Towing notice prompts dozens of comments:

[TowForce]

Towing notice prompts dozens of comments from truckers, towing companies

 

A notice aimed at ending predatory towing practices drew dozens of comments from truckers and towing companies.

According to Regulations.gov, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration received about 100 comments in response to a notice about improving transparency in towing fees charged to motor carriers.

Trucking groups, such as the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, advocated for fair rates. Meanwhile, towing operators argued that FMCSA doesn’t understand the difficulty and the cost of their service.

The comments largely focused on nonconsensual tows, which is when law enforcement uses its local towing rotation to have a tractor-trailer removed following a crash or other traffic incident. In these cases, the trucker typically does not get to select the company or negotiate prices – sometimes resulting in six-figure towing bills.

While truckers understand that there are real costs associated with towing a tractor-trailer, they argue that some towing operators are taking advantage of the situation and lack of oversight to inflate prices.

Trucking groups

OOIDA, the Virginia Trucking Association and the American Trucking Associations were among the trucking groups to speak out against predatory towing.

In comments filed on Thursday, Aug. 1, OOIDA said that truckers just want to be treated fairly.

“If they need a tow, our members and all drivers just want to be treated fairly and respectfully,” OOIDA wrote. “However, there’s a major problem when a tow bill that should not exceed a thousand dollars turns into an invoice for tens of thousands.”

The Virginia Trucking Association provided an example of a towing invoice for $202,000.

“In that case, the final bill was negotiated down to $90,000,” the Virginia trucking group wrote. “We were later told by a towing industry source that the company seeking $202,000 had actually paid another towing company approximately $25,000 to do the recovery, which is about what the trucking company would have expected to pay. Although the primary towing company sought to recover eight times its cost, it was able to take advantage of the lack of regulation or oversight to receive payment for three and a half times the actual cost, with impunity.”

ATA said that regulations regarding nonconsensual towing vary widely from state to state. Of course, long-haul truckers have no way of knowing where an incident requiring a tow will occur.

“An alarming number of states have no protections spelled out on simple issues, such as whether an itemized bill is required after a nonconsensual tow,” ATA wrote. “And too many states have inadequate or vague regulations. When state laws clearly articulate the requirements of the towing and recovery company and clearly articulate the rights of the truck driver and trucking companies, it is far less likely that predatory practices will occur.”

Tow operators

Many of the comments submitted to FMCSA were from tow groups or operators.

Those comments focused on the difficulties of recovering costs and being on call around the clock.

“Unfortunately, it has become standard practice for insurers to routinely dispute commercial motor vehicle recovery invoices even when there is towing coverage specifically made in the policy,” the Towing and Recovery Association of America wrote. “In this circumstance, the tow operator is unable to collect legitimate invoices for services provided. It also creates a situation wherein there is no guarantee of payment when a tow operator responds to an incident.”

Robert Young was one of the many tow operators to comment.

“Towing carriers respond to quick clearance incidents 24/7 and 365 days a year, risking their lives to keep the roads open,” Young wrote. “Towing is essential for everyone who owns a motor vehicle. Operating a towing company is not cheap.” LL

 

RESOURCE LINK