Is being a little over GVWR no worse than doing 60 in a 55?

[Joel_T]

We're struggling between a Lance1985 and a 2285 and to add to that struggle are concerned about our RAM1500 tow capabilities. Many, maybe a majority, are pulling 1985s and 2285s size TTs, 4500 to 5000lb dry weight, 6K max, with half tons. I'd be well under axle loads and tow max but only slightly under GCWR. But, I figure I might be over GVWR 2 to 400lbs, not much but....

I'd wager many are over GVWR if they load their 1/2 tons with anything at all yet claim "great" towing, Is being a little over GVWR no worse than doing 60mph in a 55?

[blt2ski]

I;ve personally been pulled over by way more CVEO's ie the real weight cops in a van or "HAVING" to go over to the weigh scales dues to my "real" gvw/gcw of the combo. I personally am more worried about what and how they can stop me than what will happen in a civil court.

Also as noted by rafgo, one can be UNDER ratings and more more of a menace than over ratings! Yeah, been there done that too with a trailer and NO hitch wt, trailer was 8K lbs, dang near took me off the road with a truck tow rig that weighs 12K lbs!

One can argue the variances of what they worry about being law per say. BUT, if you want the real ones from an LEO/CVEO stand point, look up your states laws as I liked earlier to the ones in Wa st, ie RCW46.xxxxx Then you can find the ones you can be cited for. In this state, being over a manufacture rating is NOT ILLEGAL! being over an axel per the road bed engineer design specs, will get you fined. It will NOT, nor is the federal law portion designed to put you in jail. Only for you to pay for the damage you are doing to the road driving over it. THIS is the what the weight law enforcement pays for. There are OTHER laws that will get unsafe rigs off the road!

Marty

[BenK]

Agree...and don't know the exact details of his citations....he did weigh them with portable scales

We talked about this stuff after I've read one of his CHP magazines which did NOT leave out gory pictures of accidents and why we talked about how clueless folks are in the possibilities of their actions

Started showing me his mags after my first time being sued...scared the neck out of me...in my early twenties then. Older than me, so was teaching metrics if how lawyers think and use 'evidence'

rhagfo wrote:

wing_zealot wrote:
Let's be clear about this. There is no law that says "you can't tow overweight". If you are involved in an accident you may be charged with negligence. But, if you are involved in an accident and they are so inclined, they "will" find a reason regardless. You could be charged with negligence for: failure to stop in a safe assured distance, failure to realize there might be a patch of ice on the road, failure to use your turn signal, improper lane usage, speeding, improper signal usage, driving to fast for the conditions, or any one of a thousand other possible charges. They key word in all the above responses is "negligence". They will find a reason.

Lacking an accident, you can never be pulled over, weighed and cited "non-commercial" unless you have over 20,000 lbs on an axle or exceed a tire rating.

BenK wrote:
Thank you....that has been and is the point

But you can be cited...cousin Ca highway patrol sergeant did that while on the force...till he quit due to one too many accidents he had to investigate

I would believe that the vehicles that he did pull over and cite "looked Overloaded, and unsafe".

The sad part is that a TV and trailer, can be within ratings, and still grossly unsafe.

While one grossly over ratings, can be perfectly safe! (Excluding over tire ratings)!

[rhagfo]

wing_zealot wrote:
Let's be clear about this. There is no law that says "you can't tow overweight". If you are involved in an accident you may be charged with negligence. But, if you are involved in an accident and they are so inclined, they "will" find a reason regardless. You could be charged with negligence for: failure to stop in a safe assured distance, failure to realize there might be a patch of ice on the road, failure to use your turn signal, improper lane usage, speeding, improper signal usage, driving to fast for the conditions, or any one of a thousand other possible charges. They key word in all the above responses is "negligence". They will find a reason.

Lacking an accident, you can never be pulled over, weighed and cited "non-commercial" unless you have over 20,000 lbs on an axle or exceed a tire rating.

BenK wrote:
Thank you....that has been and is the point

But you can be cited...cousin Ca highway patrol sergeant did that while on the force...till he quit due to one too many accidents he had to investigate

I would believe that the vehicles that he did pull over and cite "looked Overloaded, and unsafe".

The said part is that a TV and trailer, can be within ratings, and still grossly unsafe.

While one grossly over ratings, can be perfectly safe! (Excluding over tire ratings)!

[BenK]

Thank you....that has been and is the point

But you can be cited...cousin Ca highway patrol sergeant did that while on the force...till he quit due to one too many accidents he had to investigate

[wing_zealot]

Let's be clear about this. There is no law that says "you can't tow overweight". If you are involved in an accident you may be charged with negligence. But, if you are involved in an accident and they are so inclined, they "will" find a reason regardless. You could be charged with negligence for: failure to stop in a safe assured distance, failure to realize there might be a patch of ice on the road, failure to use your turn signal, improper lane usage, speeding, improper signal usage, driving to fast for the conditions, or any one of a thousand other possible charges. They key word in all the above responses is "negligence". They will find a reason.

Lacking an accident, you can never be pulled over, weighed and cited "non-commercial" unless you have over 20,000 lbs on an axle or exceed a tire rating.

[SlowBro]

kaydeejay wrote:
I've been called a liar about this before, which is why I only mention it in passing any more. (..) That's it. You can believe me or not. I don't care any more.

Thanks. I for one believe you. I don't see why you'd lie about such a thing. Can't think of any motive for it.

[BenK]

Thank you Keith and I can also say had a similar experience...was
personally sued as I stated before

Civil suit because the DA's of the counties involved did not pursue a criminal
charge because they felt not enough evidence to warrant a charge to be filed

'Gross Negligence' can be a seemingly small, irrelevant thing now, but once things
get going and the motion is unavoidable...there is not much you can do at that moment

It could be a contributing factor that is not directly related to
the actual cause. They will go looking...

"....seemingly small, irrelevant...." at that time like going over the speed
'limit' or going over the 'rating'...

Can anyone say that a vehicle can stop just as quickly and the same distance
going 10 MPH over the speed limit? No and that is in the laws of physics

Ditto over weight...can the same vehicle manhandle it the same if it was below
or just at the 'rating' ??? No and that is in the laws of physics

I am not a lawyer, but learn quickly supplemented by research/reading/etc

And yes, both sides can hire their own experts to tell the jury and that is the
crux of it all...not the hired PhD's from both sides...but the jury who may not,
most likely not be at a level to question or even understand those PhD's.

Emotion is what the lawyers will play on...along with swaying them with verbiage
Not necessarily the facts either

Yes the chances of getting into an accident that will have you sued are small, but it is not ZERO.

Again thank you Keith...few understand this area. And the few who do...most likely
are either in the legal business or walked in similar shoes...

[TangoFox]

I find myself in a similar situation to the original poster. I have a 2008 Chev 3500HD DWR. The weight of the truck, wet, is around 8161 lbs at a Cat Scale. That includes tools and a bed cover (150lbs), and my tailgate. The GVWR is 11,400 lbs. This means that I have a max payload of 3,239 lbs. However, there's an additional sticker inside the glovebox that says I should never carry more than 3,100 lbs in the bed.

I have my eyes set on the Lance 1172. The main reason because it was the only camper that my wife went into that she said she could tolerate. Unfortunately, it weighs 3,900 lbs dry. That means around 4,900 wet, which would put me 1,661 lbs over my GVWR when wet.

Reading all of these above, and doing my own research. I'm seriously on the fence. I don't think I'd actually break anything with this camper in the back. I know that these trucks are grossly over-engineered to withstand more weight. The simple fact that each year the GVWR goes up and up, with very little chnages being made to the vehicle has a good indication of that. But, would I want to stand up in civil court and say that "Yes, I purposely loaded my truck 14% / 1400 lbs overweight"? Probably not.

Then again, do I think that they're going to throw my stuff on a scale when I crash? No.

Do I think anyone (Police or otherwise) would harass me and my truck camper? I doubt it.

So that has me looking at many 5th wheel options. I think even most of the larger sizes I've seen would be fine, but that is a entirely different style of camping. Unfortunately I'm not sure that it appeals to me nearly as much as Truck camping.

[Michelle_S]

blt2ski wrote:

transamz9 wrote:
Rule of thumb, use the same gear going down as you would going up.

That was a good rule of thumb back about 10-15 plus years ago. With so many of our trucks able to pull typical freeway grades at the speed limit. using a gear or two below what you use going up might be a better option in all honesty! my 02 on this one......

Marty

X2 on the above. Having traveled the West, Western Canada and Alaska this past summer I generally used one or two gears lower with exhaust brake engaged coming down that going up. Thus allowed much safer and more controlled down grades and required next to no use of the brakes.

[kaydeejay]

NMace wrote:
If you are not making this up, please give us a citation, newspaper, blog, anything at all. I have been tracking Lexas/Nexas for years, and have yet to find a recorded case of a recreational vehicle (as opposed to a commercial vehicle) being cited, charged, or even sued for being overweight in an accident. No record of insurance being denied. None of the dire consequences you all claim.

Please just give me a single documented account, not your believe, bot what happened to a friend of a friend's second cousin by marriage.

I know it seems logical to you, and even it should happen, but I have yet to see proof. Sorry to offend. But we need to deal in fact.

I've been called a liar about this before, which is why I only mention it in passing any more.
I have been retired 12 years and this was approx 3 years before that. I do not have any paperwork and I'm not sure you would ever find the specifics of a case regarding overloading.
Situation was that there were two separate incidents of pickup trucks (not RVs and not towing) involved in accidents. They were both overloaded.
One was 1500# over GVWR, and was "At fault" in a fatal. He was charged with "criminal negligence causing death" apparently due to the overload condition.
So being overloaded would never appear on any court docket, it was the basis for the negligence charge.
My involvement was that I provided the Company lawyers with vehicle specific weight capacity data to support the overload condition.
They went to court with the position that the vehicles in question were neither tested nor certified to perform safely at the weights involved. The guy involved in the fatal went to jail.
Was it simply the overload condition? I doubt it, but that was certainly a contributing factor.
That's it. You can believe me or not. I don't care any more.

[kaydeejay]

cdevidal wrote:

kaydeejay wrote:
Many years ago I was involved in a couple of court cases where drivers involved in accidents WERE prosecuted for being 1000# and 1500# over. They were charged with negligence.
Just be careful!

kaydeejay, to clarify was that 1000# and 1500# over the GVWR or GCVR? GVWR right?

GVWR. Vehicles were pickup trucks, not RVs.

[NMace]

If you are not making this up, please give us a citation, newspaper, blog, anything at all. I have been tracking Lexas/Nexas for years, and have yet to find a recorded case of a recreational vehicle (as opposed to a commercial vehicle) being cited, charged, or even sued for being overweight in an accident. No record of insurance being denied. None of the dire consequences you all claim.

Please just give me a single documented account, not your believe, bot what happened to a friend of a friend's second cousin by marriage.

I know it seems logical to you, and even it should happen, but I have yet to see proof. Sorry to offend. But we need to deal in fact.

[SlowBro]

kaydeejay wrote:
Many years ago I was involved in a couple of court cases where drivers involved in accidents WERE prosecuted for being 1000# and 1500# over. They were charged with negligence.
Just be careful!

kaydeejay, to clarify was that 1000# and 1500# over the GVWR or GCVR? GVWR right?

[blt2ski]

transamz9 wrote:
Rule of thumb, use the same gear going down as you would going up.

That was a good rule of thumb back about 10-15 plus years ago. With so many of our trucks able to pull typical freeway grades at the speed limit. using a gear or two below what you use going up might be a better option in all honesty! my 02 on this one......

Marty