Welcome to BigMackTrucks.com
![]() |
Welcome to BigMackTrucks.com, the best resource on the Internet for Antique, Classic and Modern Mack Trucks!
Please login or register to take advantage of everything BMT has to offer. Memberships are Free and offer many benefits:
If you are having trouble logging in or haven't received your validation email, you can post as a guest in the Guest Forum.
|
Open cab fire trucks
#1
OFFLINE
Posted 27 March 2012 - 12:01 PM
Why did some early firetrucks have open cabs?
and on that same train of thought - why did the military use open top cabs?
#2
OFFLINE
Posted 27 March 2012 - 02:06 PM
John
#3
OFFLINE
Posted 27 March 2012 - 07:40 PM
#4
OFFLINE
Posted 27 March 2012 - 08:53 PM
MADNESS TAKES ITS TOLL, PLEASE HAVE EXACT CHANGE
P.T. CHESHIRE
#5
ONLINE
Posted 28 March 2012 - 05:34 AM
Paweł
#6
OFFLINE
Posted 28 March 2012 - 02:57 PM
#7
OFFLINE
Posted 29 March 2012 - 07:12 AM
in the early 70's safety regulations required that the cabs were closed. they also outlawed riding the tailboard at about that time also. Most rual fire departments had closed cabs and most urban had open cabs, not much need for a open cab truck in the country because most were pumpers.
Who "outlawed" it?
#8
OFFLINE
Posted 29 March 2012 - 07:55 AM
#9
OFFLINE
Posted 29 March 2012 - 08:56 AM
In Desert Storm and Panama we used the basic truck configuration for the most part from Vietnam with sand bags . In Somalia the threat was little different and wire mesh/chain link fence was attached to frames and slid over the door and window openings because they allowed fresh air in and rocks and debris out. In Iraq and Afghanistan we went from basic Vietnam style armorment to full blown hardened vehicles. We did incorporate "slat armor" from Vietnam initially on the new Strykers vehicles because they would catch RPGs now that has spread on to other vehicles.
#10
OFFLINE
Posted 29 March 2012 - 04:23 PM
Attached Files
#11
OFFLINE
Posted 31 March 2012 - 03:01 PM
Who "outlawed" it?
As far as I know there is no "law" against riding the tailboard of a fire truck. However, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), who writes standards on everything from
fire apparatus to restaurant range hood extinguishing systems, has a standard that requires a seated, belted, enclosed position for every person riding on that apparatus.
Technically, these standards are not laws but, in reality, they have the force of law. If someone is injured or killed while riding the back step a sharp lawyer will point out to
a jury that these standards are written by fire service personnel (I know not all of them are; doesn't matter) for the protection of fire service personnel and to ignore them is opening
yourself up to a major lawsuit. There was a case many years ago in Massachusetts where a firefighter was severely injured when he fell from a moving engine while he was
standing in the open jumpseat area. The truck manufacturer claimed that the engine met all NFPA standards for the time it was built but the jury rejected that argument and
awarded for the plaintiff. Fire departments ignore NFPA standards at their own risk.
I started my fire service career riding the back step and driving semi-cab Mack fire apparatus. There was nothing more thrilling than responding through downtown while
hanging on the rear bar for dear life. I am glad that I had the opportunity to do so but we cannot go back in history; today's legal environment will not allow it.
bulldogboy
#12
OFFLINE
Posted 31 March 2012 - 03:39 PM
As far as I know there is no "law" against riding the tailboard of a fire truck. However, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), who writes standards on everything from
fire apparatus to restaurant range hood extinguishing systems, has a standard that requires a seated, belted, enclosed position for every person riding on that apparatus.
Technically, these standards are not laws but, in reality, they have the force of law. If someone is injured or killed while riding the back step a sharp lawyer will point out to
a jury that these standards are written by fire service personnel (I know not all of them are; doesn't matter) for the protection of fire service personnel and to ignore them is opening
yourself up to a major lawsuit. There was a case many years ago in Massachusetts where a firefighter was severely injured when he fell from a moving engine while he was
standing in the open jumpseat area. The truck manufacturer claimed that the engine met all NFPA standards for the time it was built but the jury rejected that argument and
awarded for the plaintiff. Fire departments ignore NFPA standards at their own risk.
I started my fire service career riding the back step and driving semi-cab Mack fire apparatus. There was nothing more thrilling than responding through downtown while
hanging on the rear bar for dear life. I am glad that I had the opportunity to do so but we cannot go back in history; today's legal environment will not allow it.
bulldogboy
That is kind of what I thought - a slippery slope where industry standards become the law as far as attorneys are concerned
#13
OFFLINE
Posted 31 March 2012 - 10:14 PM
IMG_5388.JPG 621.96KB
1 downloadsNo cab here either! This siren had a hand crank!
IMG_5393.JPG 586.01KB
1 downloads
#14
OFFLINE
Posted 31 March 2012 - 10:28 PM
#15
OFFLINE
Posted 03 April 2012 - 09:31 AM
The 68 riots were really the death knell of open cabs for most cities, not government regulation. Open seats did not provide any protection from thrown objects and cities quickly started adding canvas tarps or other covers for the member's protection. FDNY converted it's entire fleet to fully closed apparatus in the years following the riots and as far as I know was the first to go to fully closed equipment by using things such as a "phone booth" type enclosure on the side of some rigs for members to stand in. Other cities such as Detroit had used "sedan" type pumpers that provided enclosed riding seats going back at least into the fifties.
Like many older folks who were on the job I drove and rode many open cab rigs. They were sweet on warm spring days, but overall they were a PIA in most conditions. Nothing sucks like riding back to the fire house in an open cab in a cold rain after being on a fire for several hours in near freezing weather!
Bulldogboy was close on the open jump seats. The case happened in Brookline, MA and the member died as a result of falling off of the apparatus while responding to a call. The manufacturer, Pirsch, had installed a chrome grab rail across the roof of the rig mostly for looks. The widow sucessfully argued that the rail invited the rider to ride standing up in the jump seat which is what the member was doing when he fell from the apparatus. The grab bar above the tail board fell into the same category and thus apparatus builders quickly started putting warning signs on the back step that advised the bar was not intended for riding the back step while responding. NFPA 1901 also "outlawed" back step riding around the same time.
I rode to many a call while standing in the jump seat. A member would typically throw their gear onto the rig so you could get out of the station quickly. We would than stand in the jump seat and put our gear on while responding. Not smart or safe, but in the fire service you typically traded safety for speed at the time.
The latest NFPA standards do require enclosed cabs and seat belt equipped seats for all members. Departments are not required to follow NFPA standards, but most manufacturers will not build anything that does not comply since there have been successful lawsuits over equipment failures that did not comply with NFPA stadards even when the department did not choose to comply with the standards. That is why small rural departments such as the one from KY that recently posted pictures of "non-compliant" apparatus can still use them.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users








Contributor








