highway safety rules to affect media

[Focused]

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...?desc=topstory

read the middle where it references "photog."

HIGH VISIBILITY

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulation 23 CFR 634 goes into effect Nov. 24.

It requires "workers on or near public highways to wear high-visibility safety clothes" on the job. The FHWA has expanded the definition of "worker" to include "media representatives when covering news events or similar actions within highway rights-of-way."

Break out the day-glow lime-green reflective jackets. Put away the camel hair overcoats and stylish parkas.

John Mozena, a spokesperson for work-clothing manufacturer Carhartt, says TV stations will need to be educated about what the change means, adding that the new regulations are complicated and won't mean "just throwing on a vest."

"This is not a simple standard," he said. "It has issues like whether it is day or night or whether or not it is a ‘distracted’ worker," which he thinks would apply to a photog looking through a viewfinder. "In that case," he added, "you have to go beyond a vest to covering your arms with reflective material.”

"It’s going to affect a lot of TV people covering any news that happens on or near the roads," Mozena said. "It’s also going to create technical issues as crews figure out how to light and shoot somebody wearing a fluorescent-lime-green vest or coat with retro-reflective taping on it without trashing a white balance or washing out skin tones."

Broadcasters we spoke with say the bigger problem is distracted drivers, who pay more attention to roadside news crews than to their own driving.

Will bright green jackets only worsen that distraction?
_____________________________


What the hell? We are not "working" on the highway. We are "working" on a story that happens to be located on a public road. How could these rules apply to media? I am all for safety and have pulled out a lime green vest now and then, but to require that arms are fully covered is way over the top. Thoughts??

[svp]

I think its a good idea only when the roads are completely open to traffic and you are working on or next to the road. On the other hand, if its an accident or event where police have the road closed or lanes closed, and there are visible emergency vehicles with flashing lights present, then I don't think the green jackets should be required.

If you and a reporter are alongside the road during a snow storm or icy conditions just to give a live presence and report on road condition, then you absolutely should have a jacket on that makes you visible. I can't wait to see reporters live on the air in those green jackets, although I think you'll see enforcement of this law spotty at best.

[tarzan]

Well, DUH. My live truck has a few bright yellow and orange reflective vests, and I always try to remember to wear them when setting up live shots.

[photogguy]

Originally Posted by svp

If you and a reporter are alongside the road during a snow storm or icy conditions just to give a live presence and report on road condition, then you absolutely should have a jacket on that makes you visible. I can't wait to see reporters live on the air in those green jackets, although I think you'll see enforcement of this law spotty at best.

If you and a reporter are alongside the road during a snow storm or icy conditions just to give a live presence, you need to re-think your priorities.

You can do the same live shot parked in a parking lot, with the camera and reporter far enough back to not have to worry (too much) about some car sliding into you, and close enough to the road to show the crappy road conditions.

[Dble(Punched)Vision]

I see nothing in the requirements that says you need to wear a hard-hat as well. Road construction workers are required to wear "lids" and a certain square inch of reflective material depending on the time of day and whether or not the work site is lit or not.

How much money was wasted debating the merits of this federal law?
Sheesh.

I wont get out of my vehicle on the roadside without my reflective jacket. At least if I get hit, the defendant won't be able to claim "I didn't see him!" CHA-Ching! I can see the article now: "Former Photog gets settlement to support his wheel-chair way of life."

[elvezz]

Move to 51 feet off the highway.
It reads "right of way."
State right of ways are usually 50-100 ft off the roadway.
Any one know what the federal distance is?
Photogs should welcome this new reg.
gets you off those needlessly close highway live shots.

[Rad]

We've had a policy about the orange vest here at the big 5 for a few years now. And with this new law we'll be re-visiting it.

We had the state labor dept give us a little visit after one of our reporters stood a little too close to the roadside without the vest. (Safety inspector was watching the News a home that night, and thought.... "Hmmm, isn't he a little close to the road?")

Bottom line here is that we went over our station policy with the inspector and he said we were cool... just this one guy didn't take it seriously and he got a serious talkin'-to.

I make roadside safety a major chunk of my ENG Safety presentation. I think its an area we really need to improve on in the business.

