How are "monster trucks" street legal?

If you feel the need to complain about a vehicle, i would say the first people to call would be the police - they're the ones in charge of enforcing the law. You get a cruiser out to witness said vehicle operating on public streets, and if it's in violation of automobile safety laws, then he could be ticketed, towed, whatever.

 

My car has a six point welded roll bar, 28" tires on 15 inch wheels, 383 motor, 12 bolt rear end, long tube headers, and five point harnesses installed. It can stop faster and accelerate faster than most cars on the road today due to aftermarket equipment. It does not adhere to the letter of the law for tire size, engine change, and for some reason a five point harness isn't street legal becasue it does not have a DOT sticker but it is rated for 300mph on the drag strip and the belts are changed every two years as per NHRA specifications... If you try and outlaw vehicles based on aftermarket equipment you will be doing us all a dis-service.

It is the driver of the vehicle that constitutes the primary hazard. We live in a world where bike riders share the road with cars going 50 mph and on roadways that have no breakdown lane. In my opinion that constitutes a much larger threat to public safety than the comparatively few "monster trucks" which are usually equipped with far more safety equipment, fire bottles, driver and occupant restraints, and are capable of better acceleration, deceleration, and can handle going off road with comparative ease.

Many of the improvements to driver safety have come from the automotive enthusiasts who strive to improve their vehicles for a particular purpose. Sure many of them use a lot of gas and oil, and there certainly are the future Darwin Award winners out there doing stupid stuff, but the majority of accidents are caused by drivers not paying attention to the road or distracting themselves with the radio, drinking or eating, talking to other people or on their phones, and just general lack of knowledge concerning their own capabilities and the potential of their vehicle.

Truckers are often tallking on their radios while on the road yet generally have far less accidents than regular non-commercial drivers. It isn't the vehicle or the devices we use that create accidents, it is the drivers and their judgement (or lack thereof).

 

I will agree with much of what you said... However, i would also have to say that some of what the OP described (particularly the point about the bumped on level with the windshield) could be dangerous to other vehicles in an accident. It's likely that a vehicle like yours would be safer for the occupants, but unclear what it would do to other vehicles that aren't similarly equipped.

The question isn't really that the drivers are more dangerous - but imagine driving along in your Prius, getting distracted, and rear ending a truck that stopped at a light. Normally, it's not big deal, your bumpers get messed up, your hood may need to be replaced, maybe a little frame damage if you were going fast. Worst case, some whiplash. Now, if it was a monster truck in front of you with a hugely elevated bumper, then the nose of your prius slips nicely under the car, and the bumper goes straight through your windshield. Sure, it's your fault, but that doesn't change the fact that you're dead because the bumper was elevated.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ May 23 2007, 01:16 AM) [snapback]447928[/snapback]</div>

I would think your state legislatures, as I imagine most such laws are written on a state-by-state basis.
Your current vehicle law for NC seems to be as follows:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegisla.../Article_3.html

§ 20‑135.4. Certain automobile safety standards.

(a) Definitions. – For the purposes of this section, the term "private passenger automobile" shall mean a four‑wheeled motor vehicle designed principally for carrying passengers, for use on public roads and highways, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off‑road operation.

B, © Repealed by Session Laws 1975, c. 856.

(d) The manufacturer's specified height of any passenger motor vehicle shall not be elevated or lowered, either in front or back, more than six inches by modification, alteration, or change of the physical structure of said vehicle without prior written approval of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.

On or after January 1, 1975, no self‑propelled passenger vehicle that has been so altered, modified or changed shall be operated upon any highway or public vehicular area without the prior written approval of the Commissioner. (1971, c. 485; 1973, cc. 58, 1082; 1975, c. 856.)

So I guess the question might be how people get approval from the Commissioner (i.e., are they driving the altered vehicle for regular use, or transporting to an event for a monster truck show). Such trucks being driven for daily use would certainly be unsafe.

 

US Lift laws
http://www.offroaders.com/info/tech-corner/lift-laws.htm

Here you go, B)

 

There are a great many commercial vehicles on the road that posess similiar hazards... I spent a decade in the construction industry and live in a generally rural state (Think stereotypical georgia redneck with snow).

Skidders, dump trucks, flatbed trucks and flatbed trailers, flatbed wreckers, and some boat trailers when loaded all have significant overhangs that would be deadly for a Prius or any other short stature vehicle with a shorter front end and laid back windshield. Targeting a minority of drivers as a "danger" due to modifications to their vehicles seems like an inefficient usage of taxpayer paid legislature time and special interest lobbying if the goal is public safety.

It may be a better effort to initiate a special reflector design or lighting configuration on any vehicle with an overhang or height over a certain amount? If universally adopted that type of change could enhance vehicle safety for all and may cut down the number of future Darwin Candidates driving the vehicles because they will not take the time to apply for the lighting/reflector permit and may not want to subject their vehicle to any additional areas of inspection...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tnthub @ May 23 2007, 08:59 AM) [snapback]448115[/snapback]</div>

I disagree with you, and wonder how good your car is at actually *turning.* Public roads aren't drag strips, either, any more than a high school playing field is an airport.

