 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / RVs / July 2006Licensed Weights vs. Actual Weights
Have you checked your vehicles' titles/license receipts to verify that you're legal at the actual weight(s) of your vehicle(s)? Sure, it seems like a "no-brainer" but, while waiting in line to renew the license plate stickers on my truck and trailer, I discovered that both the RV Dealer >and< the truck dealer had each left me with a "Gotcha" that >could< have "ruined my whole day". Each had submitted the paperwork for the original titles >with minimized weights<! The Truck [Build Weight = 7430] had been submitted with a total, "all-up" weight of 9300 pounds instead of the 12,000 GVWR on the sticker on the driver's side door of the 2003 Dodge 3500 DRW. The Trailer [Build Weight - 11,300] had been submitted with that weight and >no< cargo capacity instead of the 14,100 pounds on >its< placard. Needless to say, the truck's "legal" GVW was exceeded by the pin weight of the empty trailer - much less when loaded - and the trailer was overweight with the first pair of jeans in the closet. Fortunately for me, it was a simple thing to get corrected >ONCE I KNEW ABOUT IT>! Have you checked your vehicles' titles/license receipts to verify that you're legal at the actual weight(s) of your vehicle(s)? I see where "RAM³" <s31924.nospam@netscape.net> contributed: >Have you checked your vehicles' titles/license receipts to verify that you're >legal at the actual weight(s) of your vehicle(s)? Excellent heads up. Unfortunately, experience suggest it will be useful only to a tiny minority. It seems to me most rv'ers don't give tinker's dam about the basics of weight, and consider it normal that their rigs ride and handle badly and eat tires. As far as "legal" issues are concerned, I fear many just rely on luck. For example there are still MANY roads - including State highways - where rigs over 96" wide are illegal Will Sill The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill > For example there are still MANY roads >- including State highways - where rigs over 96" wide are illegal I think you are wrong. 96" is the standard width. I believe you mean 102". For instance, my dual wheel pickup is 96" wide. Are you telling me my pickup is not legal to operate on the highways?  SignatureFrank Tabor I see where Frank Tabor <ftabor@gmail.com> contributed: Will: >> For example there are still MANY roads >>- including State highways - where rigs over 96" wide are illegal FT: >I think you are wrong. 96" is the standard width. I believe you mean >102". For instance, my dual wheel pickup is 96" wide. Are you telling >me my pickup is not legal to operate on the highways? Only if you can't read what I wrote. Are you taking over for Oz, who has been mercifully quiet lately? Will Sill Don't worry about what people think, they don't do it very often. >I see where Frank Tabor <ftabor@gmail.com> contributed: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Are you taking over for Oz, who has been mercifully quiet lately? Show me where a 96" vehicle is prohibited other than a temporary site. I read what you wrote. You said many states prohibit 96" rigs. I said you are wrong. So now show me where 96" rigs are prohibited, on state highways. SignatureFrank Tabor >>I see where Frank Tabor <ftabor@gmail.com> contributed: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > you are wrong. So now show me where 96" rigs are prohibited, on state > highways. No. He wrote "...over 96" wide are illegal." In plain language, that means your 96" truck is legal. SignatureDave Thompson "Dave Thompson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message Are you telling > No. He wrote "...over 96" wide are illegal." In plain language, that means > your 96" truck is legal. Plus he got "tinker's dam " right. Regards, Barry I see where Frank Tabor <ftabor@gmail.com> contributed: Will: >>>> For example there are still MANY roads >>>>- including State highways - where rigs over 96" wide are illegal FT: >>>I think you are wrong. 96" is the standard width. I believe you mean >>>102". For instance, my dual wheel pickup is 96" wide. Are you telling >>>me my pickup is not legal to operate on the highways? Will: >>Only if you can't read what I wrote. >> >>Are you taking over for Oz, who has been mercifully quiet lately? FT: >Show me where a 96" vehicle is prohibited other than a temporary site. I >read what you wrote. You said many states prohibit 96" rigs. I said >you are wrong. So now show me where 96" rigs are prohibited, on state >highways. Even after being shone repeatedly that I wrote: "rigs over 96" wide" . . . . you Just Don't Get It. Try reading it one more time, Frank. Will Sill The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill Rigs over 96" wide are illegal on many roads. Will Sill. Are you telling me my 96" pickup is illegal? Frank Tabor OVER 96" wide.... RTFOP. OVER 96" wide.... RTFOP. OVER 96" wide.... RTFOP. OVER 96" wide.... RTFOP. OVER 96" wide.... RTFOP. You said many states prohibit 96" rigs. Frank Tabor OVER 96" wide.... RTFOP. OVER 96" wide.... RTFOP. OVER 96" wide.... RTFOP. OVER 96" wide.... RTFOP. OVER 96" wide.... RTFOP. OVER 96" wide.... RTFOP. >Try reading it one more time, Frank. > >Will Sill >The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill Another example of some w.nk so intent on slamming Will that he proves his own inadequacies. I think the problem is that Will types the message faster than Frank can read it! Frank, I'm more than a little surprised. You DIDN'T get it... In article <uqkka2tg0fij7nf47pjhmo0spa3klru961@4ax.com>, Will Sill <will@epix.fnet> wrote: > there are still MANY roads - including State highways - > where rigs over 96" wide are illegal In article <lspka25rdjb3716n6b4f7gbd6m8tu25tik@4ax.com>, > I think you are wrong. 96" is the standard width. I believe you mean > 102". For instance, my dual wheel pickup is 96" wide. Are you telling > me my pickup is not legal to operate on the highways? The claim was anything *OVER* 96-inches. ...and I believe the claim is correct. Signature:) JR >>>For instance, my dual wheel pickup is 96" wide. Are you telling me my >>>pickup is not legal to operate on the highways ?<<< Will wrote "where rigs...OVER... 96" wide are illegal SignatureJerryD(upstateNY) > For example there are still MANY roads - including State highways - > where rigs over 96" wide are illegal And is there a central location where we can find those restrictions? We just bought a 102" (wide) vehicle. In point of fact, we seldom travel the Interstate Highway System. But it would seem that the "lesser" roads (the US Highways and certain state highways) would be those subject to the width limitation. Ken I see where Ken Harrison <sptrain98@earthlink.net> contributed: >> For example there are still MANY roads - including State highways - >> where rigs over 96" wide are illegal KH: >And is there a central location where we can find those restrictions? >We just bought a 102" (wide) vehicle. In point of fact, we seldom >travel the Interstate Highway System. But it would seem that the >"lesser" roads (the US Highways and certain state highways) would be >those subject to the width limitation. Sorry, my information is now several years old. I've often posted the following: ====================== ALL interstate highways, in all States, permit 102" widths. No States "prohibit" widebodies, but MANY jurisdictions restrict or prohibit vehicles over 96" wide on *certain* roads. These restrictions vary widely. Jurisdictions with restrictions include AL, AZ, DE, DC, FL, GA, IL, KY, LA, MD, MI, NE, NJ, NY, NC, OK, PA, VA & WV. Source: 1998 "TRUCKERS ATLAS FOR PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS" ====================== I recommend you get the latest equivalent source. The situation has probably changed, since the limitations are of course subject to political and therefore illogical thinking. Still, there are MANY very nice roads that are simply not enjoyable (let alone legal or