rreschran

OK ... now I'm really pissed. Yesterday’s tow operator fatality was nearly the exact same circumstances that killed Canadian tower Edgar Arthur Pilon, December 27, 1954. So, here we are, 65-years later since Mr. Pilon's death, I’ve recorded as many as 325-tow operators killed working highway shoulders. Now THAT's a sad state of affairs. To add fire to my suck-attitude, a tow owner called 9 o'clock last night to tell me to stop, "Grandstanding", about tow operator's getting killed. We had a short but heated conversation and to that I'll say, "Steve ... you're an idiot to bury your head in the sand. It's too bad that you and other owners won't get committed to help try and solve this problem." Personally, I was shocked in what he had to say. If towers sit idle and do that, "status quo", thing, tow operator deaths won't go away ... just like the industry's past 65-years' demonstrates. Choke on that Mr. Steve. When it comes to tow operator response on the highways, I hate to think gloom and doom with negative hopes that first responder and tow operator fatalities will decrease, but, because I’m a realist, it’s my opinion that move-over laws, Quick Clear programs and Traffic Incident Management have done little to further help protect the lives of first responders and tow operators. All of those programs are, “administrative measures”, that have no working components (other than vehicle positioning) to provide physical protection to work on scene. The number-one priority of traffic incident management should be greater focus on tow operator safety beyond that of smooth traffic flow. I believe that increased traffic breaks and road closures are better solutions to motorists who drive, “full speed ahead”, regardless as to the weather or conditions of the roadway. So, what’s it take to get this message to Traffic Incident Management? Any ideas? Incident management should make safety the number-one priority for first responders, tow operators and highway workers. And, the hardest reality of all is … first responders and tower's can’t focus on their work if they hafta' focus on dodging cars and motorists. Grandstand or not ... the fatality numbers speak for themselves. R.

I was reading the Canada post herein that reported ... "That section of the highway was closed for investigation, but was reopened around 6 PM". Not that it's putting the horse after the cart, but doesn't it make better sense to have LE close they highway section for Quick Clear rather than closing the same section to conduct a, "first responder fatality", investigation? For example, the tow operator killed in Canada this morning was working an active winch-out in wet/icy conditions. If the roadway was closed for that short period of time, wouldn't you agree that the tower would still be alive. Isn't there a better way? For big cities, what about increased traffic breaks? Isn't there a better way? How is it that LE can't respond a patrol unit to stand by at the scene of a recovery or simple break-down, but they can sit on-scene for hours in a construction zone. There's something wrong with that way of thinking ... right? R. Report post

Not more than 15-minutes ago, I just posted these same words ... Christine and I send our prayers and support to the tow operator's family and the company he worked for." I watched this news link in its entirety. This is perhaps the BEST on-scene presentation and live-coverage that speaks to the reality or what tow operators and first responders face. OPP Sgt. Kerry Schmidt, provides a plea for motorists to slow-down and pay attention to whatever harsh driving conditions are present. In this crash, there is one-lane travel in each directions where motorists can't move-over, but they sure can slow down. The report said the tow trucks were on-scene with their emergency lights on. I believe this news link should go viral. I'm posting it on my Facebook page to send it to everyone I know and ask you do the same. R.

From California ... Hey Guest Inquiry ... Lucky you ... you've escaped all the crap California has to offer, except for the great weather. Because you list no information on your profile, I don't know if this is some corporate spying, but I'll refer you to the proper persons with information other than CTTA or WreckMaster people. I just now called, Tommy Anderson, Director at SW Tow Operators Association, in Texas, regarding your question. Tommy says, "Unfortunately, your boss is correct." As far as California's wrecker criteria, your CTTA heavy certificate is a good only IF you're in California, but TDLR has Texas specific requirements for Texas tow operators. Texas Regulations & Licensing TDLR: https://www.tdlr.texas.gov/towing/towrules.htm I refer you to Tommy Anderson at 214-202-4936. Give Tommy a call and he can tell you what you need to attain Texas certification and testing. All training is good training, but, all programs are NOT recognized by TDLR. R.

Christine and I send our prayers to the tower's family and the company he worked for. R.

