Trucking Safety Resource Center Arnold & Itkin LLP
Back to Company Liability
Carrier Negligence

Detention Time

AI

Arnold & Itkin Research Team

Reviewed by Caj Boatright

When a commercial truck is involved in a crash and investigators begin reconstructing the driver’s day, one of the first questions is what happened before the driver got on the road.

In a significant number of cases, the answer involves hours spent sitting at a warehouse dock where drivers are unpaid, unable to leave, and watching the hours-of-service window narrow.

“Detention time” refers to the extra time commercial motor vehicle operators wait at shipping and receiving facilities due to delays not associated with the loading and unloading of cargo. Drivers are often not paid for this extra time.1 It is one of the most documented and least regulated safety problems in commercial trucking. The federal data connecting detention time to unsafe driving is substantial. The industry’s tolerance for chronic detention is directly relevant in crash cases where a fatigued or rushed driver is at the center of the investigation.

What Is Detention Time?

The standard in the trucking industry is that a driver should be loaded or unloaded and back on the road within two hours of arriving at a facility. Time beyond that threshold is considered “detention time,” and it burns through the driver’s hours-of-service window, the limited window of on-duty time federal law allows before a mandatory rest period is required.

The scale of the problem is well-documented. A 2014 FMCSA study found that drivers experienced detention time on approximately 1 in every 10 stops, for an average duration of 1.4 hours beyond the 2-hour standard.2 By 2023, the picture had grown substantially worse. The American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI)’s research found that drivers reported being detained at 39.3 percent of all stops. And the frequency was even higher among women drivers (49.1 percent) and refrigerated trailer drivers (56.2 percent).3

DETAINED AT STOPS
39.3%
Of all stops, drivers reported being detained.
49.1%
Women drivers, where the frequency was even higher.
56.2%
Refrigerated trailer drivers.
American Transportation Research Institute research. By 2023, the picture had grown substantially worse.

Detention is not compensated consistently or at all in a significant share of cases. While 94.5 percent of fleets charge detention fees, those fees are paid on fewer than half of invoices.4 A 2018 Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General (OIG) study concluded that detention time reduces annual earnings of for-hire truckload-sector commercial motor vehicle drivers by more than $1 billion. Because most long-haul drivers are paid by the mile rather than by the hour, time spent waiting at a dock is a loss of revenue that cannot be compensated for once a driver finally gets back on the road. Lost time becomes pressure.5

Detention’s Impact on Driver Behavior

The safety implications of detention time are not theoretical. Federal and industry research have measured them directly.

The same 2018 OIG study discussed above also found that just a fifteen-minute increase in average dwell time increases the average expected crash rate by 6.2 percent. Implied in these findings is that each 1-minute reduction in average detention time nationwide would prevent roughly 400 crashes per year.6 That figure alone makes detention time one of the most quantified preventable crash risk factors in the industry.

ATRI researchers analyzed GPS data for large trucks at various customer facilities and concluded that detention time contributes to higher truck speeds. Drivers who were detained drove 14.6 percent faster on average than those who were not detained.7 The behavioral impacts are straightforward: a driver who has lost two or three hours at a dock and still has a delivery commitment is a driver under pressure to make up time. The regulatory clock does not pause for detention. A driver who arrives at a facility with nine hours of driving time remaining and leaves four hours later has five hours left, yet the delivery window has not moved.

Interestingly, ATRI’s GPS data showed that drivers also drove faster on the way to facilities where they were frequently detained, indicating that drivers know which shippers and receivers will likely hold them.8 And a Government Accountability Office survey found that approximately 4 percent of drivers reported they had driven beyond legal HOS limits and misrepresented their driving hours in logbooks due to detention time.9 That self-reported figure almost certainly understates the true rate.

WHAT THE RESEARCH MEASURED
6.2% Higher Expected Crash Rate Just a fifteen-minute increase in average dwell time increases the average expected crash rate by 6.2 percent.
400 CRASHES Prevented Per Year Each 1-minute reduction in average detention time nationwide would prevent roughly 400 crashes per year.
14.6% Faster Driving After Detention Drivers who were detained drove 14.6 percent faster on average than those who were not detained.
4% Drove Beyond Legal Limits Approximately 4 percent of drivers reported they had driven beyond legal HOS limits and misrepresented their driving hours in logbooks due to detention time.

