Lack of CMV ID Suggestive of Illegitimate Tour Operators

[Dave Kaplow]

And here I was just the other day thinking there's been virtually zero drama here at ST lately (sigh)… Let me just say that I find it rather distasteful for someone with a personal financial stake in the game to come on here and try and recruit ST members to act as police informants and report competitors. Really, if your business is completely above board, but you feel that your competition is somehow shirking or even outright breaking the law, the answer is to publicize these facts on your business’s website and advertising, not to come on here and try and turn the ST membership into little storm-Nazis doing your dirty work for you. I understand it’s a dog eat dog world, but you should have disclosed your personal financial interest in storm tours in your original post. The fact that you didn’t is, quite simply, sleazoid in the extreme. And no, this is nothing like a copyright infringement thread. Nice try, but… Fail.

 

[Andy Jackson]

I could care less about policing the ST/chaser/tours community. I think the thread could have taken a different approach, like more of a "Robert's helpful tip's". Anyhow, instability has been released and someone got to vent.

 

[Jeff Snyder]

I'm not quite sure why there are some sour feelings -- if you don't like the topic, then just don't post. *shrug* There's nothing wrong, in my opinion, with bringing up for discussion the legalities of chase tour operations. If you operate legally, then there's nothing to worry about. If you are operating illegally (which, in the very short run, or, if you lucky and do not get caught, may put you at a financial advantage compared to tours that operate follow all local, state, and federal laws and regulations), then there's reason to be aware of the consequences. For the vast majority of us that don't operate tours, it seems that you can either think that legal tour operation is in the best interest of us all, or you can think it's irrelevant and not worth discussing. Given the option, I'd rather everyone operate within the limits of the law, personally. I'm not invested in this enough to worry about calling the appropriate authorities if I stop a non-compliant tour, though.

 

[Dan Robinson]

I generally agree with Jeff and Robert - this is a relevant topic. For full disclosure, I *tried* to pitch a ride-along tour operation (as simply a way to pay for chasing after video tanked) but didn't have time to market it. Marketing is everything these days and I'm horrible at it. I have a full-time job now and no longer offer tours.

Just a couple of points. Who else is going to know this is a problem other than a tour operator who's been through the red tape? The federal regulations are in place to ensure that operations comply with safety regulations (rigorous vehicle inspections, limits on drivers' daily hours, CDL-class drivers, etc.) How would this issue go over if school bus companies shirked their rules? Airlines? Plane crashes have been caused by this culture of "shut up, turn a blind eye, it's none of your business" culture. Read the story of Alaska Airlines 261 and specifically what happened to the guy who blew the whistle.

 

[Mike Moore]

I think the question is a legitimate one, but the original post is a pretty transparent attempt to recruit people to try and damage or eliminate your competition. If you had posted the question of DOT numbers fine, but also posting where to make a complaint and inviting us all to complain when we see one will turn a lot of people off.

Ugg... The "family" feel of the storm chasing community keeps getting smaller and smaller.

 

[hazelmaryjackson]

I was due to go on a tour this year which got cancelled because the owner/organiser got taken ill. As I recall we had a van which was going to hold 6 people and plenty of space for luggage so I assume an 8 seater. As I was flying in from overseas I had to check if my holiday insurance was up to date - not wanting to face US hospital bills out of my own pocket if taken ill.

There were various exclusions in my policy for dangerous sports and some for natural disasters but nothing which covered accidents arising when storm chasing. It is not an activity in Europe. I thought about it for a bit and decided I was well into middle age, my family grown up and if I wanted to take a risk, I would do just that and not worry about it. (I was satisified the tour vehicle was new and well equipped and the organiser experienced. Beyond that I decided to take no further interest and take my chances).

I have always assumed the first person to be killed storm chasing will one of the more "extreme" chasers, but maybe I am wrong and a tornado will come down and hit a group of chasers converged by a road one day.

 

[Matt Tottle]

How about instead of reporting chase tours without the numbers on the side, people start reporting the busted down landscaping trucks that have bald tires, smoke billowing out, grass clippings and leaves flying out the back, and 6 people crammed into a 3 person cab? Pretty good chance there isn't a valid driver's license or social security number between them.

 

[Adam Simone]

How about instead of reporting chase tours without the numbers on the side, people start reporting the busted down landscaping trucks that have bald tires, smoke billowing out, grass clippings and leaves flying out the back, and 6 people crammed into a 3 person cab? Pretty good chance there isn't a valid driver's license or social security number between them.

haha seen a few of these in Western Kansas have ya?

 

[Matt Tottle]

Oh not just here I've seen them all over.. I first took notice when I lived in NJ.. 3 or 4 accidents a month involving these tools, and 90% of the time the driver was unlicensed.

 

[Adam Simone]

Yeah I hear ya, I see it quit often in my job.

