Actual federal weight law rules, some questions and answers

[jmramiller]

I have per the request of a few members, stickied this post. Please note, this is not a place to argue whether a law makes sense or not, just what the laws are. If you have a question about wt laws, that appears to be NOT answered in some way shape or form, please ask, and hopefully some of the ACTUAL weights and measures LEO's will answer, or those with some actual knowledge.

In the mean time, I do thank the OP for starting this thread, altho I have taken the liberty to change the title to one I think and hope will be a bit more informative in name.

marty
TV moderator

Some on this forum suggests that RAWR per the door sticker is legally binding by federal law. Specifically by para f of FMCSA:

(f) Except as provided herein, States may not enforce on the Interstate System vehicle weight limits of less than 20,000 pounds on a single axle, 34,000 pounds on a tandem axle, or the weights derived from the Bridge Formula, up to a maximum of 80,000 pounds, including all enforcement tolerances. States may not limit tire loads to less than 500 pounds per inch of tire or tread width, except that such limits may not be applied to tires on the steering axle. States may not limit steering axle weights to less than 20,000 pounds or the axle rating established by the manufacturer, whichever is lower.

The argument is that the last half of the last sentence "the axle rating established by the manufacturer, whichever is lower." is referring to the door sticker RAWR.

It is my contention that this actually refers to the "steering axle" which according to my English classes is the subject of the sentence. My contention is to find a standard relating to the rear axle in para f you have to refer back to the first sentence:
"States may not enforce on the Interstate System vehicle weight limits of less than 20,000 pounds on a single axle"

I would like to hear from LEO's who might have a comment on this subject. I would also love to hear from anyone who can post a copy of a citation issued for exceeding door sticker weight ratings. A link to the violated code would be nice also.

My only agenda here is to find out what really is and what really is not. I have intentionally omitted the names of those who make these claims because I want this to be about the law not people's claims.

Thanks.

[grey_eagle]

Wadcutter wrote:

What is the definition of "careless and reckless"? When going to court a LEO is going to have to show some legal basis to what exactly is "careless and reckless".

Under Federal guidelines the charge is or can be "careless and reckless" driving, the "specification:to wit" can be either or, speeding over 20 mph of posted limit (VA).

Also a specification of weaving in and out of traffic, or excessive lane changes (CA). OR "Failure to pass to left safely", this used in TX when a suspect rear ends another auto among other combined issues.

Also, if you were ever in the US Armed Forces the same type of charges and specifications are the standard.

It my understanding from talking with several of my friends (both LEO and attorneys) involved at the federal level, that several states follow this same standard. Obviously, from your comments, IL is not one.

I was advised by one of the LEO's that the point factor is higher should the person be cited and found guilty of the "careless and reckless" charge.

[mowermech]

After reading all the above, I still only know a few things for sure:
1. The door jamb data tag has NO force of law.
2. My truck is registered for 14,000 pounds Gross VEHICLE weight, NOT Gross COMBINED weight (the registration paper is very clear: GVW).
3. My custom built Jeep Wrangler pickup is registered for 6000 pounds GVW.
I think that is all I really need to know.

[Wadcutter]

grey`eagle wrote:

“The catch all” paragraph that causes more heartburn that any one of the other CFR’s is plainly stated “ careless and reckless operation”

What is the definition of "careless and reckless"? When going to court a LEO is going to have to show some legal basis to what exactly is "careless and reckless". An individual LEO's personal belief won't fly in court. Example: A LEO doesn't think 16 yr olds have enough experience to be considered safe drivers. That same LEO stops a 16 yr old for speeding 95 MPH. The cite is speeding, not "careless and reckless" even tho the LEO's personal belief is 16 yr olds don't have the experience to drive 95 MPH.
IL has the statute, as do all states worded one way or another, of reckless driving. That statute in itself is pretty non-descript. However, one has to look at court rulings to determine how the law is applied. For these statutes to be legally and Constitutionally valid laws have to specify the exact elements of the crime or violation. In the "reckless and careless" statutes the courts have ruled that it requires specifying what illegal acts constituted the "reckless and careless" violation. As an example, someone pulls out of a parking lot without stopping in front of oncoming traffic, loses traction, and slide sideways into the adjoining lane. Violations are failing to stop exiting a private drive, failure to yield to oncoming traffic, and improper lane usage. Instead of writing the 3 separate violations those 3 violations can be lumped under "reckless and careless". So when going to court the LEO can explain exactly which illegal acts warranted a "reckless and careless" charge. Take the same example above but change it so the only violation is the driver swerved into another lane when exiting. There are not a series of events which shows "reckless and careless" actions but only improper lane usage. The courts have said 1 violation is not "reckless and careless" but is a violation of the specific statute.
Same would be the case if a person would happen to be overweight on axle. As an example, a person drives a truck with 40K on a tandum axle. He's 6000K over the legal limit. It's not "reckless and careless", just overweight on axles. Now if that person is hauling 40K on a truck which has a broken spring, blown pancake on the brakes, and a defective tire, those violations in combination might constitute a "reckless and careless" citation. Any of those individually would not. However, realistically, when inspecting a commercial hauler with those violations all of the individual violations would be cited instead of lumping them all into "reckless and careless". Reason being is the MCS inspection for the separate violations would be a bigger bite on the company than 1 single "reckless and careless" charge which is not an MCS cite.

[Wadcutter]

JIMNLIN wrote:
Indeed those door tag GAWR are very much part of DOT inspection points that we get hit with if we are out of compliance on under 26000 combined plates. And the shift captains comment that they use the same vehicle plates [registered GVWR and door tag GAWR] just as DOT uses for over 10000k vehicles and under 26000k weights.

That tag has nothing to do with legal weight limits. Where the 26K kicks in is for determining when certain MCS laws apply. Those tags are non-enforceable for determining overweights which is what the OP was asking about.
We don't use the tags to determine MCS either. We use the registration weight limits. Once again, the door sticker which is more correctly referred to as the federal sticker is not required by MCS or any other statute after initial sales. It's like the mattress tag. There are vehicles all over the US legally operating without the fed sticker. If a vehicle has had damage repaired in the area of the sticker or the vehicle has been restored and repainted then they most likely no longer have the fed sticker.
Here's one way to better describe the fed sticker. On my fed stickerfor my Dodge pickup it not only lists the manufacturer's weight limits but it also lists the amount of air for the tires and vehicle colors. It says tire air pressure is 50 psi. If I want to put 65 psi in my tires there's not a thing illegal with that. That sticker also says my color is maroon. But I want to paint my truck blue. Nothing illegal with changing the colors even tho it will no longer match the fed sticker. That sticker is a listing by the manufacturer of the manufacturing specs for that specific vehicle.
Also, you are confusing weight laws and MCS laws and registration and axle/gross weights. All of those are completely different statutes, which I have tried to explain previously.

JIMNLIN wrote:

As a few others pointed out law enforcement officers are not the best source of DOT enforcement of FMCSA regs [unless they have training] or even non commercial state weight regs.

Many years ago I was the 1 of 2 of the first in the state to be certified as MCS trained officers. In addition I taught MCS and weight laws, not only to other Troops but also in many many presentations to various trucking companies. You would not believe the number of calls we fielded daily from trucking companies and drivers who were seeking explanations of the laws and were completely confused, usually because they listened to some other driver who also didn't have a clue what he was talking about.
I can assure you that a truck driver isn't the person to ask for explanation of the laws. They aren't trained. LEOs trained in MCS and weight laws are a whole lot better source of weight and MCS laws than truck drivers. LEOs are going to keep up on the statutes and latest court ruling because that's our job. We train the trucking companies. If drivers were generally so well trained then I wouldn't have been writing so many tickets and placing so many trucks and drivers out of service over the years. We averaged over 1/3 of the trucks inspected were placed out of service, either the driver or the truck.

JIMNLIN wrote:

This isn't a rag on state troopers or any LEO as they do a tough job out there. Even the OHP shift captain admitted weight questions for commercial/non commercial compliance should be pointed toward my state DOT officers/inspectors. .

Not a rag on drivers either.
I am aware the OHP do not play a primary role in second division enforcement. That's not their job. There's a separate agency in OK for second division enforcement. Why ask the opinion of a shift commander of an agency who is not tasked with enforcing a law about such a law? That just doesn't make any sense. Makes as much sense as asking Child and Family Services investigator about laws pertaining to the lottery. 2 separate agencies tasked with enforcing 2 different laws.
However in IL the ISP is the agency tasked with that role, not DOT. IL DOT plays no role in weight enforcement except maintaining the scale houses and issuing over size load permits. No other LE agency in IL, including DOT, has any authority enforcing MCS laws. By IL statute only the ISP can enforce the MCS laws. That's why IL Troops are trained in MCS and weight laws. It's our job.
However, there is definitely confusion here. You are confusing MCS laws and weight laws. Those are 2 separate distinct sections of the law, neither of which has anything to do with the other. Weight laws are not MCS and MCS are not weight. MCS laws do not apply to the guy pulling his RV south for the winter or to the mountains and his favorite fishing hole in the summer.
Please, don't confuse MCS issues here. They have absolutely no application.