The Regulatory Framework & Its Limits

Hours-of-service regulations under 49 C.F.R. Part 395 limit property-carrying drivers to 11 hours of driving within a 14-hour on-duty window, after which a minimum 10-hour rest period is required.10 Detention time burns through the 14-hour on-duty clock even though the driver is not behind the wheel. A driver detained for three hours at a facility has three fewer hours to drive and reach their destination but no corresponding reduction in what the shipper or carrier expects them to deliver.

The Hours-of-Service Window
DRIVING LIMIT
Hours-of-service regulations under 49 C.F.R. Part 395 limit property-carrying drivers to 11 hours of driving within a 14-hour on-duty window.
REQUIRED REST
After the 14-hour on-duty window, a minimum 10-hour rest period is required.
THE CLOCK DOES NOT PAUSE
Detention time burns through the 14-hour on-duty clock even though the driver is not behind the wheel.
A driver detained for three hours at a facility has three fewer hours to drive and reach their destination but no corresponding reduction in what the shipper or carrier expects them to deliver.

Federal regulations do address coercion in this context. Under 49 C.F.R. § 390.6, motor carriers, shippers, receivers, and transportation intermediaries are explicitly prohibited from coercing a driver to violate hours-of-service rules or other federal safety regulations. The coercion rule specifically extends past motor carriers, to shippers, receivers, and transportation intermediaries.11 However, the coercion prohibition has structural limits that do not address detention time. Under the coercion regulation, violators cannot be held responsible unless the driver specifically objects and the other party nonetheless demands compliance.12 Chronic detention that structurally makes compliance impossible, without an explicit demand that the driver violate the rules, can fall outside the agency’s enforcement reach. The gap between what the regulations prohibit and what routinely occurs at loading docks across the country is wide.

Carrier & Shipper Practices That Create the Problem

Detention does not happen in a vacuum. It is the product of scheduling decisions made by carriers and shippers before the driver ever arrives at the facility.

A carrier that accepts a load requiring delivery by a time that is only achievable if the driver is loaded and on the road within minutes of arrival has structured the job so that any delay at the dock produces an HOS problem. A shipper that routinely understaffs its loading operation, schedules trucks back-to-back without buffer time, or processes freight during shift changes is creating detention as a predictable operational outcome.

In its rulemaking on commercial motor vehicle driver detention, FMCSA synthesized public comments identifying specific shipper, receiver, carrier, and broker practices that contribute to delays:13

PRACTICES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO DELAYS
Understaffed facilities leading to loading backups Difficult driver check-in procedures Products still being processed at the time of loading Shippers and receivers not honoring appointment times Lack of storage room for products to be unloaded Appointment times scheduled during facility shift changes or breaks Poor communication Unequal power dynamics between shippers, receivers, and drivers Carrier and broker expectations regarding loading, unloading, and detention times Overloaded trucks that slow the loading and unloading process itself

These are not random events. They are foreseeable consequences of how facilities are staffed and scheduled. The carrier’s role in setting delivery windows is equally direct. A carrier that tells a driver to pick up at a given facility and deliver by a time that does not account for detention time, especially when detention time at that facility is routine and documented, has made a scheduling decision without a safety margin.

Detention Evidence in a Crash Investigation

Crash investigations often lead to questions about whether a driver was operating under time pressure.

Electronic logging device (ELD) data captures the driver’s duty status in real time, including the timestamps of arrival and departure at each facility. Since the ELD mandate went into effect in December 2017, virtually all drivers and carriers maintain detailed data on driver activities, which gives investigators a more reliable basis for analyzing detention patterns than was possible under the paper-log system it replaced.14 A comparison of ELD records against delivery appointment times and actual departure times establishes, to the minute, how much time was consumed at a facility and what remained when the driver departed.

If detention logs were maintained by the carrier or driver, the logs can corroborate the ELD record and can identify patterns across multiple stops. Dispatch communications, such as text messages, electronic load board records, and fleet management system messages, establish what the carrier knew about the driver’s timeline situation and what instructions the carrier then gave about the delivery window in response. A dispatch record showing that the carrier was aware of a detention event and nonetheless pushed the driver to meet the original delivery deadline is direct evidence of the pressure the driver was operating under when the crash occurred.