 

[Jason Foster]

Lead by example. Do the job better. Be helpful, not harmful. It is one thing to put the out the word, but did you even consider calling said companies and say "hey, was looking into the business myself and noticed x, y, z. Wasn't sure if you knew about this, might want to look into it". Cause you know what....had you maybe helped those folks rather than causing them grief...they might have thrown some business/clients your way when they get overbooked. I doubt you will get any courtesy now. So really...who's this REALLY costing.

But that is just my non-tour owner take on it.

 

[Michael Towers]

“Is designed or used to transport more than 8 passengers (including the driver) for compensationâ€

I’d argue the law does not apply as the use of the vehicles is not the basis for compensation, or in other words they are not vehicles for hire. The law is meant to apply to vehicles that transport people or products in return for compensation (e.g. shipping, busing, towing) or warrant regulation due to their type (e.g. semi-truck). On tours people are paying to see storms, they are not paying for the purpose of transportation. I’m all for safety and protecting the public but requiring compliance from businesses of this nature and subjecting them to such regulations is onerous. These tours use vehicles that are not otherwise subject to commercial regulation when used by the general public; we’re talking Econovans here, not big rigs or Greyhound buses. Would forcing commercial compliance on tour companies increase safety? I’d argue it’s in the best interest of the company to have reliable and well maintained vehicles and I’d be surprised if a tour company were found to be operating one deemed unsuitable for transit. I’d also argue they most likely screen drivers thoroughly and require a standard that exceeds commercial criteria. Imposing onerous commercial restrictions and fees on these companies would not necessarily benefit the companies, their customers or the general public and would ultimately amount to an undue government burden on these free market enterprises.

...(like it or not) the regulations are in place to ensure to the public that you are operating maintained vehicles with safe drivers...

If safety is a concern, are you sure you want to compare your method versus that of the traditional tours? Professional tours operate vehicles that they rely on for their living, can you say the same about the client’s car you hop into when accompanying them on a tour? Professional tour guides are experienced at driving in storm environments and used to navigating in adverse conditions. Do you know how your client will respond to chasing a wicked HP beast on treacherous roads with hordes of other chasers flying around, some recklessly?

As for reporting any company that MAY be in violation I’ll take a pass and instead wish them success in their enterprise. Just please keep your clients and vehicles off the damn road and I’ll always be happy to share the storm with you.

 

[Scott Weberpal]

“Is designed or used to transport more than 8 passengers (including the driver) for compensation”

I’d argue the law does not apply as the use of the vehicles is not the basis for compensation, or in other words they are not vehicles for hire. The law is meant to apply to vehicles that transport people or products in return for compensation (e.g. shipping, busing, towing) or warrant regulation due to their type (e.g. semi-truck). On tours people are paying to see storms, they are not paying for the purpose of transportation.

Ding ding ding!

A few years back, perhaps 2007, someone went headhunting and decided to turn in numerous tour companies to the USDOT for not being registered as commercial vehicles. Having personal/working relationships with a few tour companies, there was much discussion as to whether or not tour companies are in fact commercial for-hire entities, or whether customers, as Michael stated, are paying to see storms - not for transportation.

To make a long story short, one of the tour operators received numerous threatening phone calls from their state DOT regarding registering with them, but after consulting with an attorney, the tour operator decided they did not fall under DOT regulations in regard to commercial for-hire operations. After a few phone calls between the operator, his attorney, and the DOT, the DOT backed off and never bothered him again.

In a nutshell, chase tours, even in 8+ passenger vans, are not commercial for-hire entities.

 

[Robert Edmonds]

This kind of conversation is great and welcomed over ad hominem points. That logic though would suggest the entire sightseeing service industry would not fall under the regulations. For example I am just paying a Grand Canyon tour operator for the entrance fee, their knowledge of the views, etc. For group storm chasing tours there is a secondary consideration of customers, besides can they find a tornado, is that some do not (1) want to drive in those conditions or those distances & (2) place their vehicle in a situation that might lead to receiving damage. These are both reasons why potential customers choose these tours over mine (as mentioned in emails or over the phone when they don't get the idea of the ride along at first), which is fine. These are both points though that suggest the customer is paying for transportation. I also welcome people to take a look at some of the tours at the Grand Canyon which sometimes cross state lines and only use 9-15 person passenger vans. You will see something on their vehicles, MC#s and USDOT#s.

Edit/P.S. I would like to mention there are, from as I can tell, legitamate and there have been legitamate tours that have obeyed all regulations (including the CMV regulations discussed here). I applaud and welcome that competition!

 

[Bryan Stokes]

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to file "complaints" against fellow storm chasers. Just like I'm not concerned if someone is seen driving 10mph over the speed limit on their live stream. It's downright silly.

I prefer to spend my time helping a fellow chaser (however that may be) than trying to hurt them by reporting something to the authorities. Obviously, other people's mileage may vary.

Bryan