safe) with a wide bulgemobile. Will Sill The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill >> For example there are still MANY roads - including State highways - >> where rigs over 96" wide are illegal [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ken I've been driving a wide body since 1995, mostly on the back roads and have met dozens of cops. I don't think they worry about wide bodies and don't want to hassle tourists either. Just wave and show your teeth. LZ Check Family Motor Coach Association (http://www.fmca.com/) and MotorHome Magazine (http://www.motorhomemagazine.com/). One or both list the latest restrictions (including towing limits) every year. People often mention that width/length restrictions are generally ignored by law enforcement but that still leaves such issues to luck. With the increase in the number of large RV's on the road, it will only be a matter of time until an enterprising lawyer picks up on the potential and goes after someone. I can imagine the headlines and resulting furor when "owner of oversized, overweight RV smashes minivan with mom and kids going to church!" Not my idea of fun. It's likely that I'll join the ranks of the currently lucky on my next MHA since I don't believe I can buy a narrow body coach in the 2000 year range. CruzMastr > > For example there are still MANY roads - including State highways - > > where rigs over 96" wide are illegal [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ken I see where "CruzMastr" <cruzmastr@hotmail.com> contributed: > . . . . People often mention that >width/length restrictions are generally ignored by law enforcement but that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >likely that I'll join the ranks of the currently lucky on my next MHA since >I don't believe I can buy a narrow body coach in the 2000 year range. Right on all counts. It's part of today's culture, dramatized many years ago by Ayn Rand in "Atlas Shrugged". As I recall the scenario, the Establishment regarded laws as a way to control the people through selective enforcement. With enough overlapping and contradictory laws & regulations, every citiizen was bound to be in violation and therefore subject to arrest on the whim of the bureacrats. Will Sill Don't worry about what people think, they don't do it very often. It has become so commonplace that anyone who objects to selective enforcement is regarded as parnoid. That's awful. The person who did the original registration may have been incompetent, or may have thought he was doing you a favor by reducing your registration costs. More and more every day, I believe that salesmen/dealers don't know anything about the products they sell. Either way, if you ever got weighed, I suspect that most reasonable cops would have understood your predicament and allowed you to go with a warning once they saw the manufacturer's rating etched in metal. "Rick Onanian" <groups.theholycow@xoxy.net> wrote in message > Either way, if you ever got weighed, I suspect that most reasonable > cops would have understood your predicament and allowed you to go with > a warning once they saw the manufacturer's rating etched in metal. Except on our 2003 Chev truck, the "etched in metal" sticker fell off one day. It is a sort of clear plastic with the info printed into the plastic somehow. Luckily, I found it on the ground before it had blown away. I tried to get the dealer to glue it back on under warranty and got nowhere. The story is that there is only one copy of this sticker and you can't get a replacement because it has the VIN on it. Plus they didn't know what kind of glue to use to put ours back on. Rather than take a chance on some glue where it fell off again and got lost this time (assuming you could still read the info depending on the colour of the glue) I just keep the sticker at home in case I need it for a legal problem as described. We did make sure the GVWR on our registration is correct too, and it was "under-reported." Good tip to get that right, because they go by the registration. Regards, Barry In Ohio it is standard operating procedure for a commercial vendor to lie about the weight of his truck on his registration application. As the system isn't set up to read the VIN, the truck ends up with cheaper plates. The truck gets stopped and the weight on the registration is ignored. The VIN provides the empty weight and the citation. The owner becomes irate. The threat of an additional fraud charge and pulling plates normally gets him on his way with the realization he has to pay the full cost of the overweight or no-truck citation. He can't argue the truck citation without getting into his fraud. So what? Your RV is a truck in the eyes of the officer stopping you. While you don't qualify for truck restrictions, having bogus weight numbers will ring a bell and raise an eyebrow. It probably won't go anywhere. RVers aren't desperatoes. Steve www.wolfswords.com under the motorhome link >In Ohio it is standard operating procedure for a commercial vendor to lie >about the weight of his truck on his registration application. As the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >ring a bell and raise an eyebrow. It probably won't go anywhere. RVers >aren't desperatoes. Do you know this to be fact or are you guessing. The reason I question this is that in TN it IS legal for one to buy a lower GVW plate. I know because I called the TDMV before I bought tags for my cube van. The van is rated at 21,000 lbs which would require an H3 tag if fully loaded and that tag costs over $300. Because I knew that I'd never be heavily loaded, using the truck only for catering, I registered it with an H2 plate which "only" cost about $125. When I hit the scales the truck is judged to be in compliance according to the tag it has. I'm measured against the H2 tag. During that National Safety Day that I mentioned in another post, I ran this scenario past the TDOT cop I was working with. I wanted to be sure, as I've gotten bad poop from the phone-answerers before. He confirmed that what I was told is what the enforcers enforce. I'd not be surprised to find a state like OH to be more greedy in that regard but at least in TN, what you call lying is actually accepted practice. John --- John De Armond See my website for my current email address http://www.neon-john.com Cleveland, Occupied TN Don't let your schooling interfere with your education-Mark Twain The issue isn't registration. In Ohio it appears no one cares what you say to the BMV. The issue is what happens if vehicle weight becomes a factor. If the sign says "No trucks over 10,000 pounds" there aren't too many ways to interpret that. In Ohio, no one is going to care what your registration says. Whether or not you are allowed to lie on the weight isn't a question. If the empty weight from the VIN is over the 10,000 pounds, then the truck is over 10k empty and still over 10k loaded or not. The driver can go in and say, "I told the BMV the truck was 7,500 pounds so I could run these roads illegally." I'd like to watch if they do. I stand corrected on the registration. The drivers are not "lying" when they get tags with weights lower than the capacity of their truck. Here, compliance normally comes in the form of portable scales. Good and honest truck drivers are never overloaded. In Ohio the overloaded trucks and drivers are screwed to the walls. This is proper as overloaded trucks do too much damage to be tolerated. The fines are civil judgments. It gets really coercive after that. It has nothing to do with greed. It has everything to do with keeping unsafe trucks and unsafe drivers off Ohio highways. It's a machine that eats bad trucks and bad drivers and produces compensation for damages they cause. > Do you know this to be fact or are you guessing. The reason I > question this is that in TN it IS legal for one to buy a lower GVW [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > regard but at least in TN, what you call lying is actually accepted > practice. >The issue isn't registration. In Ohio it appears no one cares what you say >to the BMV. The issue is what happens if vehicle weight becomes a factor. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >and say, "I told the BMV the truck was 7,500 pounds so I could run these >roads illegally." I'd like to watch if they do. Wow, bet you've been saving that tangential spew for awhile. Sorry to have inadvertently knocked the chip off your shoulder. Actually, according to the post of yours that I replied to, the issue you brought up IS registration. What you said: >In Ohio it is standard operating procedure for a commercial vendor to lie >about the weight of his truck on his registration application. I'm certainly not interested in discussing (arguing?) about low weight restricted roads. My interest in the discussion was the aspect of being called a liar or law-breaker for registering my vehicle in a lower weight class than the GVW on the nameplate. >I stand corrected on the registration. The drivers are not "lying" when >they get tags with weights lower than the capacity of their truck. Here, >compliance normally comes in the form of portable scales. >Good and honest >truck drivers are never overloaded. Really? Good stump speech but how does a "good and honest" driver deal with it in the real world? Let's say I'm loaded to 79,500 lbs to leave a 500 lb margin of error and all my axle weights are correct. Good and honest driver. I'm trucking along through Indiana where the max weight limit is 80,000 lbs and something happens - weather, road work, etc - that forces me to detour through Illinois where the max weight is only 73,280 lbs. Am I suddenly a dishonest and bad driver? I can't go around the state - neither the customer nor the company would pay for that nor tolerate the delay. I can't unload. First, the trailer is sealed and second, there isn't anyplace to put the extra cargo. Do I turn around and go back to the originating terminal? I'd be looking for a job the next day. As the supreme judge of what is good and honest, what would you do, Steve? You're approaching the Illinois border as the driver of this 79,500 lb truck and you have to make a decision. Something tells me you'd do the same as any other driver, make the run through Illinois while trying to avoid the coops. Or how about the actual example given by another driver on another list. You're doing a multi-drop run. You're loaded legal in the state(s) you run in before the first drop and know from the bill of lading that you'll be legal in the next states after you lose the weight of the cargo at the first stop. Problem is, the cargo for the first stop is out of spec and the customer refuses it. Pesky customers have a way of doing that. Now you're a little heavy for the next state. What do you as Steve the Perfect Driver do? Or suppose you're in the kind of "drop and hook" service that I'm going to be driving in where you drop a trailer off at a terminal and hook to another already-loaded one. These trailers are almost always sealed against entry so as the driver, you cannot look inside. The bill of lading and the scales at the terminal exit confirm that everything is OK. Enroute, some dip-sh*t in an RV (just to keep this barely on-topic) cuts you off, you have to hammer the brakes and the load shifts enough to put you a little over-weight on one axle. Yeah, I know, the cargo isn't supposed to be loaded so that it can shift but spit happens and warehouses are occupied with less-than-fully-caring employees sometimes. As good and honest a driver as you are, you have no way of knowing that you're now in technical violation of the bridge law. At what point do you quit being a good and honest driver? As the formerly good and honest driver, do you still think that you should be "screwed to the wall" at the next weigh station? YOU and not the trucking company nor the warehouse employees pay the fines and get the points. >In Ohio the overloaded trucks and >drivers are screwed to the walls. Actually they're not. See below. >This is proper as overloaded trucks do >too much damage to be tolerated. The fines are civil judgments. It gets >really coercive after that. It has nothing to do with greed. It has >everything to do with keeping unsafe trucks and unsafe drivers off Ohio >highways. It's a machine that eats bad trucks and bad drivers and produces >compensation for damages they cause. Are you sure you're not a politician? That's the kind of empty demagoguery that I expect out of a politician who never has to be responsible for his words and deeds. Nobody's talking about the prototypical speed-crazed dope fiend running a truck that's 20,000 lbs heavy. I, at least, am concerned with the technical violations, the chicken-sh.t little things that have no real-world effects but that greedy states use to siphon money from people who have no representation or recourse - drivers. The "$500 for 500 lbs" fine that some states are famous for. If it were not about greed then that front section of the Truckers Atlas, the many pages that outline all the chicken-sh.t state rules, would not exist. There would be a uniform and easy-to-understand set of rules for everyone. If it's not about greed then why have the states with the abnormally low weight limits fought so hard against federal standardization? The ISTEA would have done that had there not been so many howls from states like OH that derive so much money from these technical violations. And if weight limits are purportedly only to minimize damage to the highways then why are overweight permits so cheap (relatively speaking, of course)? The permit revenue isn't a drop in the bucket if this highway damage boogeyman is really true. (For the simple-minded, I'm not arguing that heavy trucks don't cause road damage. I'm arguing that the technical violations that make some states so much money have an immeasurably small effect on pavement, particularly relative to the fines charged.) I wonder, Steve, how you'd have performed whatever job it was that you did if you had to work under the same conditions as "good and honest" drivers? If the rules were set up so that harmless everyday situations on the job were turned into Catch-22 revenue-grabbing violations. If you were held responsible for the work of others over whom you have no control. It's as if in the restaurant business they'd made it against the law to serve food on a certain colored plate but the prohibited color changed randomly day by day. When I started the driving school, the instructor asked each of us to state our goals. I had several but one was to learn the trade sufficiently well that I'd not have any hassles with the cops. He just laughed and smiled. Now I understand why. OK Steve, you cracked your gums and slandered a whole trade (I'll let others argue whether it's a profession or not.) Now let's see if you're man enough to back up that slander with solutions to the real-world problems I detailed above. John PS: I've been picking on OH for Steve's benefit but as things go with truck weights, OH isn't bad, as one can see here: http://www.coopsareopen.com/ohio-weigh-station-information.html --- John De Armond See my website for my current email address http://www.neon-john.com Cleveland, Occupied TN Don't let your schooling interfere with your education-Mark Twain This doesn't have anything to do with a chip on a shoulder, or yelling, or whatever. If confronted with the decision to operate illegally in a state, I'd stop and offload product until I was operating within the state's limits. I wouldn't get fired as the people I'd work for don't consider me some kind of whore where the better you are, the more you get paid. When a driver operates illegally, when rules are adjusted to maximize the benefits to the shipper, the customer and his wallet, he becomes a weed to be plucked. This is the machine that does the plucking. It certainly does have to do with RVs. When trucks are overloaded they break up roads. They cannot operate safely. They present a significant hazard to an RV. Every once in a while you'll see an RV being driven badly. Seeing an overloaded truck struggling down a highway takes a few minutes at any urban interstate ramp. Governments are funded by commercial interests. It is not in their best interests to screw with shipping. They eliminate or restrict enforcement and breed drivers whose interests take no regard of safety. They dissuade unions that could impose self regulation. Load to the limit and hope we make it. It must be a hell of an "profession". Steve > This doesn't have anything to do with a chip on a shoulder, or > yelling, or whatever. If confronted with the decision to operate > illegally in a state, I'd stop and offload product until I was > operating within the state's limits. I suggest that YOU DO have a chip on your shoulder. I suggest you help stop all those trucks. The way you do that is to stop buying anything that comes to you by truck. Now that you've done that, how does it feel to be nakid out in the woods digging for roots with your fingers? YOU WOULD NOT off load the freight but once. You would be out of a job. I've never heard a worse assault on truckers in my life!!! I'm not sure I follow your argument. All I am suggesting is that trucks should operate legally. I have said nothing more. Do you mean that if trucks operate legally I won't be able to buy anything and be forced to dig roots by hand while naked. That's funny. You really think so? Do you think there are that many who choose to operate illegally? Do you mean that I should support truckers, specifically a trucker's illegal operation, because everything I have was brought by trucks? I'm not convinced all trucks are illegal so how about if I buy only from legal trucks? Am I still naked and digging roots? Can I at least wear shorts? Consider that this person is right and there are many truckers who are operating illegally. Not so, I know, but it sure does put a whole new perspective to taking the RV out and passing a truck. > I suggest that YOU DO have a chip on your shoulder. I suggest you help > stop all those trucks. The way you do that is to stop buying anything that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I've never heard a worse assault on truckers in my life!!! >This doesn't have anything to do with a chip on a shoulder, or yelling, or >whatever. If confronted with the decision to operate illegally in a state, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >to the shipper, the customer and his wallet, he becomes a weed to be >plucked. It seems that it's some states who adjust the rules to maximize the benefits to the state. What other reason is there not to have uniform regulations? > This is the machine that does the plucking. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Steve SignatureAl Balmer Sun City, AZ I see where Al Balmer <albalmer@att.net> contributed: >It seems that it's some states who adjust the rules to maximize the >benefits to the state. What other reason is there not to have uniform >regulations? I would not argue for a moment gainst the idea that "some states . . . adjust the rules to maximize the benefits to the state". In fact, I would hope (not holding my breath!) they do it in more ways than just to enhance revenue. But I can see a number of valid non-revenue reasons for States to have differing regulations - width, speed, weight, etc. Folks who argue that all highway rules should be Federal (or at least uniform) do not consider the vast differences between regions (for example, Nevada vs RI). Without meaning to defend goofy and ill-conceived regulations (there is an abundance) it remains reasonable (IMO) for VT to impose different limts than Arizona. The wise traveler should be somewhat familiar with the differences, like 'em or not. Will Sill The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill >I see where Al Balmer <albalmer@att.net> contributed: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >is an abundance) it remains reasonable (IMO) for VT to impose >different limts than Arizona. That's reason to impose different rules for different conditions, not different rules for different states. States are a political entity, not a road classification. This is made obvious by the fact that there are differing rules within the same state, corresponding to differing road conditions. Some roads are off limits to heavy vehicles, some roads are prohibited to hazardous cargoes, etc. >The wise traveler should be somewhat familiar with the differences, >like 'em or not. Of course. But we can always dream of sanity. SignatureAl Balmer Sun City, AZ >This doesn't have anything to do with a chip on a shoulder, or yelling, or >whatever. If confronted with the decision to operate illegally in a state, >I'd stop and offload product until I was operating within the state's >limits. Really? Exactly where would you offload? A rest area? Side of the road? >I wouldn't get fired as the people I'd work for don't consider me >some kind of whore where the better you are, the more you get paid. When a >driver operates illegally, when rules are adjusted to maximize the benefits >to the shipper, the customer and his wallet, he becomes a weed to be >plucked. This is the machine that does the plucking. OK, so you're going to dodge the issue. Fair enough. That's what I figured you'd do. Demagogues always do that when pressed for specifics. >It certainly does have to do with RVs. When trucks are overloaded they >break up roads. They cannot operate safely. They present a significant [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Load to the limit and hope we make it. It must be a hell of an >"profession". Damn, Steve, I'd hate to be so ignorant of a subject and yet have such strong opinions. The way of the demagogue, I suppose. John --- John De Armond See my website for my current email address http://www.neon-john.com Cleveland, Occupied TN Don't let your schooling interfere with your education-Mark Twain > >This doesn't have anything to do with a chip on a shoulder, or yelling, or > >whatever. If confronted with the decision to operate illegally in a state, [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > John > --- Our dispatcher and load coordination departments always planned around these kind of problems. If you were carrying a drop that depended on weight restrictions down the road, we arranged a drop at Yellow or other terminals with them forwarding the drop. Our vans were never completely restricted from breaking the seal by the driver. I thought many states required the driver to have access to his load. There are load braces and jam pallets that help prevent the load from shifting, but an emergency stop WILL break it loose, and the driver is responsible to make it right. That might take him visiting a terminal and paying swamper fee. Further if a drop was refused due to problems with it and they would not take it off on their dock after explaining a weight problem down the road. they would go on the black list and play hell if another freight company would handle their freight. SignatureBILL P. Just Me & DOG >Really? Exactly where would you offload? A rest area? Side of the >road? I am less than a mile from a 'weigh station' on I29 at North Sioux City, SD. In the small lot there, you will almost always find "stuff" off-loaded to bring a tractor/trailer combo into compliance. The offending driver is responsible for protecting the offload. unk >John De Armond >See my website for my current email address >http://www.neon-john.com >Cleveland, Occupied TN >Don't let your schooling interfere with your education-Mark Twain >> snip<< > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Cleveland, Occupied TN > Don't let your schooling interfere with your education-Mark Twain HA! To further muddy the "weight waters," our 40 foot RV is about 30,000 lbs, the tag, in Tennessee, costs us $24.00. Go figure! SignatureLife is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. Our Web Side www.cj-and-m.com Come Visit > "Rick Onanian" <groups.theholycow@xoxy.