Did the LAPD go directly from can-lights to the AeroDynic? I've never seen a picture that would indicate there was anything between the famed but simple can-lights and the vastly more sophisticated AeroDynic lightbar.
Did the LAPD Go Directly From Can-Lights To The AeroDynic?
- Thread starter LRGJr72
- Start date
I think they briefly used a red CTS TwinSonic, then a red/blue CTS, before they started using the AeroDynic.
About a month ago I was looking at old LAPD photos andwas thinking the exact same thing...I amcurious to know and see any photos if they did
http://members.fortunecity.com/capdcars/lapd.html
This Guy has a lot of photos of LAPD cars thru the years. Looks like straight from cans to the Aero...
This Guy has a lot of photos of LAPD cars thru the years. Looks like straight from cans to the Aero...
The only time I have ever seen a CTS Twinsonic on an LAPD car was on the TV show The Rockford Files.
I did, however, notice that the LAPD Matadors on that show all has the small red "401" engine emblem on the front fenders.
Leads me to believe that maybe the show used retired LAPD cars, and put CTSs on them for filming.
I'm pretty sure that they went from Trio can lights to Aerodynics.
I did, however, notice that the LAPD Matadors on that show all has the small red "401" engine emblem on the front fenders.
Leads me to believe that maybe the show used retired LAPD cars, and put CTSs on them for filming.
I'm pretty sure that they went from Trio can lights to Aerodynics.
Seems like they should have just kept the cans. I was in downtown LA a while back, and on 2 different occasions, I saw LAPD running code with MX7000 bars, but they didn't have any of the rotators turned on. They were only using the steady burn reds in the lower deck of the bar, and amber and blue flashers to the rear. Then, I saw CHP on the freeway with a Vector/Vision (whatever) with 2 steady reds to the front and the amber and blue flashers to the rear, and nothing else lit, rotating, or whatever. I guess tradition dies hard. I know steady red is the law in California, and I like it, just seems strange not to use the rest of the stuff available.
Was this at night? I've heard that they turn brighter parts of the bar off at night to avoid blinding people and use very minimal lights.crescentstar69 said:
I lived in LA from 77 to 79 and they were using the can lights. I would see movie cars with LAPD knock off logos that had Non Cali TS on them..
around 1974 or 1975, the city of los angeles was sued in a wrong death law suit in which a "Marked" unit was responding code 2 to a call when at the time of the accident it struck another motor vehicle killing the driver, the lawyer of the decisced drivers family went after l.a.p.d. and a jury found that l.a.p.d. was in violation of califorina law. and that's when you started seeing the change-over . la county sheriif has a restored 1976 nova at their primary academy.
squad 51 fan said:
How were they in violation? I thought the can-lights, though very basic, achieved the minumum standard regarding emergency lighting and California law (steady burn red front/ amber flashing rear).
LRGJr72 said:
They were most likely sued based on general industry standards.
You don't have to be in violation of a law to be sued for not meeting general industry standards. IE- Ohio requires one light visible to the front of the vehicle. Running with a single red front light meets the state law, but it is not up to established industry standards. The industry standard for ambulances for example is lights at the corners of the box 360 degrees. Running w/ less may be 100% complaint with state laws, but opens you up to civil action. If it can be proved that your dept lacks equipment that is basically standard in the majority of the country your compliance with the state law won't save you.
I don't think that that a private "standard" can trump legislated statutory law or governmental administrative regulations. The plaintiff would have to prove that the law was faulty, and that the defendant knew, or should have known that the law was faulty, or was reckless or indifferent while complying with the law. And a governmental agency that is in compliance with the state and federal law would almost be certain to have some level of immunity.
I'm still searching for case law in which the type or style of emergency equipment (not use or non-use) on a government EV was cited by a judge or jury as a significant contributing factor in an accident or wreck.
I'm still searching for case law in which the type or style of emergency equipment (not use or non-use) on a government EV was cited by a judge or jury as a significant contributing factor in an accident or wreck.
Don't lose site of the fact that the suit took place in California. Not saying that California juries or their legal system are strange, but some of the decisions that come from them are real head scratchers. :roll:Stendec said:
Stendec said:
It's not trumping it.... The law is a minimum.... There are plenty of non-lighting cases where the defendant met the state legal requirements for something but was still found to be liable for CIVIL damages.
For example
Most state ambulance regulations don't mandate what specific drugs are to be stocked in an ALS ambulance. However, ACLS (an industry standard) and the general commonly accepted general practice involves the prehospital use of specific drugs. An ambulance company that chose not to carry standard cardiac drugs could still be legally licensed and complaint with the law. If someone then died as a result of their lack of industry standard equipment the family could then sue the ambulance service for providing care below the accepted standards. So the civil case isn't trumping the state ambulance regs, it's saying that as an industry specific equipment is commonly accepted.
The plaintiff in a civil case needs to demonstrate:
Defendant had a duty
Defendant violated that duty
That violation caused damages
Those requirements could be met in such a case, even if the vehicle were 100% within CA law.
The same thing is true with any emergency equipment. The state will set minimums but the accepted practice is often much higher. You can sue for anything. Your chances of winning will depend on a lot of factors. The driver also has an obligation to drive according to the conditions and EQUIPMENT. I don't know of any specific case where LAPD was sued for running ineffective lights. All I am saying is that such a suit could in theory be won despite the defendant being in compliance with CA vehicle codes.
JohnMarcson said:
Sure, I'll second that, particularly from the state that brought us the OJ circus. And the Ohio candlepower and visibility distance laws are a good example of a statute that a plaintiff's attorney could bend. Every modern LED exceeds the legal requirements significantly, but the law doesn't clearly state whether that is acceptable or not. Eventually someone will file suit because the lights were too bright.
I'm by no means anti-standard, particularly those that are established by NIST or NIJ. We only allow guys to use cuffs and armor that meets NIJ standards, even though there is hardware that is perfectly fine that has never been submitted for standards testing. When it comes to things like EV lights and armor, I think we adhere to standards mainly to protect agencies from suits from within - I think it's FAR more likely for a cop who's been in a wreck to sue his employer over "unsafe working conditions" regarding lighting and sirens that could get him off the hook in a crash, as opposed to the person they crashed into.
Stendec said:
With all that said, I still can find NO record of such a suit causing the can lights to be replaced....
I have lived in LA all my life, and I cannot recall LAPD using any lights between the Trio can lights and the AeroDynic, except on a few occasions I might have seen rare cars with something else, as a trial. I believe the issue that squad51 fan referred to in the code-2 response was the fact that LAPD was probably not using any lights. Usually, in my experience, a "code-2" response (the use of which some departments have stopped by policy) simply means get there as soon as possible without lights or siren. It seems that now, where I live everything is either routine, or code-3. LAPD has had a lot of accidents (as has LASO), but usually they are in code-3 situations.
I guess my point in this thread is that the "can-lights to AeroDynic" (all-light, nonetheless) is most likely the the biggest technological lighting jump ever executed by.... any agency, big or small.
Dr. Dennis Stouffer said:
I believe the good doctor may be correct. Code 2 in California means responding "as rapidly as possible, while obeying all traffic laws, and without using emergency equipment", (or some version of that) in every department policy I have ever seen. When I was still working on the Law side of the fence for a large southern Cali sheriff's department, it was common for us to roll Code 2 with our rear amber or rear amber/blue (depending on our equipment) flashers going, with nothing to the front (we called them "excuse-me lights"), the theory being citizens were less likely to call in complaints about speeding deputies to the watch commander because the lights would indicate we were on "official business", and we commonly had 30-45 minute drive times between calls. It also side-stepped our department requirement that the watch commander verbally approve all Code 3 runs over the radio. This was a common practice with most agencies in southern California at the time, but was totally leaving us hanging out in the wind, liability-wise. That practice began to be strongly discouraged because the deputies were driving at Code 3 speeds without the legal authority of Code 3 approval and lighting. I would not be surprised to discover that the LAPD case would be something similar.