[Lenslinger]

Bright lime-green ain’t exactly my color, but I’ll gladly work it into my next ensemble if it’ll help me get home at night. While not everyone’s convinced it will, I’m err on the side of safety and embrace the use of reflective yellow and shiny piping on the evening news. See, a new Federal Highway Administration regulation goes into effect in November (November?) requiring all ‘workers on or near public highways to wear high-visibility safety clothes’. ‘Workers’ now includes media crews -ya know, those poor saps dispatched to the edge of some screaming interstate so they can set up lights and camera and warn everyone watching at home about distracted driving? It’s a thoroughly asinine practice, but long ago image consultants convinced station owners that LIVE(!) meant good. Over-coiffed news readers have been manning crumbling road shoulders and pitch black holes every since. Until the very last live truck is replaced by a shiny, floating laptop, this ill-advised tactic will no doubt continue.

A-HEM. Sorry if I sound bitter, but I simply cannot count the number of times I’ve been assigned a some perilous remote by some twenty-something who bitches when the break room drink machine runs out of Fresca. Was a time I’d park a live truck in the middle of an off-ramp if you let me - but that was back when I was young, immortal and rockin’ the mullet. These days my hair’s thinner and my perspective longer. I’m still dedicated to state of the art newsgathering but sorry - I’m not risking my life so you can open your show with live pictures of semi’s whizzing by some guy who’d stab his old driver’s-ed teacher in the throat if only that would score him the weekend anchor gig. So take that quad-box and shove it up your ass, for I’ll play your game and feign urgency, but only in a reasonable manner. If that means suiting up like a Chernobyl janitor, bring it on. I’ll find some way to make it work with all my collection of wrinkled cabana-wear if it will make a single housecat consider just how dangerous roadside live shots can be. It’s best this way, for as I told Whitey just the other day…

“Should I go down in the line of duty, I’m haunting every one of you bastards.”

[Chronically Confused]

My question is, how does the FHWA get this information to the news stations across the country? I never heard of this before, and if I never heard of it before, then I'm sure many others haven't. How are we expected to comply with this when we're not even told about it?

[(Sin)ical]

it doesn't take effect until Nov. 24 of '08, but wonder how many will be doing live shots about this this week.

[Rad]

Originally Posted by Chronically Confused

How are we expected to comply with this when we're not even told about it?

Like most work place safety laws, you just sort of learn as you go. Sometimes the Fire Marshal will mention something you need to address… or an employee that’s just comes on board tells you about a practice at their last shop… or quite simply, you find out the hard way… by being cited and fined.

There was a local station here that found out about the safety vest the hard way. They had a crew covering an accident when the Dept of labor just happened by. I hear the fine was $1000.00 each.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse… that’s why this message board is so important for all of us.

[SeattleShooter]

Whenever I am on a freeway or a fast highway I always ware my vest. In my eyes...its common sense.

[svp]

Originally Posted by photogguy

If you and a reporter are alongside the road during a snow storm or icy conditions just to give a live presence, you need to re-think your priorities.

You can do the same live shot parked in a parking lot, with the camera and reporter far enough back to not have to worry (too much) about some car sliding into you, and close enough to the road to show the crappy road conditions.

I don't disagree with you but when it comes to going head to head with the ND, EP, or desk about a live shot location during weather, sometimes its easier to just get it over with than stir up an argument you ARE NOT going to win. In the past, I've found it better save those arguments for when you really need them, i.e. lighting.

[newz2me]

Originally Posted by svp

I don't disagree with you but when it comes to going head to head with the ND, EP, or desk about a live shot location during weather, sometimes its easier to just get it over with than stir up an argument you ARE NOT going to win. In the past, I've found it better save those arguments for when you really need them, i.e. lighting.

I had a ND order me to go live during a snowstorm on the side of a highway near a car that slid into a ditch. I refused. I don't refuse the assignment just the way I'll go about doing my job. There's a reason that car's in a ditch I'm not putting my equiptment or reporter in the path of another sliding idiot for 10 seconds of airtime. Nothing in this business is worth dying over. If there was an accident then when it comes time to find fault they will always blame the dead guy, namely me.
I'll shoot video when I deem the risk acceptable and I always wear my vest but I refuse to do live shots on the side of a highway regardless of the weather. I can get just as good a shot from a frontage road or almost as good a shot from a parking lot or overpass. I argue and stand my ground because nothing will ever fix dead.

[ewink]

Originally Posted by Chronically Confused

My question is, how does the FHWA get this information to the news stations across the country? I never heard of this before, and if I never heard of it before, then I'm sure many others haven't. How are we expected to comply with this when we're not even told about it?

They tell people stuff through the press!

It was in Broadcast Engineering (or one of the others). I doubt that it was not or will not be in whatever NDs read. ((edited to add the OP's link is from an industry rag. So, there's your answer.))

BTW, KLAS had a policy of no live shots on an open freeway. I think every station should make it the policy.

The problem with refusing is that for every one of us who does the right thing and refuses to do a dangerous live, there's another dumbass in the newsroom who won't.

[fotofinish]

When I worked for NBC, they had a policy that you couldn't stop on an active highway to shoot video, go live... The road had to be closed for you to stop. I thought it was a little overboard, but it was their policy.

Lime-green... should stand out from the background better than those BLACK overcoats and suits repoters like to wear at night.

[photogguy]

Originally Posted by svp

I don't disagree with you but when it comes to going head to head with the ND, EP, or desk about a live shot location during weather, sometimes its easier to just get it over with than stir up an argument you ARE NOT going to win. In the past, I've found it better save those arguments for when you really need them, i.e. lighting.

So, saving you pain and suffering, or maybe even saving your life, isn't a good enough fight? Dude.

Originally Posted by newz2me

I had a ND order me to go live during a snowstorm on the side of a highway near a car that slid into a ditch. I refused. I don't refuse the assignment just the way I'll go about doing my job. There's a reason that car's in a ditch I'm not putting my equiptment or reporter in the path of another sliding idiot for 10 seconds of airtime. Nothing in this business is worth dying over. If there was an accident then when it comes time to find fault they will always blame the dead guy, namely me.

ding ding ding ding. We have a winner.

[svp]

Originally Posted by photogguy

So, saving you pain and suffering, or maybe even saving your life, isn't a good enough fight? Dude.

Look guys, I understand your point. However, doing this job means taking risks. Its the nature of the job. If a hurricane is bearing down on your town, everyone is trying to get out, but your trying to get IN. If a tornado is racing across the ground, everyone else is trying to get out of the way, but we're trying to get closer to get the destruction as its happening. Its the nature of the job. Our job is to report the news to the viewers. I just think doing this job means understanding that you are going to be required to take risks, some of which could lead to serious injury or death if things go wrong. If there was a guy holding people hostage with a gun, I'd want to get in place for the best shot of the house if SWAT goes in. That means getting within line of sight of the house. In that case, I'd be in the line of fire. My goal is always to bring the viewers images they can't get anywhere else. That means being close to the action. I can name several instances in Jan. of 2006 when I went running INTO grassfires to shoot firefighters fighting the fires. On one occassion, I was NEARLY overcome by smoke. To me, it was an acceptable risk. Its a risk you take to do this job and, I don't mean to attack anyone, but if you're not wiling to take that risk, you should probably go find a photog job outside of news.

[Focused]

I am not in news anymore, but what about rural areas? Don't get me wrong I am all for safety and as the person on scene, like with setting up an ENG truck, you have to make the decision wether to do it or not.

Here is my beef. You are on a way out of the way highway where you may not see another car for the 10 to 20 minutes you are stopped getting b-roll of... nature. It is hot out (summer time) and you don't put the full coat on so you don't sweat to death. Can you be fined for this?

I get dressing up for live shots and getting vo from busy roads and major interstates, but not everyone works around these. Should this be required for areas outside of the top 70 markets? Look at Montana, Idaho, the Dakotas. Come on. Shooting on a country highway is very different. Would this law be better served it was put in place by state governments instead of at the federal level?????

[ewink]

Originally Posted by Focused

Here is my beef. You are on a way out of the way highway where you may not see another car for the 10 to 20 minutes you are stopped getting b-roll of... nature. It is hot out (summer time) and you don't put the full coat on so you don't sweat to death. Can you be fined for this?

Probably, but tbh if you don't see a car for 10-20 minutes, what in the world is the chance it's going to be someone who could fine you?

If it's not a interstate, I'd think you could could pull far enough into the right-of-way in order to not actually 'be on the highway.'

Originally Posted by Focused

I get dressing up for live shots and getting vo from busy roads and major interstates, but not everyone works around these. Should this be required for areas outside of the top 70 markets? Look at Montana, Idaho, the Dakotas. Come on. Shooting on a country highway is very different. Would this law be better served it was put in place by state governments instead of at the federal level?????

I personally think the area you're talking about could be MORE dangerous, as some dude has been driving staring at corn fields or cows for the past 4 hours. Been there, done that.

Driving from LV to OK, I saw plenty of skid marks on the roadway, 26 miles between exits.

Honestly, regarding the state-federal issue, do you think most cops out there in BFE would actually know that this is law and you're subject to it?