Just when you thought...................

[Michael]

You had heard it all.

Visiting with a customer this week who related that one of his people had been awarded a moving violation for a misdemeanor that he was "capable" of committing.
Seems the lad was in compliance with the law but had in tow a trailer "capable" of exceeding the combined GVR of the 1/2 ton truck and trailer.

Doing a bit of arm chair extrapolation;

You drove by a liquor store and got a DWI because you COULD have bought a case of brew

You ( a man ) walk by a group of women, and now you are a registered offender because you were "capable" since you had the right equipment on hand to commit the offense.

You own a rifle with a scope and a person in the next zip code gets shot. Well........there you are, you had the "capability".

Been to a couple county fairs and a goat roping and thought I'd heard it all.

 

[hlee]

Not terribly surprising. Registration fees are based on the gross weight of the vehicle, not the curb weight. The gross vehicle weight is the curb weight + what it can carry, not what it is carrying. It may have been a violation, but that had to be a dick cop to write the ticket- and one that has never towed a trailer.

 

[2ndamendfan]

Not terribly surprising. Registration fees are based on the gross weight of the vehicle, not the curb weight. The gross vehicle weight is the curb weight + what it can carry, not what it is carrying. It may have been a violation, but that had to be a dick cop to write the ticket- and one that has never towed a trailer.

WHAT?? did you even read what the OP said and then your response to it. This would be the same as giving a speeding ticket to a Ferrari for 201mph, when in fact the car was doing the speed limit but said Ferrari is CAPABLE of 201. Yes registration is based on GVW but the OP said he had not exceed the GVW of the 1/2 ton only that he was towing a trailer that could in fact be CAPABLE of being loaded with enough stuff so as to exceed the GVW, but in fact had not been loaded to exceed GVW yet. IE the truck is rated to tow 10,000lbs but the trailer had a 15,000lbs rating. He had not broke the law, but he might so better give him a ticket first.

 

[hlee]

Yes I did read the original post. I had a lot of stuff typed out, but this should suffice...

TRANSPORTATION CODE

TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC

SUBTITLE A. CERTIFICATES OF TITLE AND REGISTRATION OF VEHICLES

CHAPTER 502. REGISTRATION OF VEHICLES

SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 502.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:

(1) "All-terrain vehicle" means a motor vehicle that is:

(A) equipped with a seat or seats for the use of:

(i) the rider; and

(ii) a passenger, if the motor vehicle is designed by the manufacturer to transport a passenger;

(B) designed to propel itself with three or more tires in contact with the ground;

(C) designed by the manufacturer for off-highway use;

(D) not designed by the manufacturer primarily for farming or lawn care; and

(E) not more than 50 inches wide.

(2) "Apportioned license plate" means a license plate issued in lieu of a truck license plate or combination license plate to a motor carrier in this state who proportionally registers a vehicle owned or leased by the carrier in one or more other states.

(3) "Board" means the board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles.

(4) "Combination license plate" means a license plate issued for a truck or truck-tractor that is used or intended to be used in combination with a semitrailer that has a gross weight of more than 6,000 pounds.

(5) "Combined gross weight" means the empty weight of the truck-tractor or commercial motor vehicle combined with the empty weight of the heaviest semitrailer used or to be used in combination with the truck-tractor or commercial motor vehicle plus the heaviest net load to be carried on the combination during the registration year.

Note that Gross weight includes the heaviest load that can be carried... And...

TRANSPORTATION CODE

TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC

SUBTITLE B. DRIVER'S LICENSES AND PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION CARDS

CHAPTER 522. COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSES

SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

(17) "Gross combination weight rating" means the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a combination or articulated vehicle or, if the manufacturer has not specified a value, the sum of the gross vehicle weight rating of the power unit and the total weight of the towed unit or units and any load on a towed unit.

(18) "Gross vehicle weight rating" means the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle.



The gentleman's combined gross vehicle weight was in excess of the combined gross vehicle weight rating. That is, apparently, a violation of the law- regardless of whether the actual load weight was within the limits set by law. The gentleman in question is also, very likely, a commercial DL holder (I am assuming this based on the wording in the OP), and bound by additional traffic laws.

I mentioned the registration of a vehicle to illustrate that "the law" is often more concerned with gross weights (what CAN the vehicle weigh) than they are with net weight (what DOES the vehicle weigh).

There is more to this story than was in the OP, and traffic laws- especially as the apply to commercial drivers- are complex and confusing.

Sometimes you have to go and read a bit more than the OP before jumping off the cliff...

 

[0311 Hesco]

In Ohio, there are primary and secondary offenses. You can't be ticketed for no seat belt if you didn't do anything else wrong. If the cop stops you for a busted tail light and sees you don't have your seat belt on, then he can site you. Wonder if that's kinda how it works in TX.

Either way, that's gotta be one bored cop...or there's more to the story (usually is).

 

[GlockBlock]

That was a cop with literally nothing to do.

 

[Michael]

hlee,
Driver was not in possession of a CDL of any class.
Drivers words, quoting the cop, You didn't do anything wrong, but you have the ability to violate the law.
As to why the original stop, unknown if it was bored cop or something more.

 

[pmclaine]

Its kind of like 'Constructive Possession" (I think thats the term) regards owning an NFA part AND a non NFA rifle that it could be fit to.

So you havent built the NFA rifle but because you have all the parts to do it you can get yourself in trouble.

Is my analogy a valid one?

 

[Maggot]

Need I say more?

 

[2ndamendfan]

hlee,
Driver was not in possession of a CDL of any class.
Drivers words, quoting the cop, You didn't do anything wrong, but you have the ability to violate the law.
As to why the original stop, unknown if it was bored cop or something more.

I have said for over 2 decades, that one day they will lock up every single male over the age of 13 because they "could" rape someone (first day you get a hard-on off to jail for you) and every single female over 13 because they "could" be a prostitute. This is the thought process for that law/ticket. You can't have the "ability" to exceed your GVWR (gross vehicle weight RATING) even if at the time your GVW is below your GVWR.

Under the EXACT SAME thought process everyone driving ANYTHING but a yugo would wake up to a speeding ticket on their windshield before they left for work.

and these same SOB's want "Common Sense" gun laws. WTF!!! If our system truly worked a judge would see how fucked up it is to issue a ticket for a violation that hasn't happened yet and throw out the law.

once tried to fight something similar and the judge said "this just isn't your day".

 

[hlee]

But you see, the GVW was not below the GVWR. Please check the definitions above. The GROSS weight includes the max load capacity. Again, GROSS combined weight is the curb weight of the truck + curb weight of the trailer + max load capacity of truck + max load capacity of trailer. If this is over the Combined vehicle weight rating you are in violation. This is simple math and you don't even need a scale to figure it out. That is probably why the law is in place.

It is something like constructive intent.

And, there are a few to many links in the chain of what the OP said his customer said "his guy" said the cop said. My guess is that the cop didn't say [exactly] what the customer said the guy said he said. And, what he did say was likely paraphrasing and simplifying the actual statute.

This is much ado about very little. If you want real outrage, check out what them "Real Housewives" are doing...