Quote:
Originally Posted by JRTJH
The problem with your reasoning is not a "physical limitation" of the truck, it's the "legal limitation" that the federal government places on it (for a variety of reasons, all having to do with money and taxes).
I don't know about you, but I really want to keep my truck and my savings. What you're saying is true in a "physical sense" but is fast becoming "an old wives tale" in many states. Whether we like it or not, there's a significant shift occurring as we speak in the legal profession. Many lawyers are now openly advertising that they will take "overweight RV cases" on a contingent basis. They only get paid if they win. It's becoming a significant risk to "fortune and future" to risk it all if something should happen. Hopefully you'll never meet Mr Annis ( https://www.kennethjannislaw.com/rv-accident.html ) or any of his associates in front of someone wearing a black robe and not smiling. For me, and I'd suppose for many others, it's simply not worth the risk.
Your views may differ, and that's perfectly OK with me, so long as you don't run into my truck on the highway. Then, I'd suppose I would have to consider whether or not to call Mr. Annis..... Just sayin'.................. |
What is funny with yours (and others) posts on the matter is worrying about the legal aspect. Nobody has ever said the legalities of the sticker were being changed.
So your main concern is legalities. Fine, I get it. But that shouldn't concern you.
Then you make the (expected) leap to blood running through the highways. That is where the discussion gets off track... since it was already established that the physical abilities of the truck weren't over taxed.
I'm starting to see why the term "weight police " is used in such a derogatory manner. Gotta shake my head laughing at some of these discussions...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk