From: Dan Maguire (dmaguire@mchsi.com)
Date: Sun Dec 18 2005 - 19:59:10 PST
Greetings all,
Bruce... I may be more with you than most. You are concerned because an
unskilled driver could call anything an RV and get a substandard POS out
on the streets and kill the rest of us. That is a sensible thing to be
concerned about, I think.
All... brace yourselves, I type at around 80WPM...
We all have to share the roads, so some manner of establishing a minimum
standard of equipment and driver must be in place. In most ways, it
doesn't matter if its for commerce or not. Ohio has a "Max 55mph if
over 4 tons" law. It doesn't say "Max 55mph if over 4 tons and
commercial - if you are not commercial, please rely on the laws of
physics reserved for non-commercial vehicles when stopping." I
personally think that the 4 ton cutoff is crazy, but if you are going to
do it - not doing it for everyone is just plain idiotic.
Someone mentioned that we all know our responsibility. You *can't* be
serious. Imagine if we said "no driver's licenses needed - everyone
knows their responsibility... they'll do the right thing and get
adequate training. And drunk driving laws? Drop those too. Who would
drive drunk knowing how risky it is for everyone." Laws are designed
for the worst that society has to offer - always have been, always will
be. Personally, I'd rather say "you can drive as drunk as you want to
but, if you hurt anyone while drunk, we will kill you slowly - no
exceptions." You can guess why I'll probably never be elected to anything.
IIR, someone else said that they couldn't get a driving test in a
vehicle with burnt out lights. Not important lights, perhaps, but
crimony.... If someone can't get their thumb out of their a$$ long
enough to replace burnt out light bulbs prior to going to a BMV driving
test of all things, they don't deserve whatever it is they want. And it
is not because of the bulbs - they don't even care about that. It is
because if you are too lazy to get your vehicle up to snuff prior to
bringing it there, you are clearly not going to make any reasonable
effort on the road. This exactly parallels military inspections.
Nobody thinks that a gunny believes that a shiny brass belt buckle is
going to save someone in battle. The gunny believes that if he can
foster an attention to detail and a willingness to follow orders, *that*
might keep someone prepared and alive. Same philosophy.
Add this to the horror story list - In Colorado, a guy having car
problems is standing on the side of the road talking to a state trooper.
The state trooper later describes what happened next as, "we were
talking and the guy just disappeared." He disappeared because because a
tire/wheel that came off the trailer of a passing truck hit the motorist
doing 70mph. The mechanic at the depot hadn't finished mounting it when
the trucker left and, while he drove, all of the lug nuts loosened until
it finally fell off. The truck driver had to hear it or feel it - he
ignored it. He certainly didn't do a walk around. And those are the
lazy SOBs that the BS is indirectly designed to stop. If I've got to
check my bulbs before a BMV driving test to keep that deadbeat off the
road - no problem.
So here is where Bruce and I may be at odds... My big hangup is when
things are implemented poorly.
First... Everette cannot get the DOT to officially tell him what they
are unofficially telling him. That is typical bureaucratic nonsense.
With both the CDL and his truck brakes, there should be a mechanism
whereby those who don't fit well with the laws can get an official
declaration to show to the world. I suspect that the horrible disease
CDS (cajones deficiency syndrome) is to blame and will keep this from
ever occuring.
Second... If I could trust that a new law would clearly document what
legal and that the law would be impemented accurately and fairly - I'd
let them have more control in areas that need it. Basically, to get
what Bruce wants - which ain't really too much - we'd have to trust
them. Yeah, right.
That's my opinion. Fire away!
BR,
Dan
Auburn, IN
Bruce Kalin wrote:
> Hi Everette,
>
> I guess I'm the only one on the list who seems bothered by this, so I am
> going to apologize in advance to everyone who feels I am in the wrong -
> Yes, everyone.
>
> Everette, I am confident that you, and many like you would certainly get
> their CDL if possible, and could pass the exam without difficulty.
> Unfortunately, this is not always or, often the case. How many drivers
> out there use this loop hole of "recreational vehicle" to avoid any
> driver training at all, and get behind the wheel of a rolling death
> trap? We've all seen these people driving small vehicles, knowing they
> are an "accident waiting to happen." Now, they've bought a 10 ton truck
> for less than they paid for a used pickup, and away they go. They have
> no clue what the difference between air over hydraulic vs Maxi brakes
> is, and could care less. Not only aren't the drivers required to have
> appropriate training, the trucks often only require self inspection,
> which is a joke if DOT doesn't do spot checks on them. So, you have a
> driver without training, behind the wheel of a vehicle without an
> inspection.
>
> Why is it that I feel alone in seeing this as setup for disaster? Maybe
> it's because I've seen too many accidents on the road that should never
> have been allowed to happen. Maybe it's because of the 18 wheeler that
> drove over the top of a car that was stopped in the Maryland toll booth
> several years ago, taking the drivers head and shoulders off just before
> I pulled up behind them. Or, maybe it's the bus drivers, doing 75 mph on
> the parkway in the snow, and then driving off the road, killing some,
> and injuring many others. Now, these vehicles were supposed to be
> inspected, and the drivers properly licensed. Does it add to the risk if
> the safety precautions of proper licensing and vehicle inspections are
> not in place? I don't know. Maybe it's because I have family and friends
> that drive cars that can fit under the bumper of of a deuce. Ok, sorry
> for ranting, drive on.
>
> Again, I apologize to everyone on the list who feels I'm over the edge
> about this, and that it really shouldn't be a concern.
>
> Merry Christmas,
>
> Bruce Kalin
>
>
> Everette wrote:
>
>> A few years back when I got my first MV that had gross weight in
>> excess of 26,000 pounds, (some over 37,000) and a maxium GVWR of over
>> 210,000 pounds - (truck, trailer and load)... I will never even get
>> close to this......
>>
>> I checked on CDLs, got the book to study for test, then I discovered
>> my truck would not pass the pre-drive exam, nothing wrong with truck;
>> problem with truck is the brake system specified by Army will not pass
>> commercial specifiications and I can not afford to make the changes.
>> Brakes work fine, problem is that when you have no air you have no
>> brakes, hence truck sitting still air will leak off and truck can
>> roll. Unlike commercial air brake systems, air leaks away on them and
>> brakes are locked in the applied position. I dive this truck very
>> little at 2 MPG not much fun.
>>
>> More reading book lead me to the conclusion that unless I was engaged
>> in hauling for hire I did not need CDLs - Tennessee - after much
>> checking DOT agreed, however they will not give me this in writing,
>> they suggest I make copy of book page that said Recretaional Vehicles
>> do not require CDLs.
>>
>> I have another military truck with gross weight in excess of 32,000
>> pounds, I have been through safety check THP road blocks driving it,
>> drove past weight scales, never had a probem. Never looked for any
>> trouble and never found any.
>>
>> Everette
>>
>> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
>> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
>> To reach a human, contact <ackyle@gmail.com>
>> Visit the searchable archives at http://www.mil-veh.org/archives/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 18 2006 - 21:37:12 PDT