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Regards, > Barry Why don't you just carry your sticker in your glove box? > Why don't you just carry your sticker in your glove box? The glove compartment should be a good place along with the truck's papers in their folder. However, the real purpose of the glove compartment is to hold the wife's sun screen lotion bottles, usually with the top left off so there is lots of goo. $14.00 worth of pennies and other coins, two or more pair of sunglasses, 450 wads of used Kleenex, some packets of Kleenex, some more Kleenex and more little tubes of this and that, plus coupons for valuable stuff, pens, Visa receipts from last year, some Kleenex and some scrunched up potato chips. I thought keeping it in my desk drawer at home would make sure I had a chance to ever see it again compared with putting it into the glove compartment. Regards, Barry >> Why don't you just carry your sticker in your glove box? > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Regards, > Barry OK then, good idea. LMAO > However, the real purpose of the glove compartment is to hold the > wife's sun screen lotion bottles, usually with the top left off so > there is lots of goo. Has anybody considered the possibility that the glove compartment is designed to accommodate gloves? Ken > Has anybody considered the possibility that the glove compartment is > designed to accommodate gloves? I suspected you were a radical, Ken. That clinches it! Signature:) JR > the real purpose of the glove compartment is to > hold the wife's sun screen lotion bottles, usually with the top left off so [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > valuable stuff, pens, Visa receipts from last year, some Kleenex and some > scrunched up potato chips. [laughing] You've seen my wife's glove compartment! Signature:) JR >That's awful. The person who did the original registration may have >been incompetent, or may have thought he was doing you a favor by [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >cops would have understood your predicament and allowed you to go with >a warning once they saw the manufacturer's rating etched in metal. Doesn't matter what that tag on the door says, if you aren't licensed for the weight and paid the proper fees for the weight, then you'll probably get a ticket. SignatureFrank Tabor > That's awful. The person who did the original registration may have > been incompetent, or may have thought he was doing you a favor by [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > cops would have understood your predicament and allowed you to go with > a warning once they saw the manufacturer's rating etched in metal. When I registered my truck the nice lady at the DMV counter scratched out the CVWR on my forms and wrote 9,600 or less in the space. I questioned her logic and she said she just saved me a couple hundred bucks on registration fees. She says no one uses the light duty trucks for what they CAN handle. I politely asked her to crrect the figure to the actual GVWR and explained that I would be happy to pay the increased regisatration...just in case I get pulled over and weighed. I think it is a conspiracy. I see the Highway Patrol all the time having pulled over an RV and they slide those portable scales under the tires as the write up the ticket. They have to be talking to the DMV reps...dontchathink? Nate > I think it is a conspiracy. I see the Highway Patrol all the time > having pulled over an RV and they slide those portable scales under > the tires as the write up the ticket. Where are you seeing portable scales being used to weigh an RV on public roads? The reason I ask, I've had my RV in 49 states of the US, every province and territory of Canada that has connecting roads, and 14 states in Mexico. In over 300,000 miles with 3 RV's & over 2 million miles in an 18 wheeler, I have yet to see law enforcement weigh an RV of any type on any kind of scale UNLESS the owner ask for a weigh. Tom J >> I think it is a conspiracy. I see the Highway Patrol all the time >> having pulled over an RV and they slide those portable scales under [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Tom J Mostly in the Reno, NV area. Seems many of the Highway Patrol carry portable scales in the trunk of thier patrol cars. I also see them pull over and weigh pickups towing overloaded utility trailers. This would be more expected though. I have not looked close enough but I would think the HP is singling out the 1/2 ton pickups carrying huge 5th wheels or 10.5 foot overhead type campers. I've never seen them weigh a Class C or Class A. Nate > Mostly in the Reno, NV area. Seems many of the Highway Patrol carry > portable scales in the trunk of thier patrol cars. I also see them [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Nate I suspect that if you are seeing it in the Reno area, it is because the highway patrol academy is located near there (Carson City) and they are getting some training. I have never seen an RV of any sort stopped and weighed in the Las Vegas area. (Its also not regular Highway Patrol officers, its code enforcement. That's nitpicking since both work for Department of Public Safety and drive similar cars, but they are different Divisions.) Bruce >> Mostly in the Reno, NV area. Seems many of the Highway Patrol carry >> portable scales in the trunk of thier patrol cars. I also see them pull [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Bruce That's a posibility I had not thought of. Maybe I'll re-register the RV pulling machine under it's listed GVWR and save some money. Nate > I think it is a conspiracy. I see the Highway Patrol all the time > having pulled over an RV and they slide those portable scales under > the tires as the write up the ticket. They have to be talking to the > DMV reps...dontchathink? > > Nate Now, that's odd ... I have never seen an RV on a Trooper's scale. NEVER! Where did you see this, I'm not worried, because my rig is well under the limit, but just for fun, would enjoy getting a "free" wheel weight done. :-) Cliff SignatureLife is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. Our Web Side www.cj-and-m.com Come Visit > Have you checked your vehicles' titles/license receipts to verify that you're > legal at the actual weight(s) of your vehicle(s)? My Ram 3500 was registered by the selling dealer at 4500kg GVWR. I thought, "That's stupid - it should be rated at manufactrer's GVWR". So I went down to the MOT and raised the registration to the higher number. Then in fairly short order, I got pulled over TWICE WITHOUT THE TRAILER ON, asking for my log books, etc. I said "What log books?" They said "At that weight, you have to have a full set of books". I said "I only use this to haul my RV trailer". They said "We would never have looked at you if you had an RV trailer hooked up". So, I'm back down to 4500kg. I'm not legal with the trailer hooked up but hope that no one bothers because I'm "just an RV". Could happen, but it's better than getting hassled just going for groceries. So in this jurisdiction at least, it's better NOT to do what you're suggesting. Cheers, Joe > My Ram 3500 was registered by the selling dealer at 4500kg GVWR. I > thought, "That's stupid - it should be rated at manufactrer's GVWR". So > I went down to the MOT and raised the registration to the higher > number. Then in fairly short order, I got pulled over TWICE WITHOUT THE > TRAILER ON, asking for my log books, etc. I said "What log books?" They > said "At that weight, you have to have a full set of books". I said "I WTF? How much weight before you need that crap? I thought it was at CDL-requirement weights, which I thought were 26,000 GVWR (for non-hazardous and non-human loads) and I don't know how big GCWR. In RI, I've never been hassled for that stuff while driving an F350 dually 12' stake body dumper. >> My Ram 3500 was registered by the selling dealer at 4500kg GVWR. I >> thought, "That's