Thanks for sharing the new post Ron. I haven't additional info to add. Might this have been someone in a jeep-like vehicle trying to get another vehicle unstruck? The map of Tow Force participants doesn't show any tow companies in Pakistan, only India. Until there's proof to the contrary that a tow truck operator, I've chosen to record this as a civilian incident. It's too bad someone lost their life especially in a third-world county where being creative oftentimes results in injury or death. This fatality comes on the heels of another TowForce post (last week) with two videos of recovery attempts resulting in, in your face, kill you dead, off-road injuries and a fatality. I know this is your party and all, yet I'm not so sure on this one. R.

Kudo's Ron for your mention of reviving Tow First. If anyone cares to Google, "Tow First", its presence is all but gone in the passing of Dave Lambert in 2017, yet a single video remains. Video following: And, "Yes", since Tow First was initiated, my name has been on the list as are industry leaders like, Ron Parrish, Michael McGovern, Tommy Anderson, Justin Cruse, John Borowski, Bill Gratzianna @ O'Hare, Quinn Piening, and Brendan Dooley, to name a few. Why aren't the names of America's largest tow company owners on the list and What's your lack of motivation? I'd like to think that Tow First "IS NOT" forgotten by those many (listed) companies that practice what Tow First preaches. Tow First should be on every tow truck association's website and home page. I personally have recorded the death of as many as 33-tow operators killed working tire related calls, not to mention that one-third of them were killed in California alone. So, for example, one of the largest Towing Associations in America is California's, CTTA. If you go to the California Tow Truck Association's web page, you won't find mention or support of Tow First. The same is true for Texas, Ohio and Florida (Dave's home state). May I suggest that this information go out on everyone's Facebook page asking all Facebook friends to SHARE it with their Facebook friends. This is a life-saving cause that makes perfect sense and while it's every tow business owner to conduct service in the manner they choose. This is one program that you can have a choice in helping to protect the lives of your towers and service technicians by choosing to NOT provide tire service on the highway. You all know how I feel about it and I would be doing every tower a dis-service to NOT try and convince them of the sensibility that Tow First brings. Tow First is PROACTIVE. It DOESN'T Cost, it DOES bring Auto Clubs and Motor Clubs to the table to help lessen the unnecessary and repeated carnage that we've grown to know. I believe in Tow First and so should you ... get involved. R.

... the, "oh well, I have roadside assist mentality", in-part, comes from the lack of school funds not offering auto-shop and parents failing to teach their kids about jump starting a car or changing tires. But quite honestly, with a world full of incompetent drivers out there, I don't want my family changing tires for obvious reasons. The motoring world we live-in now guarantees that dealerships and tow companies are here to stay. Cars are too advanced to work-on under most conditions and the safest way to get a car off a dangerous highway is to call the services of a COMPETENT tow company whose tow operators practices white-line safety. I personally feel that it should be against the law to work on cars on a highway's shoulder or center divider, but that's not realistic. Wasting time to change tires, jump-start cars and add gasoline only increases a tower's exposure to dangerous approaching traffic. Load em' and go. Haven't there been enough operator fatalities to keep making the same old mistakes just for the price of a service call? A good way to keep tower's safe is to eliminate service calls on the highway, or, stop responding to all highway related calls altogether and make it the government's problem. R.

A similar fatality occurred in Southern California a year or so ago. A CDL driver driving a big-rig semi experienced brake problems and was being towed by a heavy wrecker. The tow operator and the driver of the vehicle being towed exited the tow truck to check on the problem. The tow truck driver tried to fix the issue, then re-entered the tow truck to move it forward to see if the problem was corrected, according to the officer. For unknown reasons, the semi-truck's driver crawled back under the rear axle of the vehicle in tow without telling the tow truck driver. The semi driver was run-over by the rear wheels of the towed vehicle and was killed. With all of the responsibilities towers have, keeping an eye on motorists or other workers is a tough task, yet and important one. Towers are reminded that before they back-up or leave from their parked position that they have a GOAL ... Get Out And Look. I feel bad for the tower and hope the injured male recovers. R.

ALstow, Good Morning and thanks for your comments. After Mr. Issa was killed and Mr. Larrison critically injured, I was invited by the AAA/ACSC corporate management to discuss that fatality and what lessons were to be learned from that fatal. Since that time, I have heard (from you and others) that many auto clubs now provide a second call number. A second call number allows the tow operator to make a proper decision as to whether or not the tire change is too dangerous. This allows for the operator to load and move to another location as you've explained. That's an awesome answer to on-scene safety. I think much of making the decision to move the vehicle to a safer location comes with a tow operators ability to describe the inherent dangers to their member or customer. It's only human nature for some to not cooperate. It's to those personalities towers must deal with a firm hand or simply NOT change the service. And, for a fact, the highway patrol will respond on the tower's behalf if the motorist is too ignorant and too adamant to see the reality of the existing roadside dangers. R.

A different tow truck forum recently posted a prayer request on November 1st for a tow operator struck by a speeding car when he attempted to do a tire change on a highway. That story is the usual one where the customer refused to move the car, yet the tower went on to work the tire change. His scenario was very much similar to, December 17, 2015, a San Diego County, California, tow operator, Jabar Issa, was killed and AAA service technician Mark Larrison critically injured because their AAA customer allegedly refused not to have his car towed, but aggressively demanded to have his tire changed. WHY are tow operators still conducting tire changes on the shoulders of high-speed highways? Where happened to common sense when the practice of changing tires has proved many times over its danger potential. I remind towers that YOU are in-charge of on-scene safety. Please don’t let some motor-club policy and procedures get in-the-way of your decision to NOT change a tire or provide service in dangerous locations. Keep in-mind that as many as thirty-three tow operators have been killed changing tires across America and nine-tires related fatalities in California over the years. The fatality numbers overwhelmingly prove that dangers exist. What does it take to get that safety message across? Owners; there’s NO reason to demand your tow operators or service technicians put themselves in harm’s way for the sake of the cost of a service call. Don’t let some obnoxious motorist over-power your common sense. Towers ... don’t get yourself killed over customer satisfaction issues. Decrease your exposure by loading or towing vehicles off the highway to a safer location, or, for those motorists who still refuse, don’t hesitate to refuse service and call your highway patrol. Your continued safety should be your Number-One priority. And owners; think of it this way, “It’s far easier to deal with customer service complaints than it is having to bury one of your employees for something that could have been prevented. I write this in-memory of my friend and long-time industry advocate and trainer, Dave Lambert, who professed that tow operators NOT change tires on the sides of super-highways, but load or tow them to a safe place to conduct tire changes. His was a message of survival that made common sense and required a change in tow operator mentality. Dave passed away in 2017 and his website, Tow First, is all but a memory. The concept of Tow First should live-on as does its message, but only to those who choose to heed it. Here's a link to Tow First's message: Rest in peace Dave. R R.

When I was a kid, I used to build models. After five or six builds, I had a whole box of parts left over. This heavy reminds me of those old days. R.

I know this is an old post, but at them moment, I have some time on my hands to opine on the use of train horns. California is the home of the ever-aggressive, pine boring bark beetle. We regulate window tint that’s too dark, and where tree-hugger mentality blames poor forest management as one of the greatest causes that fuel’s reoccurring wildfires. So, it’s not uncommon for California to regulate the sound of car and motorcycle exhaust systems as-well-as vehicle horn’s being too loud. Enter, Assembly Bill, AB-2245 Vehicles: Aftermarket Horns: Decibel Levels. California's AB-2245 is one of those goofy vehicle code sections where the act of being, “too loud”, is perceived by an officer who thinks they’re too loud, and, by the way, it’s an easy citation to write. In some states, the decibel rating cannot go beyond 90 dbD. In a YouTube video, an officer who was interviewed on the topic of train horns in cars stated, “It’s technically illegal because it’s unreasonable.” By brand alone, they may violate state vehicle codes at the moment the truck’s operator gives them a joyful blast. California’s AB-2245 is an act to amend, Section 27000, of the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicle horns. This bill would prohibit a motor vehicle from being equipped with an aftermarket horn that emits a sound greater than 110 dB(A). AB-2245 was written to ensure that motor vehicle horns, “Shall not emit an unreasonably loud or harsh sound and a motor vehicle shall not be equipped with an aftermarket horn that emits a sound greater than 110 dB(A).” To have train horns in a tow truck means it’s best to resist the urge to blast it. Towers are reminded that train horns do not justify an attempt to get motorists to, "get out of the way", as they respond to police calls. If you check your state's vehicle codes regarding train horns, you may be in violation of such, or can be cited, when they're not used in emergency scenarios. Not to be a kill-joy, there are plenty of cops who don't like them and will cite for their unnecessary use or unreasonable sound. By that statement alone, can you defend your use of a train horn with evidence that you used them in a necessary and reasonable manner. That's a hard one to prove. R.

