Re: weigh stations

[Teddy Lancaster <Teddy@runningbear.com>]

VERY well said!!!!  I am not against making our highways safe.  What I am
against is people who do not know (that includes and I am specifically taking
about the DOT and highway patrol) what is legal and what is not.

As for log books...they are a nuisance and a reason for the DOT or the Highway
Patrol to give you a ticket.  My life is already full of paperwork and just
because they are idiots out there who don't comply and do not drive safely or
with safe rigs, that is NO reason to make it tough on me.

BUT, TOO many trailer and truck dealers will sell you a rig that cannot be
reasonable and safely towed down the highway.  Make the dealers KNOW the
laws.  Heck, they'll tell you you can do anything if it will make a sale.

While we are on the subject...talk is going on about making shippers liable
for drivers who fudge their log books...reason?  Too many demand unrealistic
delivery schedules.

Too bad we are no longer living in an honest and sane society.

Teddy


K S Swigart wrote:

> On Mon, 11 May 1998, Teddy Lancaster wrote:
>
> > Perhaps we, as horsemen, should lobby for ourselves the way the RV
> > industry has.  When a 70 year old man can drive a huge RV which you know
> > must weigh over 26,000 lbs, towing a car behind does not have to go
> > through weight stations or conform to FMCSR's, somebody certainly has
> > lobbied to exempt them.  The FMCSR's purpose is to maintain safety on
> > our highways by compliance with all kinds of safety regulations.  AND,
> > weigh stations are there not just to weigh you, they are there to make
> > sure you comply.
>
> I must confess that I do not think it unreasonable that truck/trailer rigs
> that weigh over 26,000 lbs should have to meet specific safety
> requirements, checks, etc. (and I don't think the log book is all that
> unreasonable either).  I find it shocking (although convenient) that
> anybody who has taken a driver's test in a Toyota can legally operate a
> truck trailer rig hauling livestock.
>
> My preference would be for there to be a class of driving license between
> the class A required for "big rig" commercial trucking, and the class 3
> (what it is called here in California) license required for operating a
> car.  Something like and RV license which doesn't require a fortune to
> acquire (which a class A license does), but requires operators to
> demonstrate more driving proficiency that not making an illegal u-turn :).
> The California driving test no longer requires parallel parking (and
> hasn't for decades), and doesn't require drivers to know where the sides
> of their vehicle are--in short, for anything more than operating a small
> passenger car, a joke.
>
> I do not think it unreasonable that horsetrailer rigs should be required
> to meet weight requirements, braking requirements, and to know that the
> driver has not been on the road for 30 hours straight :).
>
> I also consider it inappropriate that "RV" drivers with their motor homes
> are not required to meet stiffer requirements than small passenger cars,
> and that "70 year old men with an RV towing a car behind" probably have
> less driving skill than most people who drive horse trailers, but we
> "horsemen" ought not be asking for special favors, just because other
> people (i.e. the RV lobby) get them.
>
> It is, however, deplorable that the regulations are as clear as mud, so,
> in essence, it is impossible for anybody to be in compliance, or to even
> know whether they are.
>
> Let us lobby for better, clearer rules, not for special considerations.
> Hauling around a 26,000 lb rig with 2,000 to 6,000 lbs of livestock in it
> is not a task for the casual "recreational" driver.
>
> kat
> Orange County, Calif.