stupid - it should be rated at manufactrer's GVWR". So [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > In RI, I've never been hassled for that stuff while driving an F350 > dually 12' stake body dumper. Different States have different Laws. <EG> Some states require that Commercial Vehicles be so labled. Some states require that NON-Commercial Vehicles be so labled if their GVWR exceeds some arbitrary figure. Government Regulations/Laws >do not< have to make any sense - they just have to be obeyed. <VEG> SignatureQuotations from Tom Gorrell: "A wing nut without a left or right is just a nut. Which best describes me" "I'm sorry about the erratic weather and must admit it's been caused by the pinko commie Clinton & Reno supporters." "I am hiding nothing, other than the fact that I'm homosexual." Quotation from the Graphic Queer: "I have always advocated the death of the human being and I see that I was right all along. This earth will be so much better off once we are no longer part of the mix." > Different States have different Laws. <EG> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Government Regulations/Laws >do not< have to make any sense - they just > have to be obeyed. <VEG> I've heard that there's a federal requirement for vehicles over 8,600 pounds to have the company name and GVWR marked on the side, but I don't know anything about it and I've never heard of any enforcement. I occasionally see 1-ton pickups and vans labelled like that, but rarely so. Hey, that reminds me: Why do the "1/2 ton" "3/4 ton" and "1 ton" descriptions continue to be used when, in fact, the vehicles are now all rated for much more cargo than those amounts? > Hey, that reminds me: Why do the "1/2 ton" "3/4 ton" and "1 ton" > descriptions continue to be used when, in fact, the vehicles are now > all rated for much more cargo than those amounts? Those terms are only used by people who don't know anything about modern trucks. When a Chevy 2500 has a carrying capacity of nearly 3500#, only a complete moron (or a Ford/Dodge owner) would insult it by calling it a 3/4 ton truck. Times have changed, and so have our trucks. Lon > > Hey, that reminds me: Why do the "1/2 ton" "3/4 ton" and "1 ton" > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Times have changed, and so have our trucks. Well, "complete moron" might be a bit strong of a term, but I see I'm not the only one who finds the inaccurate description a bother. Following my question through, how does one express the concept of a 1500, 2500 or 3500 series (GM & Dodge) or 150, 250, or 350 series (Ford) truck in a manufacturer-neutral way? > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > It only takes a moron to think other people are morons when they state something that has a time line. Example, my 1994, GMC, 1500, known as a one half ton truck, has a cargo weight rating of 931#. As of 2004, that changed some time between those years. As my 2004, Dodge, 2500, has a payload rating of 2563#, that comes out to some where in the ton and a quarter range. But in many non-moron circles the 2500 is still referred to as a 3/4 ton regardless of what some others think. This could become a warm, worm subject with out a bucket. ;-) SignatureBILL P. Just Me & DOG > But in many non-moron circles the 2500 is still referred to as a 3/4 ton > regardless of what some others think. I have but one question! How could Boydbrainless know anything about "non-moron circles"? Lon >> But in many non-moron circles the 2500 is still referred to as a 3/4 >> ton regardless of what some others think. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Lon That post was outrageous. I've insulted morons unfairly. Lon > Well, "complete moron" might be a bit strong of a term, but I see I'm > not the only one who finds the inaccurate description a bother. > > Following my question through, how does one express the concept of a > 1500, 2500 or 3500 series (GM & Dodge) or 150, 250, or 350 series > (Ford) truck in a manufacturer-neutral way? I express it the same way GM does. I have a 2500HD, Duramax. Why would anyone call it anything else, when GM doesn't? Why would anyone with a functioning brain cell, call a truck with a 3500# carrying capacity, "3/4 Ton"? Even if someone insists upon falling back on the old measure, they should be smart enough to call it a "ton and 3/4". Lon >> Well, "complete moron" might be a bit strong of a term, but I see I'm >> not the only one who finds the inaccurate description a bother. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Lon You put it very well Lon. The old nomenclature has nothing to do with current offerings. When we had the '02 Sierra, there was no way I could compare it to the '78 Chevy 1/2 ton I once had. Everything about it was stronger. Hugh > a complete moron (or a Ford/Dodge owner) Isn't that redundant? [ducking and hiding] Signature<VERY big grin> JR -- :) JR >>a complete moron (or a Ford/Dodge owner) > > Isn't that redundant? [ducking and hiding] Most of those crops go unharvested after I plant them. Glad you noticed. <G> Lon > Hey, that reminds me: Why do the "1/2 ton" "3/4 ton" and "1 ton" > descriptions continue to be used when, in fact, the vehicles are now > all rated for much more cargo than those amounts? Just my 2 cents worth (and where does that saying come from?)... When you consider that payload is everything that goes into the truck - fuel, driver, passengers and anything in the back - and that most of today's trucks have seatting for 6 then the usable bed payload is still 1/2, 3/4, 1 ton, etcetera. For instance my Dodge 1/2 ton has seating for 6 and will easily accomodate 4 adults at 200 pound or greater each. Add 26 gallons of gas at about 7lbs/gal and subtract that from the payload of 1800 pounds and the remaining payload is pretty close to 1/2 ton. > Different States have different Laws. <EG> > > Some states require that Commercial Vehicles be so labled. > > Some states require that NON-Commercial Vehicles be so labled if their GVWR > exceeds some arbitrary figure. North Carolina uses two types of license plates. Commercial plates are tagged as "commercial". Non-commercial plates are tagged as "weighted". My Ford F-550/K-Z toyhauler combination is "weighted" at 26,000 pounds, which is pretty close to the actual average weight, depending on how we're packed. Regards, John Kinney >> My Ram 3500 was registered by the selling dealer at 4500kg GVWR. I >> thought, "That's stupid - it should be rated at manufactrer's GVWR". So [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >In RI, I've never been hassled for that stuff while driving an F350 >dually 12' stake body dumper. If you have a non-commercial tag and the truck is not in commercial service (as defined by the feds) then you do NOT have to have all that crap. I asked that specific question of a TDOT enforcement commander. I asked "what if I want to use an 18 wheeler as an oversized pickup truck for my personal use". His reply was that no matter what size the vehicle, if it is not in commercial service then none of the commercial truck laws apply. An ordinary class D (passenger car) license is all that is required. The catch is, the "commercial service" definition is trivially easy to run afoul of. An example given was hauling a neighbor's furniture in return for gas money. I was particularly interested because I'm now using my 19,000 lb GVW cube van as a big covered pickup truck and am thinking about building a motorhome body on the chassis, similar to the heavy duty conversions that many race car teams now use. I don't have to have a DOT number, nor a CDL nor do I have to have a truck tag. I asked the commander what I should do about my truck since it "looks commercial". He suggested removing anything that looks "commercial" (company logos, etc), removing the DOT number (I have), lettering the side of the cab to say "private, non-commercial vehicle" (NOT the "not for hire" that one frequently sees. Whether the truck is for hire is irrelevant. Whether it is in