Hi Brian … Good Morning All. Brian brings a well written rebuttal to the table. Thank you for your response. This topic of emergency lighting is one that leads to much thought as to what's proper and what isn't. I really like these intelligent discussions for the benefit of all involved. I'll also note that Brian put a lot of effort into his document and that’s very much appreciated. But, with it opens the door to interpretation as to what tow trucks should be doing when it comes to slow-sown move-over? I maintain a personal opinion that suggests, the number-one killer of tow truck operators and first responders is motorists failing to slow-down and move-over; NOT because they were blinded by emergency lights. I stand firm on my courtroom question that asks, "If you were blinded by emergency lights, did you ever lose control and crash into whatever activity was present?" I continue to believe that tow trucks should continue their use of emergency lighting as allowed by your state laws ... not four-way flashers as argued while a tow truck is stationary or moving. My conclusion was partially made from Brian's narrative, responding to other state laws or working guidelines he may not be familiar with. As far as moths to the flame, without proof, it’s simply an exaggerated wives’ tale. Brian's correct in his statement about other state's interpretation of highway protocol. Example: In, California Highway Patrol’s Freeway Service Manual, Chapter 4: Disabled Vehicles on Right Shoulder, Subsection 2b, it states, “Amber warning lights shall be off and four way flashers shall be on when a FSP service vehicle is parked on the right shoulder.” While there may be reasoning that the guideline exists, this particular guideline hasn’t been updated to reflect SDMO. And, as Brian mentions TRAA’s video regarding four-way flashers on-scene, I’d venture that it’s safe to say we'd all agree that, in order for SDMO to work, properly applied emergency lighting allows for two distinct factors; one, lights-on is the indication that SDMO solicits a required responds that motorists to slow-down and move-over, and two, lights-on provides much needed advanced emergency notice to approaching traffic. Would you all not agree? Like other states, California’s FSP Manual is a living document meaning it is or can be periodically updated from time to time. Additionally, not all situations arising in the FSP program can be addressed in the manual. Accordingly the CHP state, "Therefore, sound judgment on the part of the FSP operator should always be used." My point in this questions if tow operators are aware that emergency lighting … not four way flashers, in most states, might be the means to legally initiate and announce the presence of tow trucks or emergency vehicles parked on highway shoulders or center dividers? By closely examining the narratives of most state laws, one may not find mention of four-way flashers, but, specific narrative authorizing use of emergency lighting, example, California’s vehicle code, Section 21809, in-part states, “a vehicle on a freeway approaching a stationary authorized emergency vehicle that is displaying emergency lights, a stationary tow truck that is displaying flashing amber warning lights, or a stationary marked Department of Transportation vehicle that is displaying flashing amber warning lights.” (There’s no mention of four-way flashers.) Brian's graphic for California could be debatable based on California’s Vehicle Code 25268, “No person shall display a flashing amber warning light on a vehicle as permitted by this code except when an unusual traffic hazard exists.” Is it accurate to say, if the carrier is loaded and driving in traffic lanes, can amber lights be used? If a loaded carrier is driving at speed with its amber lights-on, and no hazard or unusual conditions exist, does that create an unusual traffic hazard? And ... Brian's most accurate to state; “By contrast, emergency lighting is not regulated on the federal level, leaving it open for 50 or more different interpretations of what is safe and effective.” State, per state, the great debate continues in trying to define what defines emergency lights, four-way flashers, amber overhead flashing-ambers, or rotating lights? But, as long as I’m teaching highway safety to tow operators, I’ll continue to support the use of amber lighting when stationary on the shoulders; otherwise, a Plaintiff’s lame excuse will be … “How was I supposed to know that that was a tow truck?” The bottom-line? I believe that the proper amount of lighting provides great on-scene safety value to tow operators and first responders. And, no … that doesn’t include tow trucks that have 5-gazillion strobe-lights turned-on at the same time. I'd like to hear from the other personalities on this forum as to their opinions on this subject. R.

I find it ironic that the only person wearing a helmet was the only person who got clocked by flinging debris. R. Here's another video link where chain was said to recoil through the Jeep's windshield.

