Fend Off

[Carl]

A topic which has come up previously in discussions, but one I am doing a little research on at the moment.

GMFRS currently do not use the fend off position when attending RTCs or similar incidents. Now I do know we are one of a very few, who knows, we may be the only one that does not use fend off. One of the main reasons for not doing I believe is the fact that are vehicles livery is different than our counterparts. This is something I need to look into as we are increasingly turning out into our neighbouring services and we obviously do things in line with our own policies when in their area. Not an issue, unless its a dual response.

Question is, does your service adopt the fend off position on RTCs etc and do you have a fend off policy? 

Feel free to discuss, and please mention the FRS concerned

[Crog]

Not sure if their is policy on it, but every rtc I’ve been on, we’ve fended off.

[TandA]

Yes we fend off (or in as appropriate) almost without exception.  In line is very strongly discouraged, no matter what size of road / etc.  No specific policy as far as I am aware but it is dealt with in other policies such as our policy on coning off at multi-carriageway incidents.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is different with your livery that means fend off is not thought appropriate?

[Carl]

I think its the way in which the rear is livered up. The reflectiveness is at its strongest when viewed directly and seems to lose it when viewed at an angle. The side lockers appear to be every increasing in safety messages etc and provide no livery at all.

[Percy]

My former FRS fended off as literally a matter of life and death and had as much side reflective 3M Diamond Grade battenburg as possible. You’re right, the ‘current’ red fleet pumps in GMFRS aren’t battenburg’ed up to allow fend off but the new TRU’s and (although not likely to be on an RTC unless down an embankment) the new TL’s are too. New pumps with the Rosenbauer AT body (like Surrey) will all be Highways markings compliant, this includes across the lockers, so I should imagine there will be a policy change once all the fleet has the new livery.

All fleet managers of FRS were informed years ago about mandatory side battenburg on fast road which is why Lancs changed, West Sussex are too with their new upcoming fleet and even London Village have embraced the squares.

 

[Hmckay91]

2 hours ago, Carl said:

I think its the way in which the rear is livered up. The reflectiveness is at its strongest when viewed directly and seems to lose it when viewed at an angle. The side lockers appear to be every increasing in safety messages etc and provide no livery at all.

Unfortunately regardless of the current methods used, distracted and bad drivers will still drive into fire apparatus.

[CaptainFlack]

Behold !! GMs new pumps !

New livery might mean fend off is happening in the near future.

*Photo taken from the excellent Fr. Norman Price's site Delta64

[Mess6311]

14 hours ago, Carl said:

I think its the way in which the rear is livered up. The reflectiveness is at its strongest when viewed directly and seems to lose it when viewed at an angle. The side lockers appear to be every increasing in safety messages etc and provide no livery at all.

The side lockers need livery and we dont have any blues on the sides like others do. the new turn around program on the appliances are fitting the beacon stem which may solve the lighting issue. But the safety messages need to stop. The appliance is there for our safety. It should be liveried up to the max.

As for fend off, when you are first in attendance that position can easily block two lane on motorway or both lanes on single/dual carriageway making it safer for crews to work. the current policy of appliance positioning leaves crews isolated in my opinion carl. 

Come on, you can get it changed now you're up there!

[Paul LFB]

RTC/Fires on Motorways/Dual Carraigeways all lanes fended off and all lanes fended off Road closed. 4 Appliance Attendence

B roads RTC Fend off both Directions Road closed 3 Appliance Attendence

Strangely enough B road carfire fend off 1 Appliance attendence. 

[Percy]

59 minutes ago, CaptainFlack said:

Behold !! GMs new pumps !

Interim, the ‘new new’ will likely follow the same design as the TRU bodies which are being introduced to many FRS fleets in the UK, Surrey, Bucks, Scotland to name a few.

http://www.rosenbauer.co.uk/ats-bound-for-manchester/

[Keith]

I don't think the livery has anything to do with fend off, we've always fended off, long before there was even a go faster stripe, let alone battenburg. Normal method is to fend off to deflect any vehicles away from crews towards either lane 2 on a dual carriageway or centre of single carriageway, more or less as shown in this learnpro clip.

Curiously police and breakdown services like the AA and RAC, fend off in the opposite direction towards the hard shoulder. I believe their reasoning is rather than deflect anything into the opposite carriageway, it would put them into the side of the road. You can understand the reasoning, only thing is our procedures are to evacuate the casualties to the side.

