TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote:TomTexan,

One of the differences in the way tow truck drivers drive is how the police work in the area. In cities that use a specific contract wrecker company, or maintain a rotation list, the drivers usually are fairly good about obeying traffic laws. They do not feel the competition pressure to get to a police call to get the job. In cities where the police put out a call and the first driver who gets there gets the tow, they can drive like crazy. There is an incentive to get there more quickly which translates into pressure to drive crazy.

I did not like the single contract wrecker system in San Antonio because of the corruption that goes along with a contract like that. But I don't think I could work in Houston where it is a free for all (or was last time I talked with an officer from there about this). The best compromise I have worked with was a rotation system. Each company was put on the list and the next one up got the call. Seemed like a fair way to split the police tows among the companies. But that was Caldwell County and Luling, rural areas with few jobs (maybe one a day or sometimes less) and only a few companies (4 in the Luling area for the rotation).

Being in the car business, I've had experience with both contract towing and rotation and there are problems with both systems. As srothstein said, in a metro area with thousands of wrecker calls per month at stake, the opportunities for corruption are rampant. Whoever gets the contract literally has a license to print money with a monopoly on all police initiated tows. They get to pretty much set the rate for hookups, per mile fees and storage under the oversight of the county commissioners who usually go along with what the contractor tells them is fair and reasonable fees...(not to mention the possibilty of collusion with the commissioners on county contracts, as the current John Wiley Price scandal in Dallas shows.) In the late 90's, a new bill establishing a regulatory agency to oversee tow operators in Texas was presented by state reps from Dallas and Houston, which flew under the radar and passed before anyone really knew what it did. The bill was pushed thru the legislature by a small group of large tow companies and overnight they became the only ones who could operate pretty much statewide. The new bill required special applications to operate from one municipality to another, or within a particular county or counties specifically listed on the license. The companies that had sponsored the bill had their license applications prepared by attorneys and in hand as soon as the new law took effect, and were the first licenses granted. Every single tow truck in the state had to apply for a new license requesting specific areas of operation and it took many months and lots of legal legwork before the new licenses could be issued due to the backlog. In the meantime, those big tow companies locked up the metro area contracts because they were the only ones who could cross from one incorporated area into another with a vehicle on the hook. What the statute said was unless you held a new multi-jurisdictional license, you could not cross incorporated city limits other than the one where the tow company was located...so if someone needed to have a car towed from Ft. Worth to Waco you either had to use one of the multi area licensees, or you had to have one truck haul it from Ft. Worth to Burleson, have it dropped and picked up by a Burleson tow company and do the same thing at Hillsboro, West, at every incorporated city limits, all the way to Waco. Of course, in the metro areas, there were only one or two companies that had that license in hand, so they were the only ones that could even be considered for the contracts. (Just another example proving the wisdom of my legislative uncle who said "there's never been a bill passed that wasn't going to make someone alot of money"). It took several years before they got all the problems ironed out. I live in a small rural area, that uses a county wide rotation system among 6 or 7 wrecker services, which seems to be the fairest setup...any tow company that wants to particpate can be put in the rotation after meeting the guidelines for equipment, insurance, bonding and licensing and filling out the forms. While I don't have horse in that race, I do enough business with all of them to hear constant complaints about dispatchers who play favorites, or certain officers who request the call go to a particular wrecker service ,and human nature being what it is, I don't doubt that it occurs.

speedsix wrote:...excellent...common courtesy and good sense...in such short supply these days that a law had to be passed...to protect those who have to make a living taking those risks...I'd be for amending it...making it cover any roadside breakdown/hazard...citizens have been killed changing flats and helping...sad but things we used to take for granted now have to be legislated and a penalty attached...

