Today’s correspondent has a question which is said to give rise to
… a point of confusion in rural fire brigades within the NSWRFS.
The confusion stems around the following:
1. That an appliance, in order to respond (ie: use lights and sirens/break road rules), must have an officer on board to do so, due to the “legalities”. My research demonstrates that Rule 306 of the ARR doesn’t mention brigade officers as per the Rural Fires Act in order to respond and the relevant service standard regarding powers of officers doesn’t talk about this.
Service standards (more so, the Safe Driving SOP 2008) mentions:
“Normally RFS vehicles “respond” for the initial response to an emergency incident, under the instruction of the Incident Controller (IC), District Manager or other person with delegated authority.”
Further, districts have set up business rules and resources are (most of the time) being paged using Computer Aided Dispatch (or manually) on behalf of the District Manager, District Duty Operations Officer, or by the Response Coordinator within State Operations (a officer above Officer L3). This should satisfy the above?
It is my understanding that a brigade field officer is not “other person with delegated authority”?
2. That an officer is responsible for the usage of the lights and siren/s, up to and including turning them off as they deem fit. My thoughts here are that the buck ultimately stops with the driver, being that they are wholly responsible for what happens with regards to the driving of the appliance. The Safe Driving SOP 2008 states:
“The driver shall have control of the visible and audible warning devices and shall make decisions on the applicability of their use.”
Is there any legal background to the above that I am missing, or have I answered my own question?
When it comes to driving the Road Rules 2014 (NSW) don’t say anything about when lights and sirens may be used, just the legal effect when they are. Rule 306 says
A provision of these Rules does not apply to the driver of an emergency vehicle if–
(a) in the circumstances–
(i) the driver is taking reasonable care, and
(ii) it is reasonable that the rule should not apply, and
(b) if the vehicle is a motor vehicle that is moving–the vehicle is displaying a blue or red flashing light or sounding an alarm.
They refer to the driver because it is the driver who is responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle, and it is the driver who will face any penalties for what would, but for r 306, be illegal driving. My correspondent is right, r 306, and none of the road rules, refer to an ‘officer’. The rank of the driver is irrelevant.
The Safe Driving SOP referred to does not appear to be publicly available (see https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/resources/access-to-information/policies). What I infer from what is quoted is that the ‘Incident Controller (IC), District Manager or other person with delegated authority’ must approve the decision to ‘respond’ rather than ‘proceed’, not that one of those officers has to be on the appliance. To understand whether a brigade field officer (ie Captain or deputy captain) is delegated to make the decision one would need to look at the terms of any delegation provided (and it’s not a delegation under Service Standard 1.3.2 Powers of Officers). But it’s really not the point. The person with the authority to approve a response does not have to be on the appliance so it doesn’t matter if brigade field officers do not hold that authority. If the response has been approved by the IC, District Manager or someone clearly with the authority to do so then the driver can respond.
I have no idea where the idea that ‘an officer is responsible for the usage of the lights and siren/s, up to and including turning them off as they deem fit’ comes from. It’s clearly not true. The ultimate responsibility for driving the appliance lies with the driver. If approval is required to ‘respond’ to an incident then the driver may not be allowed to turn the lights and sirens on whenever they want, but it’s always the driver’s prerogative to turn them off whenever he or she thinks it necessary in the interests of the safety of the appliance, its crew and other road users. The driver is the ‘pilot in command’ of the vehicle.
Conclusion
The misunderstanding seems to me to be the claim ‘an appliance, in order to respond (ie: use lights and sirens/break road rules), must have an officer on board to do so’. There is nothing in the law or the cited SOP that suggests that is true. The response may have to be approved by ‘the Incident Controller (IC), District Manager or other person with delegated authority’ but that does not mean an officer with that ‘delegated authority’ or any field officer must be on the appliance.
The responsibility for the use of the warning devices rests with the driver.
For related posts see
- RFS and unsafe heavy vehicles (May 9, 2025); and
- Court of Appeal dismisses appeal by RFS tanker driver involved in fatal collision (October 13, 2017).
This blog is a general discussion of legal principles only. It is not legal advice. Do not rely on the information here to make decisions regarding your legal position or to make decisions that affect your legal rights or responsibilities. For advice on your particular circumstances always consult an admitted legal practitioner in your state or territory.
Australian Emergency Law 
Great Article with plenty of answers and lots of questions.
That an appliance, in order to respond (ie: use lights and sirens/break road rules), must have an officer on board to do so, due to the “legalities”.
May I suggest the “Break Road Rules” be referred to as “Act under Rule 306 of the ARR” and that “Reasonable” may be referred back to SOP’s which may operate under the various emergency services. EG: A responding NSWRFS driver does not require RFD or ORD, nor be an officer,
HOWEVER, they must have authority to “RESPOND” ie: Previously Granted, OCC granted, District Manager or Delegated Authority granted as examples” but no assumption that a CL without authority may respond unless instructed to do so, unless they are an Officer and have appropriate predetermined permission eg: An Officer and Response Driver”.