Pay records are among the most telling documents in a detention case. A carrier that tracked detention time for compensation purposes has simultaneously created a contemporaneous record of its drivers’ delays. These records exist independent of ELD data and cannot be edited after the fact.

Shipper and receiver records, such as facility appointment logs, dock management system data, and internal scheduling records, establish what was happening on the facility side of the transaction. Those records are in the possession of a party that may not anticipate being named in crash litigation, which means that the records are often managed less carefully than carrier records. Subpoenas served promptly after a crash can capture records that might otherwise be lost to routine data purges.

RECORDS THAT ESTABLISH DETENTION
Electronic Logging Device Data
Captures the driver’s duty status in real time, including the timestamps of arrival and departure at each facility.
Detention Logs
Logs maintained by the carrier or driver can corroborate the ELD record and can identify patterns across multiple stops.
Dispatch Communications
Text messages, electronic load board records, and fleet management system messages establish what the carrier knew about the driver’s timeline situation.
Pay Records
A carrier that tracked detention time for compensation purposes has simultaneously created a contemporaneous record of its drivers’ delays.
Shipper and Receiver Records
Facility appointment logs, dock management system data, and internal scheduling records establish what was happening on the facility side of the transaction.

Liability Beyond the Driver

Detention-related crash litigation involves more than the question of whether a driver was fatigued or rushed. It often involves the question of who created the conditions that made the crash foreseeable.

A carrier might set a delivery window that was impossible to meet without speeding or skipping a required rest period. Accepting that load despite knowing that its driver would likely be detained at the prior stop, and ignoring the driver’s actual ELD record showing the time available, is a sequence of decisions that directly increases crash risk.

A shipper that imposed a tight delivery window while operating a facility with chronic detention, documented across dozens of prior loads, has created a condition it should have known would put drivers under pressure.

CARRIER DECISIONS
✓Set a delivery window that was impossible to meet without speeding or skipping a required rest period.
✓Accepted that load despite knowing that its driver would likely be detained at the prior stop.
✓Ignored the driver’s actual ELD record showing the time available.
SHIPPER DECISIONS
✓Imposed a tight delivery window while operating a facility with chronic detention, documented across dozens of prior loads.
✓Created a condition it should have known would put drivers under pressure.

The federal anti-coercion framework under 49 C.F.R. § 390.6 sets the floor for what is explicitly prohibited. Then the common-law negligence standard asks the broader question: did this party create a foreseeable risk of harm, and did it do anything to mitigate it? A carrier or shipper with documented detention patterns, driver complaints about impossible schedules, and no evidence of having adjusted its practices has answered that question in its own records.

Sources

Frequently Asked Questions

  • ELD data showing arrival and departure timestamps at each facility, any detention logs kept for billing purposes, dispatch communications showing what the carrier knew and instructed, pay records showing tracked detention time, and the shipper or receiver's own appointment and dock-scheduling records. Facility records are especially valuable because they're often not preserved as carefully, since the facility may not expect to be named in the litigation.
  • Not directly. FMCSA's coercion rule (49 C.F.R. § 390.6) prohibits carriers, shippers, receivers, and brokers from threatening a driver who objects to a task that would violate hours-of-service rules, but that protection only applies once the driver objects and the other party demands compliance anyway. Chronic detention that makes compliance structurally impossible—without any single explicit demand—can fall outside that rule's reach, which is why detention is often addressed as an ordinary negligence question rather than a coercion violation.
  • Yes, according to federal research. A 2018 DOT Office of Inspector General study found that a 15-minute increase in average dwell time raises the average expected crash rate by 6.2 percent, and estimated that each 1-minute reduction in nationwide detention time would prevent roughly 400 crashes per year. Separate ATRI research found that detained drivers drove 14.6 percent faster on average than drivers who weren't detained.
  • Very common. A 2014 FMCSA study found detention on about 1 in every 10 stops, averaging 1.4 hours beyond the 2-hour standard. More recent research from the American Transportation Research Institute found drivers reported detention at 39.3 percent of all stops in 2023—higher still for women drivers (49.1 percent) and refrigerated trailer drivers (56.2 percent).
  • Detention time is the time a commercial driver spends waiting at a shipping or receiving facility beyond the industry standard of two hours to load or unload. Drivers are frequently not paid for this time, even though it eats into the same 14-hour on-duty window that limits how long they can legally drive that day.