Guys, yesterday, under a different heading of, November's Safety Topic, I responded to that similar topic by respectfully disagreeing that us humanoids are NOT drawn to bright lights like a, "Moth to a Flame", or, "Phototaxis", as there is NO scientific research or proof that that occurs as described in the UK's, Loughborough University, "The Loughborough Study". Perhaps, "Target Fixation", is a better choice to describe emergency lighting? The Loughborough Study stated, "... that the faster the flash, the greater the sense of urgency that was interpreted by the receiver, called, "Phototaxis". — Phototaxis is the scientific term for the condition commonly referred to as the, "Moth to the flame", effect ... which has been widely spread throughout the emergency services. The authors of, "The Loughborough Study", were UNABLE to prove supporting scientific research. I don't know what article was read in Tow Times, but towers have this misconception mostly based on some wive's tale. Although, yes, I agree that too much lighting can be distracting, there are many other associated factors that could be caused for a crash, yet, it's an easy excuse to blame first responder lighting. To that I'll ask this specific question for those of you who've approached an incident scene where bright lights were present. "Did you lose control of your vehicle, or, did you carefully make it past without crashing into the light source?" That one question alone has been asked in three of the four tow related lighting cases I've been associated with. As FlagFixer comments, "If you focus on it you will hit it", that's, "Target Fixation", NOT moth to the flame. And, no, target fixation is NOT just a motorcycle rider's problem. I provide my comments not to pick a fight or downgrade anyone's opinion on the issue, but in an effort to refute a Plaintiff's easy defense that tow trucks and first responder lighting is responsible for the ill-driven actions of motorists who fail to slow-down and move-over. I'm a firm believer that towers and first responders shouldn't roll onto their backs to accept total responsibility when there's no scientific evidence to prove their wrong-doing. I invite you to read the Pdf, "Emergency Vehicle Safety Initiative", Page 63, found at the following link: https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNTd1Lt5t0mq9CUF6qU56Guj7Xwuw:1572630482942&q=The+Loughborough+Study+Moth+to+flame&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDvrGKycnlAhVGsZ4KHVB6DKsQBQguKAA&cshid=1572630623553975&biw=1280&bih=591 If you have proof to the otherwise, please let me know and I'll certainly re-evaluate my position. R.

Several of our military HMMWVs, LTATVs and RG-33s had synthetic rope for a trial period. It was removed after several months because it didn't stand-up to the abuse of our off-road operations in the rocks, sand and trees, specifically, if it got abraded. If a company is a winch-on winch-off business or one owner company who cared about the rope's use, I think it could last longer than having multiple operators use and abuse it like they would steel cable.I like the safety factor of, "No Memory", but overall, I too would stick with a quality designed cable with a clam shell swivel hook. R.

Sorry Brian ... your's is a great piece of research, however, I believe it lends ammunition for attorneys representing clients claiming that they were, "blinded by the light". I respectfully disagree with some content as it is (minimally) not accurate to California's cases The wording of each vehicle code when representing the letter of the law versus spirit of the law is a matter of perception. Having researched this topic in its entirety for several California wrongful death claims, I disagree to suggest that a humanoid is NOT drawn to bright lights like a, "Moth to a Flame", or, "Phototaxis", as there is NO scientific research or proof that that occurs as described in the UK's, Loughborough University, The Loughborough Study. Perhaps. Perhaps, "target fixation", is a better choice to describe emergency lighting? The Loughborough Study showed that the faster the flash, the greater the sense of urgency that was interpreted by the receiver, called, "Phototaxis". — Phototaxis is the scientific term for the condition commonly referred to as the, "Moth to the flame", effect ... which has been widely spread throughout the emergency services. The authors of, "The Loughborough Study", were UNABLE to locate supporting scientific research. As far as I'm concerned, that statement by a Plaintiff in-itself is packed full of crap especially when modern LED lighting can be seen over a mile away. Accordingly I'll ask, "If an emergency light is visible upwards to one mile (5,280-feet), what conditions or factors caused the motorist to not see any part of the light until they firmly planted into the work-zone?" That's one for a life-styles expert ... but, I have my conclusions. Perhaps the best document that I refer to regarding use of emergency lighting is, FEMAs/US Fire Administration's book, Emergency Vehicle Safety Initiative". The narrative within is very specific to the use of colored lighting. It's an older document and I don't know if a new one has been updated to reflect current SDMO laws of all states. In defense of a wrongful death lawsuit against tow companies, I've used this book on several cases and it's information has proved valuable. Link: https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/fa_336.pdf Scroll to the "Emergency Lighting Section", beginning page 53, that specifically mentions, The Loughborough Study", page 63. The mention of, "Moth to a Flame", is something I've noticed come up in lawsuits where intoxicated drivers use that, "blinded by the light", defense to shift focus away from their intoxicated state. It's easy to blame tow operators and first responders for the motorist's inability to make it past an accident or incident scene without plowing into pedestrian workers or first responder vehicles. May I suggest that each tower gets completely knowledgeable as to the wording of their state's vehicle code when it comes to SDMO, using emergency lighting AND white (loading lights) to the rear. While I salute Brian for providing this forum with vehicle codes that reference state lighting laws, although informative, there is non-descriptive mention of Slow-Down Move-Over laws which go hand-in-hand with use of emergency lighting. SDMO laws can be the best defense towers have to fight lawsuits that challenge use/over-use of emergency lighting. I believe that tow trucks should continue their use of emergency lighting as allowed by your state laws ... not four-way flashers as argued while a tow truck is stationary or moving. While I don't profess to be any credentialed expert in lighting, I'm aware of what tactics are used against towers and first responders in these kinds of cases. None-the-less ... thanks Brian for bringing this debate to the table. I invite others to join in this conversation based on your interpretation of your state laws or cases that you've been actively involved. R.