[JIMNLIN]

Wadcutter wrote:
[snip]

JIMNLIN wrote:

None of the 12 different state I've towed with commercial plates in used "axle manufactors ratings" which is the big buzz that started this topic again.

That's because the manufacturer's ratings aren't law. Those are like the mattress tags. They just tell the specs for the product, they aren't statutes.

guess I missed this one so I'm responding late. Indeed those door tag GAWR are very much part of DOT inspection points that we get hit with if we are out of compliance on under 26000 combined plates. And the shift captains comment that they use the same vehicle plates [registered GVWR and door tag GAWR] just as DOT uses for over 10000k vehicles and under 26000k weights. NOW door tag GVWR is a whole different story and the page is about to change on that at the FED level.
As a few others pointed out law enforcement officers are not the best source of DOT enforcement of FMCSA regs [unless they have training] or even non commercial state weight regs. This isn't a rag on state troopers or any LEO as they do a tough job out there. Even the OHP shift captain admitted weight questions for commercial/non commercial compliance should be pointed toward my state DOT officers/inspectors.



JIM

[captain037]

grey'eagle,

You are exactly correct. Thank you for pointing that out. Over weight could be deemed as "careless and reckless operation." My thoughts on that part of the equation are that an officer other than one that normally enforces weights would have to be digging for a charge to even consider that and weight enforcement officers normally do not fool with RV's in this state unless they too are digging for a charge as waddcutter said about drugs and smuggling.

Anything IS possible. I didn't come from the same experience as waddcutter, he has waaaaaay more experience in his specialty than I. My experience is local law enforcement. As a staff officer, I would have put a stop quickly to officers under my command checking the weights of RV's unless they were in the traffic division and the drivers were operating carelessly and recklessly OR we were looking for drugs. It would have to be gross. It's just a waste of time. We have too many people robbing and killing each other or poisoning our youth with drugs to worry about spending the time to check the weight of a RV. That's my opinion.

Anything is possible but in the real world it just doesn't happen here. Again, that's not to say that a young officer full of himself might not do it but, his supervisor will see that immediately and put a stop to it. It's not what we do.

After I posted this I did have a thought about weight. If rigs keep getting bigger it won't be long until they DO weigh too much.

[grey_eagle]

Wadcutter & captain037:

First my I pen, I’m not an attorney, neither do I play one on TV, nor did I spend the night in Holiday Inn Express. AND, I sure don’t practice jailhouse law; I leave that for the college kids.

However, I do have numerous semester hours of legal training and was engaged in the CFR’s/ FAR’s in a professional regulatory compliance capacity for almost 40 years. One thing that I learned as a very young cub pup was that “simply because you’re in compliance with one letter of the law doesn’t mean you’re in compliance with all letters of law”.

Both of you gentlemen have done an excellent job of explaining the weight laws, which is basically dictated by NHSTA, with regulatory compliance coming via the CFR’s, as I understand. As both of you have eloquently pointed out, there is no way, by reasonable standards, that any RV will ever exceed those limits as you’ve quoted above. These limits appear to geared primarily toward commercial activities or operations as such.

Notwithstanding, and IMHO, I don’t think you covered page two when it comes to the other part or regulatory compliance. “The catch all” paragraph that causes more heartburn that any one of the other CFR’s is plainly stated “ careless and reckless operation”

It’s my understanding that the same standard holds in a court of law, whether it be that all infamous VW bug towing a 10K fifth wheel or a 100K tractor trailer pulling triples loaded with Class A explosives flying down the interstate at 80MPH in blowing heavy rain. Which both appear to be in compliance with some or various state laws.