[Hmckay91]

NA based but there are good "fend off" or blocking training at Responder safety

[Mess6311]

22 hours ago, Keith said:

I don't think the livery has anything to do with fend off, we've always fended off, long before there was even a go faster stripe, let alone battenburg. Normal method is to fend off to deflect any vehicles away from crews towards either lane 2 on a dual carriageway or centre of single carriageway, more or less as shown in this learnpro clip.

Curiously police and breakdown services like the AA and RAC, fend off in the opposite direction towards the hard shoulder. I believe their reasoning is rather than deflect anything into the opposite carriageway, it would put them into the side of the road. You can understand the reasoning, only thing is our procedures are to evacuate the casualties to the side.

Pretty sure FRS reasoning is that RTC gear is normally stowed on the near side

[Hmckay91]

Just now, Mess6311 said:

pretty sure FRS reasoning is that RTC gear is normally stowed on the near side

Over here it is generally an additional visual indicator to shift/redirect upstream traffic to the proper lane(s) in conjunction with the pre-warning cones.

Comparing to the learnpro clip we would likely angle the other way for the "Accident in Lane 3", giving up the advantage of having the RTC gear in the shadow or protected zone.

[Noddy]

Im with Keith and thought it was the barrier the truck formed between us and moving traffic...

[Mess6311]

17 hours ago, Hmckay91 said:

Over here it is generally an additional visual indicator to shift/redirect upstream traffic to the proper lane(s) in conjunction with the pre-warning cones.

Comparing to the learnpro clip we would likely angle the other way for the "Accident in Lane 3", giving up the advantage of having the RTC gear in the shadow or protected zone.

We dont fend off in GMC, but i would go with the learnpro that regardless of lane, by turning to the middle of the road everytime, its crew safety first. RTC gear nearest job, furthest away from traffic. Like Noddy says too, protective barrier.

[PuddleSplasher]

On 27/08/2018 at 20:48, Carl said:

I think its the way in which the rear is livered up. The reflectiveness is at its strongest when viewed directly and seems to lose it when viewed at an angle. The side lockers appear to be every increasing in safety messages etc and provide no livery at all.

Reluctant as I am to discuss a topic of which I have no knowledge pertaining to other Service Areas I can understand what Carl has said.

Former Strathclyde, now Scottish Fire and Rescue always adopted Fend Off on all roads unless space was an issue ie Single lane roads whereupon a slight angle just beyond in-line was utilised.

Let us look now to modern advancements on Appliances namely those blinding LED lights that have been fitted to the rear of the Appliances. When a driver of any vehicle approaching an Appliance and viewing the LEDs  head on will find them dazzling and at their brightest which hopefully encourages them to slow down and take cognicance of the danger ahead.

Move the appliance into the angled fend-off and the LED lights themselves become partially reduced in effectiveness yet here we are in a modern Service that is still stuck in the "Old" way of fending-off. So ask yourself WHY?

Have we all forgotten that by angling our Appliances towards the middle of the road that should we be so unlucky to have a motorist/lorry/HGV etc run into our rear that hopefully they will be deflected away from the incident? Well at least that was why fend -off was initiated. Yet how close do our Appliances site themselves to an RTC? 10 metres? 30 metres? Now ask yourself if you really believe that any vehicle particularly HGV in the event of them crashing into us for any reason will do us no harm?

Why not move with the times as a Modern Service which we proclaim to be and adopt  an in-line approach to RTCs and have the full blinding effect of the rear LEDs flashing that can be seen clearly for hundreds of yards in almost all weather conditions but to move to the slight angle in Fog.

Livery of vehicles with emphasis on the Battenburg reflective panels can easily be placed on the their rear in conjuction with LED lighting to provide IMHO a better, more modern approach to fend-off as opposed to simply angling the vehicle as I have done for the last 30 years simply because it was the adopted and therefore accepted practise in an era before the 80s?

Move with the times is my belief or be left behind in the dark ages.

[Carl]

This has been discussed at some senior levels this past week or so and in several services. GMFRS will not be moving to a fend off position going forward. In fact, a very large Police Force not far away, involved in the discussions and currently use fend off, have actually admitted that they prefer our inline method and want their county to adopt it. 

[PuddleSplasher]

Thankful am I that a more sensible approach to a modern day RTC is finally being adopted. If GM can be successful then why not all Service Delivery Areas?

Who knows where this can lead but it can only be for the better.

[TandA]

21 hours ago, PuddleSplasher said:

Let us look now to modern advancements on Appliances namely those blinding LED lights that have been fitted to the rear of the Appliances. When a driver of any vehicle approaching an Appliance and viewing the LEDs  head on will find them dazzling and at their brightest which hopefully encourages them to slow down and take cognicance of the danger ahead.

Move the appliance into the angled fend-off and the LED lights themselves become partially reduced in effectiveness yet here we are in a modern Service that is still stuck in the "Old" way of fending-off. So ask yourself WHY?

.....

Why not move with the times as a Modern Service which we proclaim to be and adopt  an in-line approach to RTCs and have the full blinding effect of the rear LEDs flashing that can be seen clearly for hundreds of yards in almost all weather conditions but to move to the slight angle in Fog.

Livery of vehicles with emphasis on the Battenburg reflective panels can easily be placed on the their rear in conjuction with LED lighting to provide IMHO a better, more modern approach to fend-off as opposed to simply angling the vehicle as I have done for the last 30 years simply because it was the adopted and therefore accepted practise in an era before the 80s?

I am no expert but I would be interested to see some scientific research on how our vehicles are perceived when approached by fast moving traffic.  I have always been lead to believe that if you see the usual vehicle shape - ie square on, rear end - in front of you then you take longer to register that it is stopped than if the vehicle is angled in a way it wouldn’t be when driving normally.  You would think the cones, blues and battenbergs would say “STOP” but a number of tragedies in the past have shown us this isn’t the case.  If visibility is improved by an in line approach then this should be borne out by research and adopted but at the moment it feels like we are thinking about moving based on “gut feeling” which worries me.

[Messyshaw]

Blimey. I had no.idea fend off was so controversial,  it always seemed like common sense. 

Regardless of hi viz markings or lighting masts, providing an 8ton barrier between traffic and crews must be a good thing.  

I am not sure how a single pump is supposed to fend off an RTC in lane one using the in line principle, and provide a closure of lane 2 in order to provide an additional safety zone.

And it's gotta be those single lane or hard shoulder incidents that create the biggest problems as where more than one lane is effected, the traffic is bound to be tailing back on most ocassions

I know I am an old fart, but might there be an element of over thinking this fend off issue, or have there been multiple or significant failures in the past???

[Cashybai]

I'm accepting what you say on square on positioning, however I'd also say that the bigger the lump in front of you ie truck at 45degrees the more likely folks are to see the thing in the first place.

[Messyshaw]

I saw a Met Police Land Rover this morning on a 3 lane near motorway dual carriageway in west London and thought of this thread......

The overnight deluge of rain was in full storm and somehow a large manhole had lifted with floodwater pouring out. The risk of losing the manhole meant that this apparently  single crewed Landrover was placed in an in line fend off to close lane 1, with six cones placed at an angle of 30 degrees or so. Visibility from spray was awful and the traffic across all three lanes was doing a bout 40 to 50mph.

As if this Land Rover wasn't already vulnerable, when I went past the PC had the rear door open and his back to oncoming traffic with just the cones to provide protection! OK he had a rear blue light flashing but it was not clear if he was on the road or not for a while due to the curve of the roadway

I honestly think the Land Rover would have been more visible if it were at a jaunty angle - there's nothing that can be done for the idiotic and suicidal copper though. He seemed intent on annoying his wife by supplying her a widow's pension much earlier that should have been the case!!

[Mess6311]

On 20/09/2018 at 18:00, Carl said:

This has been discussed at some senior levels this past week or so and in several services. GMFRS will not be moving to a fend off position going forward. In fact, a very large Police Force not far away, involved in the discussions and currently use fend off, have actually admitted that they prefer our inline method and want their county to adopt it. 

Is that because to fend off means more than one lane could be shut and therefore create a bigger problem to the police in terms of traffic flow? Fend off would help massively to protect the scene and crews when first IA and back up coming from further afield. It shouldnt take precedence over responder safety, but i know of a few times when the police have overruled OICs and reopened lanes when it wouldnt appear safe to do so simply because of the traffic.

[HoldFast]

I once had a police officer ask me if I could move the appliance so they could reopen the lane. I told her it was just there for the safety of the crews but she was welcome to ask the OIC to which she replied “oh it should be okay to move it then” and strolled down the road to find the gaffa! His answer was the same as mine!