board. His 44-year career includes 10 as a volunteer. He has been very active in the National Fire Protection Association through service on the Fire Service Section Executive Board and technical committees involved with safety, apparatus, and personal protective equipment. He is a founding member and president of the Fire Industry Education Resource Organization (F.I.E.R.O.).