[JIMNLIN]

my insurance company says as long as my truck is registered legally [non commercial] in my state there will be no problems. It sure is easy to make a phone call to your agent/insurance company for their input.
Same for when I towed commercially. Commercial insurance for hauling/towing DOT legal can run 6000+ dollars a year for loads like the Dodge towing 30000 lb combined thread. As long as he is legally registered he's covered.
JIM

[Hannibal]

http://www.sequinsbyeileen.com/midi/kidsmidi/Jeopardy%20Theme%20Song.mid

[jmramiller]

volwing1 wrote:
Money and morality. Drive a rig that is overloaded according to the manufacturer...have an accident and discover what your insurance adjuster will do. It is his job to determine if your policy was abided with before he approves any payout. They are trained to look at any means of not paying...including your using your vehicle in a manner specifically forbidden by the manufacturer. We're not talking about speeding but about rigging or using your vehicle to perform an illegal task. I'm not worried about a citation from some officer. But I would be very worried about eternal lawsuits with nobody in my corner.

I am going to leave the insurance thing alone because I don't even think that comes into play in the way you are suggesting unless exceeding the manufacturers ratings is in fact a violation of law which you also suggest.

So, how do you propose to support your claim that exceeding the ratings on the door sticker is in fact a violation of law?

Can someone please play the theme music to Jeopardy while we all wait patiently.

[rshidler]

volwing1 wrote:
Money and morality. Drive a rig that is overloaded according to the manufacturer...have an accident and discover what your insurance adjuster will do. It is his job to determine if your policy was abided with before he approves any payout. They are trained to look at any means of not paying...including your using your vehicle in a manner specifically forbidden by the manufacturer. We're not talking about speeding but about rigging or using your vehicle to perform an illegal task. I'm not worried about a citation from some officer. But I would be very worried about eternal lawsuits with nobody in my corner.

Hi volwing1,

Since you're a new member, maybe you can shed some light on this subject. The question of whether an insurance policy would pay in the event of a pickup towing a camper that exceeds the manufacturer's specs has been asked about a gazillion times. So far, nobody has been able to produce any evidence saying they would not pay. Since you speak with an air of authority, maybe you can finally provide some concrete evidence.

Another question that often follows: If an insurance company will pay following an accident caused by a drunk driver (which is an activity that is, without question, illegal), why would they not pay following an accident that was caused by an activity that is not illegal?

You also mention the "mythical" lawsuits to follow. Do you have some personal experiences that you can share? Many have come before you with the "friend of a friend" stories, but I have yet to hear anybody say first hand that they lost all their earthly possessions to lawsuits.

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter.

[volwing1]

Money and morality. Drive a rig that is overloaded according to the manufacturer...have an accident and discover what your insurance adjuster will do. It is his job to determine if your policy was abided with before he approves any payout. They are trained to look at any means of not paying...including your using your vehicle in a manner specifically forbidden by the manufacturer. We're not talking about speeding but about rigging or using your vehicle to perform an illegal task. I'm not worried about a citation from some officer. But I would be very worried about eternal lawsuits with nobody in my corner.

[UsualSuspect]

Since I needed to get a VIN Verification done, I asked one of the CHP Weigh Station Officer's while I was there. He said they don't usually target RV's unless they are involved in an accident with major injuries, fatalities, or they see one and it looks unsafe. I showed him this post - he said very careful - it only applies on Interstate Highways, not State Highways, nor County/City roadways. same for towing triples - in California it is only allowed on Interstate Highways, not on State/County/City highways or roadways.

[Hannibal]

Just a wild guess but I'm thinking if a vehicle is so over loaded that it's unsafe to drive, it's "unsafe" characteristics will be evident in the driver's inability to maintain control of his vehicle such as being able to stay in his lane or stop in a reasonable distance or even accelerate up to speed so as not to impede the normal flow of traffic. In that case I would assume a police officer would notice the unsafe condition and possibly ticket the driver for careless driving, reckless driving, failure to maintain control of his vehicle, failure to stop at a stop signal, maybe even improper equipment as a result of being severly over loaded to the point of impaired driving. Hopefully none of us will over load our vehicles to the point of being "obviously" grossly over loaded. If simply being over the manufacturer's GVWR were illegal, police depts could fill their coffers with fines collected from just about anyone loaded for vacation in their cars, minivans and SUV's. Even the minivan loaded with kids for the soccer game would likely exceed the GVWR. Heck, they could sit out in front of Home Depot and rake in more fines than DUI check points outside the bars.

[Campinfan]

In Michigan, we do not take enforcement against non commercial vehicles. Its been a couple of years since I have weighed out a vehicle but we enforce the vehicles that have a weight sticker on the plate. I think they start at 24,000 lbs GVWR. We do not weigh out RV's.