No, if morons rice-out their cars and have them dragging on the ground, that's their own problem. But, on the other hand, if your truck is so high that if you T-boned my wife's Corolla your bumper would hit her face and not her door, you don't need to be driving that on the street. It's irresponsible.

 

Yeah more laws, that's exactly what we need. This is what leads to places like California and New York. Thinking up solutions to a problem that isn't really a problem because you've got the itch and want to change something.

 

Sorry, generally I'm with you on less government interference. But this is one of those areas where laws and regulations are entirely appropriate. Do whatever you want to your vehicle if you're not going to endanger the rest of us with it. A truck jacked sky-high is fine for off-roading and probably a lot of fun for driving over junked cars in an arena. As long as you're keeping it reasonable, have fun with mods and keep on driving it on the road too. But modifying a vehicle to the point where it's a danger to others on the road does mean you shouldn't drive it on the road.

 

What exactly is dangerous? Where's the line separating ok from dangerous? where are all these people supposedly being killed by above average height vehicles? And how do you know they wouldn't have been killed whether the other vehicle sat at an above average height or not?
This isn't near as big a problem as some of you seem to think it is.

 

I didn't say it should be every politician's top priority ... but NHTSA is working on what they call the "vehicle compatibility issue" with regards to collisions between mis-matched vehicles (e.g. a car and a truck with different bumper heights, etc.) - and results of their studies will eventually make their way into the FMVSS (the Federal Motor vehicle Safety Standards - the regulations new vehicles have to meet to be sold for on-road use in the US). So it's not a non-issue... they're still working to determine how much of the mis-match is due to things like bumper heights and how much is due to things like vehicle weight. But studies like this are what result in things like the rear impact guards on semi trailers, which studies show do make a difference.

Realistically, at the state level, what I think would make sense would be to say that any modifications made to a vehicle that will be driven on the road have to be in accordance with the FMVSS in effect at the time of the modification. That would actually mean nothing for this issue right now, but as future standards come into play, it would mean if you're going to make modifications of that sort, you'd need to pay attention to them.

 

So since somebody is conducting a "study" to see if something is a problem it's automatically a problem? Again, where are all the deaths that can be attributed to this? How much safer would we really be if everybody had to run around with a guard 6" off the ground?

The ONLY thing it would accomplish is take away everyone's ability to do what they want. And then 20 years from now we look back and think "wow, we traded that freedom for all this conformity and government control." But it'll be to late then. You will have wished all OUR (as in, everybodies) freedom away. For the sake of thinking you're a little safer.

I'm not a component for hanging cylinder heads off your hitch, or driving grave digger to the supermarket, but people need to realize that giving away everybodies freedom for imagined safety is ridiculous.

 

*shrug* Do whatever you want on your own property. Drive an M1A1 tank around for all I care. Just not on the public roads.

Build a monster truck if you want, that's fine. But if you drive it on the public roads and injure one of my loved ones, I'm with Houston Dave: better hope the cops get there before I do.

 

Really? Back in 1998 my brother was driving his stock height 77 highboy home from work. A women in a Chrysler Cirrus cut a left hand turn too sharp and hit his truck while he was stopped at a stop sign. His front bumper hit her stock height car right at her eye level. So you are saying that by law he should NOT be allowed to drive his stock height truck. I'm sorry I don't agree.

 

Double post..

 

We are talking about frame dragging cars and trucks dragging motor heads here.. Not sure where all this went into need of defense

 

X2, I would be that next crazy person in the news

 

No I won't vent here, I'm rational enough I won't wet the beddue to some irrational fear.
Read further down.

 

I wasn't trying to sound like an ****. But with the above quote from bkaul I was just simply trying to point out that you have to be careful of what you describe as being unsafe. Believe me I get what bkaul was trying to say here, and I agree with him. But I was just trying to point out that you can place a stock height vehicle against another stock height vehicle and face the scenario that he described as "unsafe". All we really need is to give a bureaucrat a reason to make a motion to make the very trucks that we all here genuinely like and want illegal to own. And if you think I'm stretching this into something it's not and never will be, might I suggest considering what the politicians are already doing with the second amendment, smokers rights, and classic cars and trucks already? Lets not forget the original version of the "clunker car" act. If it would have gotten passed into law, every car and truck older than 15yrs. would have automatically had to have been scraped as they would have been made illegal to own. Not to mention the other part of the bill that would have given law enforcement the power to enter a lock facility where a "clunker car" was believed to have been stored. So again all that I myself and some others here are trying to do, is say be carful of what you wish for and what you describe. Because the federal government has no qualms of stepping on your rights in the name of the "greater good".

 

Nevermind, it doesn't matter and it's not worth it. Sorry for arguing. We ok bkaul?

 

Can't we all just get along? Can't we just have a civil discussion with out threats. I get what bkaul was trying to say. And I agree with him. Just not necessarily the way in which he said and described a certain scenario to make his point. Believe me I get it. If someone hurt or killed one of my loved ones in an accident because of an unsafe mod to their vehicle, I want to do physical harm to them as well. But more importantly I'd want justice. Which I believe is what he was trying to say.