FMCSA interpretation of GCWR

[Diamondpilot]

Chris -

60' trailer length or total length?

Total length in Indiana. In Ohio, where you live its legal for double pull but the total length is 65'

Chris

 

[The Haymaker]

I'm in the trucking business, I have a USDOT#. Which i only needed to get because i travel across state lines. I used to just haul in-state and did not need USDOT, but did need a state of Maine DOT#. Big difference in paperwork once i went into the federal system. I'm also in the IFTA system. I have to file fuel taxes in the states I run. I generally run a time card type of system. I usually use the 100 air mile exemption. Don't need log books this way. Time card is left at my place of business.

.

Umm, Aroostook County, travel across state lines, yet don't run a log because of the 100 air mile (115 statute if you wanna play with Officer McCadden) exemption.

How do you pull that off?

 

[Ford tractor]

Attached is a PDF from the DOT that explains the farm exemptions. This is current as of March 2010. I am going to print it out and have it in my truck. Hope this helps.

Nice, thanks.

The most typical scenario is that I carry 10,000 lbs or so on my flatbed truck (truck weighs 11,000 lbs) so truck then is about 21,000 loaded but well under the 26,000 limit. I then pull my trailer (weighs 5,000) with a 12,000 load so that comes to 17,000 lbs. So overall my GCWR is 38,000 lbs which is under the 40,000 for my truck.

I didn't see anything about a 40,000 pound limit in the link. Actually, the link states that you are exempt -- with no weight limits, but it implies that you need to plate it correctly for the load. (Tax revenue trumps all!)

My truck is dual purpose farm and the trailer is farm tagged. So, I'm good to go.

 

[flyingcow]

Umm, Aroostook County, travel across state lines, yet don't run a log because of the 100 air mile (115 statute if you wanna play with Officer McCadden) exemption.

How do you pull that off?

Wonder if someone would pick that up. I travel into New Brunswick Canada a lot.

 

[ahlkey]

The 40,000 lb limit for me has to do with my F650 truck and not the regulations. Another thing to keep in mind though is that you are not exempt from the safety requirements. In addition if you exceed 26,000 as your GCWR level you are required to have a medical card (farmers are not exempt). See attached PDF on safety.

 

[Skyco]

You are correct that double pull is illegal in your area. I have a book with all the trailer laws listed by state and in NC, SC, and FL for example it is illegal. In about 40 of the states its legal and there is no limitation if its 5th wheel or not. Not sure where you heard that but its wrong.
The only stipulation on double pull is total length. For example here in Indiana its legal and done commonly. The only stipulation is it must be under 60' long and of course they both must have the proper lighting, safety chains, and brakes if over 3000#, ect.

Chris

According to Woodall's towing a second trailer behind a conventional trailer is allowed only behind a 5th wheel in Arizona and Illinois.

 

[brokenot]

What I am saying, and what I've experienced is that the only reason that these commercial vehicle enforcement jobs exist is because of the revenue that they generate.

The reason commercial vehicle enforcement jobs exist, is because you can't write a regulation and expect people to follow along. They're no different than any other rules/laws/regulations. If you have no enforcement, you can expect compliance to drop to near zero. Do you want commercial vehicles and their operators to be held to *less* of a standard than they are now? I don't. Even with the regs we have on the books, and even with the possible consequences violators risk, there are still plenty of folks that will take the risk. What would happen if the possibility of consequences were erased?

As far as "only existing to generate revenue", what would you suggest the alternative be? (Or are you saying that all commercial vehicle and driver rules and regulations are unnecessary in the first place?) In lieu of fines and such, should a driver be required to park their rig for "X" number of hours per infraction or something? That wouldn't fly. And pulling people over for infractions and issuing "warnings" is laughable as well.

You told a short story....so here's mine. My wife is a bit of a habitual speeder. She speeds everywhere and has done so for years. Yes, she's gotten caught multiple times, and has been given warnings at least a dozen times over the years....that I know about.

Guess how much of a deterrent the warnings have been? Zip, zero, nada. It (finally) took a stiff fine to get her to re-think things a bit. The main reason warnings bother me though, is that they're seldom providing any information that the driver is currently unaware of. Yes, you might not be aware that your brake light is out. Sorry, nope....you're not unaware that you can't run down the road overweight....on a set of bald tires....with a couple of ragged yellow ratchet straps securing your load.

The whole playing dumb thing is an "out". Let's be honest about it.

Lastly, to be clear I'm not upset at the members of law enforcement for doing their job. Heck that would mean that I would be mad at myself. My anger is directed at those who write the laws and who create the budgets.

I did copy and paste your exact quote in my earlier post, here it is again:

Commercial vehicle enforcement on the part of law enforcement is ALL ABOUT MONEY.

Who exactly is "law enforcement" if it's not the officers performing the law enforcement? The people writing laws and budgets certainly don't fall under the "law enforcement" umbrella....

 

[Diamondpilot]

According to Woodall's towing a second trailer behind a conventional trailer is allowed only behind a 5th wheel in Arizona and Illinois.

My book list no limit for double pull in Illinois but in Arizona it list that each trailer can be no longer then 28'6" and a max overall length not to exceed 65'. Not sure where they came up with that number but that what it is.

Chris

 

[Lt CHEG]

The reason commercial vehicle enforcement jobs exist, is because you can't write a regulation and expect people to follow along. They're no different than any other rules/laws/regulations. If you have no enforcement, you can expect compliance to drop to near zero. Do you want commercial vehicles and their operators to be held to *less* of a standard than they are now? I don't. Even with the regs we have on the books, and even with the possible consequences violators risk, there are still plenty of folks that will take the risk. What would happen if the possibility of consequences were erased?

As far as "only existing to generate revenue", what would you suggest the alternative be? (Or are you saying that all commercial vehicle and driver rules and regulations are unnecessary in the first place?) In lieu of fines and such, should a driver be required to park their rig for "X" number of hours per infraction or something? That wouldn't fly. And pulling people over for infractions and issuing "warnings" is laughable as well.

You told a short story....so here's mine. My wife is a bit of a habitual speeder. She speeds everywhere and has done so for years. Yes, she's gotten caught multiple times, and has been given warnings at least a dozen times over the years....that I know about.

Guess how much of a deterrent the warnings have been? Zip, zero, nada. It (finally) took a stiff fine to get her to re-think things a bit. The main reason warnings bother me though, is that they're seldom providing any information that the driver is currently unaware of. Yes, you might not be aware that your brake light is out. Sorry, nope....you're not unaware that you can't run down the road overweight....on a set of bald tires....with a couple of ragged yellow ratchet straps securing your load.

The whole playing dumb thing is an "out". Let's be honest about it.



I did copy and paste your exact quote in my earlier post, here it is again:



Who exactly is "law enforcement" if it's not the officers performing the law enforcement? The people writing laws and budgets certainly don't fall under the "law enforcement" umbrella....

Good point, my choice of wording was poor. A better choice of words would have been, "The implementation of commercial vehicle enforcement programs is all about money." Ultimately what I'm getting at is that creating units to enforce commercial vehicle laws is all about the revenue that they will generate. So ultimately it's not the officers doing the enforcement that I take issue with, it's the politicians that create units which do nothing but enforce commercial vehicle laws. I hope that makes it more clear, I really can't think of a better way to say what I am trying to get across. I think that there are much better ways to spend law enforcement resources than all the efforts put into commercial vehicle enforcement.

To answer your other question, yes I do think that some of the commercial vehicle laws are too extreme. Many of the laws were written a long time ago before many modern advancements in vehicle performance and safety. It used to take a heavy duty commercial truck to pull some of the loads that a pickup truck can easily accomplish nowadays. I'm opposed to requiring a pickup truck driver to have a class A CDL for just about anything for example. I'm not even sure that DMV would give you a road test for a class A CDL if you showed up in a F450 with a trailer heavy enough to technically require a class A CDL. And frankly I think it silly to require a person who will never drive anything other than that F450 with its albeit heavy load to learn to operate a Kenworth tractor rig or its equivalent in order to be able to legally pull some of the heavy loads that a pickup can nowadays easily and safely pull.

I also have a problem with the CDL regulations not being uniform. If it were so important that people have a CDL, drug testing and yearly medical exam to drive a bus even if there is nobody on the bus because of how dangerous such a large vehicle can be, then why is it not important that some rich guy with more money than sense can get behind the wheel of that same bus, but with a living interior instead of seats and tool around the road once or twice a year without any clue to the capabilities of the vehicle or commitment to learn about the vehicle? The reality is because the RV industry has a more powerful lobby, not because of any commitment to safety.

I'm generally a fan of keeping the government out of most of the people's every day business. I'm okay with extra taxes and so forth for heavy vehicles because they put proportionally more wear and tear on the roads. I just get tired of the government nickle and diming people to death over things which aren't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things, and I get really upset when the laws are not applied uniformly across the board. Yeah if someone is driving down the road with a truck full of gravel with no cover over the top and causing rocks to fly out of the back and break other people's property then yeah he needs a fine as it's pretty easy to see the hazards associated with such behavior. However some of the things that people get tickets for don't even equate to operating something outside of its designed safety limits even those those safety limits are obviously in excess of its rated limits.

 

[Skyco]

My book list no limit for double pull in Illinois but in Arizona it list that each trailer can be no longer then 28'6" and a max overall length not to exceed 65'. Not sure where they came up with that number but that what it is.

Chris

Your book is wrong.

From Illinois motor vehicle codes.
SB2927 Engrossed - 3 - LRB096 15493 AJT 30723 b



1 combinations of vehicles may not exceed a total of 2 vehicles
2 except the following:
3 (1) A truck tractor semitrailer may draw one trailer.
4 (2) A truck tractor semitrailer may draw one converter
5 dolly.
6 (3) A truck tractor semitrailer may draw one vehicle
7 that is defined in Chapter 1 as special mobile equipment,
8 provided the overall dimension does not exceed 60 feet.
9 (4) A truck in transit may draw 3 trucks in transit
10 coupled together by the triple saddlemount method.
11 (5) Recreational vehicles consisting of 3 vehicles,
12 provided the following:
13 (A) The total overall dimension does not exceed 60
14 feet.
15 (B) The towing vehicle is a properly registered
16 vehicle capable of towing another vehicle using a
17 fifth-wheel type assembly.
18 (C) The second vehicle in the combination of
19 vehicles is a recreational vehicle that is towed by a
20 fifth-wheel assembly. This vehicle must be properly
21 registered and must be equipped with brakes,
22 regardless of weight.
23 (D) The third vehicle must be the lightest of the 3
24 vehicles and be a trailer or semitrailer designed or
25 used for transporting a boat, all-terrain vehicle,
26 personal watercraft, or motorcycle.