The problem, as I see it, is that you can pass all the well intentioned laws you want, but except for the situation discussed earlier in the thread, where you have a LEO sitting at the scene running his radar/lidar, it's almost impossible to enforce, so what's the point of making it a law? If John Q. Public is on the side of the road fixing his flat tire and people fail to move over or slow down, expanding the law to cover them doesn't help... there's nothing that can be done and no one who is authorized to do it. You can't have individuals chasing and stopping someone that failed to obey the law....no one but a LEO has the authority to do so or issue a citation. Even in the case of a single LEO stopped on the shoulder it would be almost impossible to prove a violation without radar evidence on the speed issue...as for moving over, the driver claims "I tried to, but there was a car in the other lane" or "my view was obstructed by (hill, semi truck, billboard, etc.) and there was no time to react". Unless you have a second LEO, or video evidence proving otherwise, how do you make it stick? Tow Trucks & Fire Engines...how are they going to prove anything unless they have an LEO on site set up to do it for them? As you stated, I think it just comes down to "common courtesy and good sense"...BUT...either you have it or you don't and passing a law won't change that. As Ron White says: "You can't fix stupid".

speedsix wrote:...I've been run over by a distracted driver...and, much as you want to , you can't punch 'em out for bein' stupid...I can't imagine why folks have trouble concentrating these days, with all the peace and tranquility on every corner...not...

I hear what your saying...and thinking about it, I realize there's a whole lotta' difference between living in a town of 3500 and a metro area. In the last 40+ years, there's been one incident in the county where a person ran into a vehicle on the side of the road...about 25 years ago...a guy I knew since high school was securing a tarp on the load in the bed of his pickup at night and got ran into by a drunk...lost one leg mid thigh. It's just a different world out here compared to the cities. I used to go to DFW on business every couple of weeks and hated driving up there...people running 70-80mph, 4 lanes wide, and no more than a carlength between them to keep someone from cutting in...and that was before constant use of cell phone/texting, DVD players in the cars, NAV units, etc... Like the John Denver song said..."Thank God I'm a country boy!"

speedsix wrote:...I didn't say anything remotely like this: "

As for Speed's example of some sociopath who INTENTIONALLY steers into someone...that's either murder or attempted murder..."

...and I don't see how anyone who READ what I DID say can legitimately derive that from what I said....

Sorry Speed...I just totally misunderstood what you were saying: " passing motorists who looked and steered into them...stone sober even..." thought you were saying someone looked at them...and saw them... and steered into them...on purpose...like "watch me make'em jump"...I see now you were saying they were just careless....although if someone is THAT careless ( they see them, are aware of them and still run into them, unimpaired by alcohol or drugs) I'm not sure any law could prevent it.

speedsix wrote:...having had friends broken up and killed by passing motorists who looked and steered into them...stone sober, even...I'm all for the law...it shows respect and concern for that one who's out there risking his health and life to help another...be it cop or wrecker driver...BOTH deserve the consideration...and I disagree that ANY motivation towards raising revenue had anything to do with it...do some research on how many cops we've lost in the 5 years prior to its passing...it's NOT all about money, guys...some folks at the legislature just plain love the police...

Don't get me wrong...I'm not saying they aren't at risk. Sure those protected by this law deserve respect and concern...so does any individual stopping to help somebody change a flat...as C-Dub said "where do you draw the line?" As for Speed's example of some sociopath who INTENTIONALLY steers into someone...that's either murder or attempted murder...passing a misdemeanor fine only law has no effect on someone like that...no more than telling an armed robber he's not allowed to carry a gun. Maybe it's just because I've lived all my life out in the country, where we know every LEO in the county on a first name basis, that affects my thinking on this. People around here already do this and always have. I never see anyone fail to pull over for an emergency vehicle coming toward them, or stop for a funeral procession either...both of which also deserve respect and concern.

As for the revenue issue, I will quote a relative who was a long time state senator..."there's never been a piece of legislation passed that wasn't going to make somebody alot of money...it may be a good bill that will accomplish something needed, but it WILL make alot of money for someone...otherwise it would have never been written." I know that sounds cynical, but the man knows of what he speaks...he served 6 terms then became a lobbyist. How do ya'll feel about the seatbelt law for adult drivers? There's an example of a law that generates hundreds of millions of $$$ for the city/county/state AND the insurance industry. It was passed when the speed limit was raised from 55, because the insurance industry knew they were going to take a big hit when the number of drivers paying higher premiums for having several speeding tickets on their record started dropping. The insurance lobby presented that bill to the legislature and pushed it through. The legislators were given the revenue projections along with their PAC money and presented it to the public as "being for your own good...it will save lives". Sounds good and undoubtedly it has...but passing any law "for our own good" is a slippery slope. Not wearing a seatbelt puts no one at risk but that adult driver...it does not make him a better or safer driver or protect anyone else on the road. I had a State Trooper stop me here in town for not having my seatbelt on a few years ago during the annual "click it or ticket" campaign...he was from the neighboring county and explained that they swapped out with our local troopers so they didn't have to write seatbelt tickets to the folks they had to live with. I told him I understood the situation, then he commented that it was really to protect the public. I said that if the state was REALLY concerned about my safety, why did they require me to wear a seatbelt inside a 4500lb vehicle with airbags, yet allow me to ride a motorcycle with no restraint and no helmet? He didn't know what to say...I said "officer, its because motorcycles represent less than 2% of all vehicles on the road and that means it's not economically important to the insurance industry". If the state has the right to say you must wear a seatbelt for your own good, they can also say you cannot eat bacon..it's bad for you. I know that sounds utterly ridiculous, but the legal concept is exactly the same. If you don't think it could happen, you need look no further than New York, where Mayor Bloomberg is currently trying to pass ordinances limiting the size of soft drinks you can buy to 16 oz...."for your own good".

C-dub wrote:This isn't a stupid law, but where does it stop? I hadn't realized that tow truck drivers were now included. They are not emergency workers or first responders. How many regular folks being hit or killed will it take before the law is expanded to any vehicle on the side of the road?

I don't believe the two officer setup on a stop is a money grab. I see it as more of an awareness issue. I think that many people are either not aware of the law or just don't care.

I'm 55years old now...for as long as I've been driving, MOST people have always slowed down and moved over when coming up on ANYONE stopped on the side of the road...instinctively, without any statute being on the books....whether its an LEO or just someone with a flat tire. When the legislature passes a bill, making it a legal requirement, in certain situations only, it allows the state to punish (via monetary penalties) those who fail to comply. When laws are passed which provide monetary penalties only, where none existed before, revenue is always part of the equation. I agree there is an inherent risk involved anytime anyone is pulled over on the side of the road, but are LEO/Emergency vehicles/Tow trucks...with flashing strobe lights alerting motorists...at more, or less risk than the general public? Again, I'm surprised by the fact that it's evidently common practice for some departments to send a second unit out on a traffic stop, which in gigag's scenario then uses the opportunity to write tickets. They are not handing out warnings...he says having the second unit " being able to testify speed and distance locks these cases in". Sounds like revenue is part of the deal, regardless of how you justify the law. As Jumping Frog said...still accomplishing the legislative purpose.

gigag04 wrote:Alot of times two traffic units will go hit the highway - one makes a stop - the other sets up just down the road and uses a LIDAR to confirm the speed of vehicles he/she estimates are exceeding 50mph.

I've never seen a "fake" stop set up.

I'm not sure how I feel about that... sure sounds like the second unit is just there to raise extra revenue. Ya'll must have alot more personnel available than we used to, if you can justify having a second patrol unit go out to "check on" the first one on a routine traffic stop....G.A. says most departments in his area have a second unit go check on the first one. Just surprises me...but at least it isnt 2 units going out JUST to set up a situation where tickets could be written, which was what I thought gigag meant.

gigag04 wrote:It's called the move-over law. I think intent is to vacate the lane closest, but is written to allow either option.

From experience it is very easy to enforce with a buddy and two LIDAR units. Being able to testify speed and distance locks these cases in.

So, are you saying you and another LEO have gone out and set up a situation where you parked a cruiser with lights on on the side of the road...not an actual traffic stop...for no reason other than writing tickets to people who failed to yield the lane or slow down enough? Surely, I am misunderstanding what you wrote, and that's not what you meant ?