I've been following Ontario's story of alleged denial where tower's are being left out of the contract process. From afar, I have no idea as to the problems going on there, but a recent news report that includes tow companies near Waterloo reported that several tow truck companies were violating the current tow regulations or restrictions. The news reported that several tow companies were cited, and or had their wreckers impounded. Regardless as to what the issues are being claimed, some tow companies (like those involved in the recent enforcement) aren't making your cause any stronger. It's because of those actions, the OPP may be reluctant to make changes if changes are to be made. I feel bad for tow companies that want to be contracted by the OPP, but current actions of non-abiding towers continue to earn whatever current acceptance there is or isn't. https://www.kitchenertoday.com/police-beat/three-tow-truck-drivers-charged-with-getting-too-close-to-crash-scene-1779818

Today, Richard Pilon, son of Edgar Pilon, along with his siblings, had the Wall of the Fallen certificate (they received at the Wall of the fallen Memorial) permanently mounted to his father's headstone in, Lancaster, Ontario, Canada. The family was very humbled and appreciative that their father was recognized. Richard sent me this picture and I'd like to share it with you. R.

Good Morning Guys ... it's been more than a weeks since the announced rolling blockade made the news. Has there been any negotiation on the part of Ottawa's tow companies and the OPP? Has OPP Sgt. Diana Hampson lived-up to her words to hear your concerns? What's next? R.

I like the concept ... yet, it's not new, only perfected. There other considerations based on the wording of, "securement", and, "unsecured load?" Several year's ago, a California tow company used a forklift with a wheel-lift attachment, and then lifted a wrecked vehicle from its rear wheels in the same manner this photo depicts. The forklift and vehicle combination was backed to the carrier and then was winched onto the carrier into transport position. The tower added tie-downs to the forklift's rear end and the vehicle's end at the tailboard like shown in this photo. When the tower headed-out to deliver the vehicle to its destination, a city cop commercial enforcement officer stopped and cited the tower for unsecured load and saying there was too much float (movement?) in the lifted end of the vehicle. Hey ... I don't make this stuff up. So, I have to ask and based on a transported vehicle having or not having a required four-point tie-down (as required in most US states) ... would this manner of transport be legal based on the wording that defines four-point tie-down? Do you think this is a secured load, and if not, what would you have done to gain better securement? R.

OK ... great answers, so let's make the recovery more challenging by changing the scenario. When time is NOT a factor, the vehicle is totally burned, or a stolen recovery with no tires and wheels is five-miles off a dirt road, what choice of truck do you prefer based on ease and security of load. I have my preferences because I'm a carrier guy ... what are your preferences and why? Let's show the new guys some old tricks. R.

On a side note, and knowing that trash truck fires happen all the time, here's a link showing the result of a wildfire allegedly caused when the trash truck's driver dumped its burning contents and California's Santa Ana winds took its embers to the community. I watched the fire from my deck and was on fire watch all night. Thank God we dodged that bullet (this time). R. https://abc7.com/video-shows-trash-truck-that-ignited-deadly-calimesa-fire/5612626/

I too like the versatility of Paflinger cranes combined with Landoll or heavy carriers. But, for whatever reasons, the California Highway Patrol doesn't allow them as recovery trucks. One of the company's that I work training with would respond to pickup truck and fifth-wheel crashes out in the California deserts. He could handle the entire scene. He was told the combination wasn't approved and I don't know what reasoning would preclude them from being used. Oh well ... that's too bad. Best Regards John R