commercial service is relevant.) Then, to avoid being chased down, go through the weigh stations and tell the cop that the vehicle is private. What probably got Joe was the commercial tag. TN does not require a commercial tag on any vehicle unless it is in commercial service but other states do. He got caught up in a "looks like" violation. That is, he looked too much like a commercial vehicle. I learned several other interesting things by spending the day with the truck enforcement cops during the National Safety Check day recently and playing "20 questions": * Any commercial vehicle over 10,000 lbs is subject to the commercial vehicle rules including the requirement for keeping a log book and observing hours of service if it is more than 150 miles from its home base. That includes the heavy duty pickup truck (with the H2 tag in TN) towing a utility trailer with construction tools inside. Also to the guy who has a lawn service business who is trundling over to his mom's house in the adjacent state to do her lawn. * Rental trucks MUST go through the coops and be in compliance with weight rules even when rented by private individuals. The rental companies tell you otherwise and most states don't enforce this but it is one of those things that a chickensh*t cop can use to screw with you if he wants. * If the rental truck is over 21,000 lbs GVW and it is being used in commercial service (hauling a race car to a race where money prizes are awarded or hauling crafts to sell at a show are two things that have triggered enforcement actions.) then the driver must have a CDL, keep a log book and observe the hours of service rules. That was a new one on me. The rental companies don't tell you that and don't check for the CDL for straight trucks they rent but that's the law that is enforced, at least by TDOT/TDS. * If the rental truck has air brakes and is used in commercial service then the driver must have a CDL with air brake endorsement. These rules are another example where the government silently piles up these mounds of chickensh*t rules that they don't normally enforce, like water slowly gathering behind a dam, just waiting to hammer someone who runs afoul of 'em. You have to hope that you're not the one fishing below the dam when it breaks. * Something potentially useful to RVers. Non-taxed ("farm") fuel may be used for non-propulsion uses on road-going vehicles. Reefers on commercial trucks, for example. Generators on RVs, as another example. I got this directly from the chief of TN's revenue enforcement division. If you live in a rural area like here where the "farm diesel" fuel pump is right beside the regular one, it might be worth the effort to install a separate tank for the generator. Especially in high fuel tax states like TN. I was previously under the impression that "farm fuel" could only be used for agricultural purposes. Not true. Any non-highway-propulsion use is permitted. The chief did point out that in TN, if the fuel is being used for a commercial purpose then sales tax must be paid on it and that the user has to pay the tax to the state since it isn't collected at the point of sale. John --- John De Armond See my website for my current email address http://www.neon-john.com Cleveland, Occupied TN Don't let your schooling interfere with your education-Mark Twain > * Any commercial vehicle over 10,000 lbs is subject to the commercial > vehicle rules including the requirement for keeping a log book and > observing hours of service if it is more than 150 miles from its home Ouch. Gotta remember to keep that dumptruck local. > base. That includes the heavy duty pickup truck (with the H2 tag in > TN) towing a utility trailer with construction tools inside. Also to ...only as long as the pickup's GVW is over 10,000, right? Or does the GCW count in that situation? Or is it just that the trailer itself has a GVW over 10,000? > * If the rental truck is over 21,000 lbs GVW and it is being used in Again, I thought the magic number was 26,000. I guess that's only for non-rental, commercially owned and used, straight trucks. > * If the rental truck has air brakes and is used in commercial service > then the driver must have a CDL with air brake endorsement. What's with air brakes, anyway? Do they require special training? Do they work very differently from hydraulic brakes? I've known that one must be licensed specifically for them, but I never knew exactly why. Heh...in case I ever might have decided to try trucking as a job, I know better now. ;) > Again, I thought the magic number was 26,000. I guess that's only for > non-rental, commercially owned and used, straight trucks. DSDL [Different States Different Laws] If you haven't read the entirety of your home State's vehicular statutes you may find them quite interesting. Don't be surprised, though, if you find that, in places, one Law will Prohibit what another Law Mandates. <EG> SignatureQuotations from Tom Gorrell: "A wing nut without a left or right is just a nut. Which best describes me" "I'm sorry about the erratic weather and must admit it's been caused by the pinko commie Clinton & Reno supporters." "I am hiding nothing, other than the fact that I'm homosexual." Quotation from the Graphic Queer: "I have always advocated the death of the human being and I see that I was right all along. This earth will be so much better off once we are no longer part of the mix." > "Rick Onanian" <groups.theholycow@xoxy.net> wrote in > > Again, I thought the magic number was 26,000. I guess that's only for > > DSDL [Different States Different Laws] OIC. I was under the impression that it was a standard in all states; but indeed, that's too simple to be true. > If you haven't read the entirety of your home State's vehicular statutes you > may find them quite interesting. Care to rephrase that? Maybe "you may find some interesting tidbits in the sea of bland crud". <G> >> "Rick Onanian" <groups.theholycow@xoxy.net> wrote in >> > Again, I thought the magic number was 26,000. I guess that's only for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > OIC. I was under the impression that it was a standard in all states; > but indeed, that's too simple to be true. The statutes concerning CDLs are standardized but that's about it. DSDL applies to the rest. >> If you haven't read the entirety of your home State's vehicular >> statutes you may find them quite interesting. > > Care to rephrase that? Maybe "you may find some interesting tidbits in > the sea of bland crud". <G> Since most State Congresscritters are unable to resist the temptation to fiddle with the laws, what once may have been a nicely-written statute gets modified all out-of-shape over the years as each idjit strives to "tailor" things to suit his/her personal views and/or financial backers' demands. Inconsistencies provide recurring income for Lawyer-Congresscritters even AFTER they're booted out of office. <EG> A periodic review of the statutes may surprise you: some things you thought illegal aren't, some things you thought legal aren't, and some things may be not only legal but required according to one statute and highly illegal according to another. <EG> BTW, I always find information that can save ME money to be Very Interesting - and information that can keep me from having unpleasant conversations with OBTs [Officious Badge-Toters] Extremely Interesting! <EG> SignatureQuotations from Tom Gorrell: "A wing nut without a left or right is just a nut. Which best describes me" "I'm sorry about the erratic weather and must admit it's been caused by the pinko commie Clinton & Reno supporters." "I am hiding nothing, other than the fact that I'm homosexual." Quotation from the Graphic Queer: "I have always advocated the death of the human being and I see that I was right all along. This earth will be so much better off once we are no longer part of the mix." >> * Any commercial vehicle over 10,000 lbs is subject to the commercial >> vehicle rules including the requirement for keeping a log book and [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > they work very differently from hydraulic brakes? I've known that one > must be licensed specifically for them, but I never knew exactly why. Do you really want an answer to that question? Front brakes(steers) have a small air pancake pushing a lever that rotates an "S" shaped cam that applies the brakes. The drive axle brakes or trailer brakes are more complex. Their air chamber is considerably bigger, about 6-8"D and about 8" long. Still performs the same basic function, pushes(or pulls) a rod, rotating an "S" shaped cam to apply the brakes. However, that bigger double chamber has more tricks. It has 2 diaphragms, one of which is used to release the parking or emergency brake, the other one is used to actually apply the brakes from the foot brake pedal. Most vehicles with air brakes have a large button on the dash(semis have 2, one for tractor, one for trailer) which if pulled out releases the air from the park chamber, and a big hairy spring pushes the rod to actuate the brakes. When you want to move, you push these buttons in and apply air to the sprig release diaphragm, compressing the spring and releasing the mechanical brake. Now you actuate the brakes with the foot brake, which feeds air to the braking diaphragms on all wheels to apply the brakes. BTW, don't EVER try to dismantle one of those brake chambers!!!!!!! Takes knowledge and a safety cage to keep that big spring inside from maiming or killing you. Most truck garages don't even mess with them, they just put on a new chamber and send the old one to a rebuilder. One of the BIG things they check for @ a DOT stop is brake adjustment, or how far that chamber has to push the arm before the brake engages. I'm not sure of the exact distance any more, but will pick an arbitrary 1" for example. While they have the wheels chocked, they roll around under the truck yelling or blowing a whistle for you to apply/release the brakes, while they measure how far the rod moves @ each wheel. If any of them move more than that arbitrary 1", they write it up. Best case, they notify you, give you the opportunity to adjust them(if you know how & have the tools), and send you down the road. Worst case, they sideline you, issue a ticket, and in some cases make you call a garage to come adjust the brakes, as they seem to think the driver isn't capable of doing it. If you've never seen the lines connecting a tractor/trailer, there are 3. 1 is the electrical for the clearance/parking, turn signal and brake lights. 2 is the "emergency" air line, connected by what we call a "glad hand". This is the one that has the pressure applied to release those big springs. 3 is the "service brake" air line, that receives pressure from the brake pedal for normal braking. Have you ever gone down the highway and noticed 4 big black stripes suddenly veer off on the should? The glad hand for the emergency brakes has bounced around with road vibration and jumped loose, allowing all those springs to apply the trailer brakes. Once you get stopped and quit saying SH*T, get out, reapply the glad hand, then go on down the road. I seen(and had) glad hands that were old & worn that the only way to keep them on was tie them down with a tarp strap(bungee cord) under the edge of the trailer. Aren't you glad you asked that question? SignatureNahmie The only road to success is always under construction. > Do you really want an answer to that question? Yup... > Most vehicles with air > brakes have a large button on the dash(semis have 2, one for tractor, one [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you actuate the brakes with the foot brake, which feeds air to the braking > diaphragms on all wheels to apply the brakes. I was curious if there was more to it than that -- after all, that seems simple enough that no certification should be required. So I googled, and found a practice test at: http://www.layover.com/newbies/cdltest/airbrakes.html I got 53%. Now I know what's involved in those certifications. > is the "emergency" air line, connected by what we call a "glad hand". This > is the one that has the pressure applied to release those big springs. 3 is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > around with road vibration and jumped loose, allowing all those springs to > apply the trailer brakes. Once you get stopped and quit saying SH*T, get Glad hand? More like mad hand! ;) So, it's a mechanical break-away braking system. That beats the electric system on my TT hands down (pun partially intended, sorry). > Aren't you glad you asked that question? I am. I like learning that sort of stuff. I like knowing how all sorts of machines work. >What probably got Joe was the commercial tag. TN does not require a >commercial tag on any vehicle unless it is in commercial service but >other states do. He got caught up in a "looks like" violation. That >is, he looked too much like a commercial vehicle. In NY, it's apparently looks that count. A van gets a commercial tag unless it has windows on the side in the cargo area. SignatureAl Balmer Sun City, AZ >>What probably got Joe was the commercial tag. TN does not require a >>commercial tag on any vehicle unless it is in commercial service but [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > In NY, it's apparently looks that count. A van gets a commercial tag > unless it has windows on the side in the cargo area. Its been 20 years since I registered a vehicle in AZ, but at that time any truck 3/4 ton or larger had to be registered commercial. Bruce >>>What probably got Joe was the commercial tag. TN does not require a >>>commercial tag on any vehicle unless it is in commercial service but [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Its been 20 years since I registered a vehicle in AZ, but at that time >any truck 3/4 ton or larger had to be registered commercial. Apparently not true any more. My 3/4 ton van is registered in AZ as a passenger vehicle. (You do know that we are both complete morons for calling it a 3/4 ton.) SignatureAl Balmer Sun City, AZ >>Its been 20 years since I registered a vehicle in AZ, but at that >>time [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > passenger vehicle. (You do know that we are both complete morons for > calling it a 3/4 ton.) Well, 20 years ago I was less of a moron. <g> I don't remember if vans followed the same rules or not. They may all have been considered passenger vehicles unless you advised DMV otherwise. In those days any vehicle used for commercial purposes had to have a commercial license, even passenger cars. However, when it came to trucks, half tons were considered passenger vehicles and 3/4 ton and up were all considered commercial. Bruce I see where Al Balmer <albalmer@att.net> contributed: >Apparently not true any more. My 3/4 ton van is registered in AZ as a >passenger vehicle. (You do know that we are both complete morons for >calling it a 3/4 ton.) I wouldn't dream of trying to top yer stories, but the Commonwealth of PA considers our GMC Savana 3500 (GVWR 9500#, not mentioned on the registration) to be a "station wagon" - same fee as a car. Don't ask why, but I credit the dealer for filling out the forms that way. Will Sill "A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." William James >I see where Al Balmer <albalmer@att.net> contributed: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >registration) to be a "station wagon" - same fee as a car. Don't ask >why, but I credit the dealer for filling out the forms that way. Not a government agency, but for years I had an MGB, then a Datsun 240Z, and my Allstate agent (a member of SCCA, by a strange coincidence) managed to list them as "compact cars." A considerably less expensive category than 150+mph sports cars. (The Datsun, not the MG.) >Will Sill >"A great many people think they are thinking when they >are merely rearranging their prejudices." >William James SignatureAl Balmer Sun City, AZ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy -