blt2ski wrote:
Ok, so what do you do in the case of Bert or Jim, who's registration does NOT show a GVW based on tax paid? Because they have not paid a tax? .
You don't worry about it because that's the requirement set up by their state. Nothing says a state has to license light trucks with a weight paid license. It's a tax, that's all it is. If a state chooses not to license by weight then that's entirely up to that state. Every other state has to honor what ever licensing their home state has for registration. The feds mandate that.
What's the weight paid fee for a 1st division vehicle? Most don't have one.
Would just have Jim and Bert buy a "day" permit? In Wa, having been there done that, If pulled over under the bridge law amount, but over my registration, they give me 10 days to up the registration. no big deal.
Once again you're confusing apples and oranges. Bridge law has nothing to do with registration (tax). Bridge is axle/gross weights. You're doing exactly what I said earlier. People read the word "weight" and they confuse the 2 thinking they're somehow related. They're not. One (registration) is a fee to haul a certain weight. Axle/gross are the limits imposed by either the axle or gross allowable limits set by statute or bridge which is set because of limits to the road, bridge, or length of the vehicle.
Here's where it gets really confusing to the untrained. Bridge law has nothing to do with bridges. Bridge law is the max load you can carry depending on the length of your vehicle. Bridge being the distance between say your front and rear axle (outter bridge) or between any other 2 axles (inner bridge). The bridge built over water that has limits is not about the bridge law. Again, that's where people who haven't had any legal training read "bridge" and their frame of reference is the steel or concrete thing they drive over. In legal terms that's not what it refers. The weight limits posed for the steel or concrete thing over water is a structure limit.
See why it's dangerous and sometimes silly for people who have no legal training try to explain the statutes? They read a word that is common to them and expect that to mean the same in the statutes. As a result they just confuse themselves even more and others when they try to explain to someone else who doesn't understand. That's why what should be a simple thread ends up going 20 pages, because people can't get out of their heads the definitions they *think* are not the same as the statutes' meanings.