After being in California Public Safety for over 20 years, I have never heard of a single verifiable case where an agency was sued because their vehicles met state statute for lighting but not "industry-standard". We are definitely the Land of Fruits and Nuts as far as our court system and jury pools go, but if a case like that happened, I'd have likely heard about it, because you would have seen a massive shift away from the red spotlights or low-profile mirror lights that are still common out here. If you follow state law, you are pretty well endemnified by your department for your response actions, unless you do something else stupid, like reckless speeding, blowing lights, or violating ANY of your department policies. Every copper or fireman I've seen get screwed in court has been because of one of those three things. Many Code 3 policies even specify the maximum speed you are allowed to drive under Code 3 conditions (both of my LE agencies set a maximum speed of 15 mph over posted, with specific requirements for intersection access).
California's only statutory requirement is a steady-burning red light visible to the front from 1000 feet (VC 25252). There is no statutory requirement for ANY rear warning (a common misconception).
LRGJr72 said:
That really is a big jump. I'd never thought about it. I know LASD ran Twinsonics (as did my agency), but I never saw any LAPD cars with them. I moved out here in 1986, and LAPD was already using AeroDynics.
Ok, here's what I discovered on copcar.com.
According to the caption of this picture: http://copcardotcom.fotki.com/photographs_of_greg/fgs/west_coast_states/calapd1979fordfairmont.html, 1979 was the first year of both the Aerodynic lightbar and the use of blue lights for LAPD. The 1978 pictures here show can lights on the cars.
According to the caption of this picture: http://copcardotcom.fotki.com/photographs_of_greg/fgs/west_coast_states/calapd1979fordfairmont.html, 1979 was the first year of both the Aerodynic lightbar and the use of blue lights for LAPD. The 1978 pictures here show can lights on the cars.
I have also seen LAPD cars with red/blue cats twin on the old series V, but I wonder if between that and can lights, did they ever use a visi or Mars light bar setup
I realize this is an old thread, but I do remember seeing an LAPD Ford black and white in a newspaper article archive that had a CTS on it. 70's for sure, but can't remeber the date or the site (no, it wasn't a movie shot)
Another site years ago showed an experiment involving the can lights with a Federal Beacon Ray in the middle from about 73-75 that LAPD thought about.
I think every city experiments with something different from time to time that are often just one offs and vanish into obscurity unless someone happens to get a photo at the time.
Agencies the size of LA are extremely cheap and often skimpy with their emergency equipment. Look what SFPD was running all the way through the 70's!
Another site years ago showed an experiment involving the can lights with a Federal Beacon Ray in the middle from about 73-75 that LAPD thought about.
I think every city experiments with something different from time to time that are often just one offs and vanish into obscurity unless someone happens to get a photo at the time.
Agencies the size of LA are extremely cheap and often skimpy with their emergency equipment. Look what SFPD was running all the way through the 70's!
LAPD may well have experimented with adding a Beacon Ray to the Trio can lights and may have tried out the CTS Twinsonic as well. Even the NYPD tried the Twinsonic. One thing to remember when it comes to really big cities and their equipment expenditures is that they tend to have a whole lot of vehicles to equip and are often given a very limited budget.
The NYPD field-tested one or more all(?) red Twinsonics when planning it's livery change from 1972 to 1973. They settled on a Signal-Stat dual beacon/dual can lightbar, it had a model number not a name-
View attachment 234757
For 1978 it updated to the Signal-Stat DualComm lightbar-
View attachment 234758
and then for the 1980 Plymouth Volares as well certain non-sedan marked Police Cars changed to clear med length Twinsonics-
before standardizing in 1982 with AeroTwinsonics.