Thanks; it may help to spell out some of the acronyms – ‘RFD’, ‘ORD’, ‘OCC” ‘CL’?
RFD “Rural Fire Driving” The qualification that is required by a firefighter to respond use lights and sirens to incident or fire.
ORD “Off-Road Driving” The qualification that the driver is competent to drive down fire trails and other off-road environments.
OCC “Operations Control Centre” aka Fire Comm.
CL “Crew Leader” the qualification that is required to become a field officer such as a deputy captain or higher rank within the RFS.
I believe the ambiguity here is self-created by the RFS by their own processes and policies. It in incumbent and a community expectation that an emergency service, such as the RFS, has the capability to respond to an emergency, (as defined in legislation), in a manner proportionate to the emergency. Failing to respond due to an internal policy alone arguably could invite legal implications noting the primary role and function of the RFS, and in particular, if you take the view that the response was intentionally inhibited or prevented due to internal policy alone.
At the time of dispatch, the required response should be defined. This is in practice with both Police (urgent / non-urgent) and Ambulance (priority based). The issue of an officer on a vehicle for a response is essentially a moot point as the Rule 306 powers ultimately hold the driver accountable. As such, an officer, or any other person should not operate lights or siren without the consent and guidance of the driver. The driver is the controller of the vehicle in all situations and ultimately accountable.
Taking the example of RFS vehicle being permitted to respond by way of an authorisation from an IC or officer at the Fire Control Centre, without an officer on board, it demonstrates that there is no actual constraint, rather a policy which is discretionary. So, in essence, there is no reason for a competent, qualified RFS driver not to be able to respond without an officer.
Officers may be necessary at incidents to exercise powers, but that is a different consideration.
The evidence is that there is no ambiguity just a misunderstanding. As I said in the post “The misunderstanding seems to me to be the claim ‘an appliance, in order to respond (ie: use lights and sirens/break road rules), must have an officer on board to do so’. There is nothing in the law or the cited SOP that suggests that is true”. There is no policy (or at least none identified) that says there must be an officer on a responding vehicle or that an officer, rather than the driver, is responsible for the warning devices. What that means is even if my correspondent has been given wrong advice there does not appear to be any policy that is inconsistent with the principle you suggested in this comment.
It is clear there must be some policy, as its being enforced, but the rational or documented guidance is not publicly available.I would suggest this is not a misunderstanding as its clear drivers make the choice to operate lights and or sirens. It’s also clear that RFS drivers are trained to respond and well versed with Rule 306. But they are not able to respond or make decisions to respond unless they are an officer themselves (as per what is being enforced). This point in itself raises questions on how a driver is to decide on the operation, or not, of lights and sirens during a response when then are unempowered or not trusted to make the initial decision to respond, or not, even though it’s an emergency. The ambiguity is in the application of the procedure by the RFS is the fact it is totally hinged on an officer being in the truck, or a separate individual authorisation given remotely, on a case-by-case basis. So, in essence, an officer in the truck means you can respond, but with approval, you can respond without an officer. What is the difference? We have a situation where people are asking why the response decision is dictated by the presence of an officer or not. Its clear, as per the above advice, that it is nothing to do with the law, publicly available policy or SOPs, driver capability or risk, based on the information available. The lack of any formal guidance contributes to the ambiguity, and the simple fact that in the absence of an officer being in a truck, the decision can be made blindly from hundreds of kilometres away defies any rationale that’s available and creates more questions on what is that decision based on.
My comment was I think there is a misunderstanding that there is a policy that says there has to be an officer or that someone other than the driver is responsible for the use of the warning devices. But if you tell me that this is a policy being adopted at least in some places then I accept what you say. In that case we are in complete agreement. It is the driver who is responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle. The driver may need permission from ‘the Incident Controller (IC), District Manager or other person with delegated authority’ to ‘respond’ but it is always up to the driver to decide whether the lights/sirens should be activated or not.
I don’t agree that the decision made from some distance defies any rationale. It is up to the call taker, whether in the ambulance or fire services (I cannot speak to how the police operate) to triage and prioritise a case. In the case of the ambulance services the responding crew will be told the allocated priority. Equally it can be reasonable for others to determine the priority of the fire response. They may have more information than the driver.
I cannot see, at least from what I’ve been told (again noting that not all the information is publicly available) that an ‘officer’ in the truck makes a difference. If the driving SOP says that the ‘instruction of the Incident Controller (IC), District Manager or other person with delegated authority’ is required for a response, then that is what is required but that does not imply that this includes any field officer, as discussed in the post, above.