And, no offense, but I'd rather you didn't have the option of a 300mph blast down the freeway if you wanted to. I'm sure you don't use your vehicle in this way, but I'd feel better if this sort of performance wasn't available to the everyday driver who's still challenged by parallel parking.

Drivers will *always* be distracted, that's why it's important that our vehicles are as safe as possible.

Monster trucks are contrary to this idea. They violate bumper height regulations, and in doing so compromise our safety by negating a significant portion of the engineerning which has gone into the safety systems in our cars. Given an equally distracted driver directly behind me in quickly stopping freeway traffic, I'd perfer that (s)he WASN'T driving a monster truck...wouldn't you?

 

I have gray hair and I drive slow to be safe and conserve fuel. I realize I could get hit or make a mistake every time I get behind the wheel and that driving anywhere is inherently dangerous. I also know the vast majority of drivers on the road, no matter what their age and no matter what vehicle they drive, are simply not competent to handle whatever they are driving, let alone a more powerful or specialty vehicle. Many of you may disagree with me but after many years of racing and hearing how good so and so is and then first hand witnessing the result at the race track I am pretty positive I am correct.

If every male who drove a shift vehicle could actually shift like they can talk the world would be a much safer place. Unfortunately seeing people drive their Z06 Corvettes (pre-2005) to mid 12 second times and then seeing a competent driver run 11.5 on the same day at the sme track and in the same environmental conditions it is almost too much to bear.

On the street we are the same way. "Everybody" can handle "anything" whether we drive a Yugo, Impala, Prius, or Mustang. I have met very few people in my life who have a fair approximation of their skills and limitations in regards to their abilities, the vehicle limitations, and the safety factors involved with handling a motor vehicle (any motor vehicle).

That said, from what I can tell from a few internet searches is that the occupation of farming yields the highest safety rating of any profession in regards to insurance ratings. I believe (personal opinion) this is because many farmers grow up driving all kinds of strange equipment and vehicles with poor handling, poor power, poor brakes, and often are missing some safety equipment and as such they learn to drive in all kinds of weather conditions, mud, snow, rain, and they develop the skills to handle many vehicles in situations that most of us do not.

The redneck in a pickup truck from my backwoods state may have bad judgement, poor taste, a questionable vehicle, and maybe drinks too much but generally speaking the physical skill level of the driver will likely be far above most of us. I know this may sound crazy but until someone has had to "drop the bucket" on a front end loader going down a hill because the brakes failed, and lived to tell about it, then the type of varied experience this individual has had throughout their life (most likely) will make them a much better driver.

It isn't the vehicle that is the problem, it is the drivers on the road.

For me... I pull over to use the cell phone. I drive the speed limit (within "5"). I am not perfect but I am working on 25 years without an accident or moving violation and I am trying to keep it that way.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tnthub @ May 23 2007, 05:28 PM) [snapback]448535[/snapback]</div>

I can only wish that everyone is as conscientious as you are [sigh]...it's like the 'stolen internet' topic elsewhere...all it takes is a few abuses to spoil it for all of us.

I think that, if we could only reinforce the idea that driving is serious and can hurt/kill someone/be really costly if you do something dumb and you're sued, I'd feel MUCH better about highly modified vehicles.

Also, generally speaking, I think that it's become *too easy* to go out and buy a really fast car. Way back when, if you wanted to go fast, you HAD TO BUILT IT YOURSELF!! I think there's a lot to be said for this; it kind of keeps the riff raff out.

I do not know, when I wanted a fast car, I bought an old '65 Mustang GT and built it up myself. And I'm a woman, for goodness sake! These guys going down to the dealer and driving off with 400hp under the hood seems a bit problematic for me...but I'm old fashioned, too, so that may be it.

I think, when you have to work hard on something, you respect it more, abuse it less, and are less likely to hurt other people in the process. You also know how it went together and so can operate it better, too.

 

Well, not to play the wrong side or anything, but this whole discussion hearkens to a few questions:
1.) Why does anyone need increased ground clearance on a vehicle that rarely goes off-road? Why does that vehicle need to have bumpers capable of causing massive damage to other vehicles?
2.) Who, other than a commercial truck/bus/RV/heavy equipment driver, *needs* more than 276 hp to go from point A to point B?
3.) What's the point of massive, 40+ lb chrome wheels on any vehicle?
4.) Who needs a semi truck with a pickup bed (i.e. GMC TopKick pickup; International CXT/RXT/MXT)?

I'm with the O.P. on this one. I see no point in legalizing a privately-owned, off-road "show rig" behemoth. Or even one that gets driven off road every day of the week for recreation. I think those vehicles need to be trailered to and from their destination, not driven on the surface streets where my neighbor in his Pontiac Sunfire can get wiped out because some jackknife in a lifted F-350 running a 12" lift and 49" tires wasn't paying attention. Or, for that matter, my wife in our Prius. Nor do I need someone zipping down the freeway in their 350c.i.-powered, 350 hp '69 Camaro plowing into my Tacoma because they had tunnel vision while driving at 100+ mph.

 

The percentage of highly modified vehicles on the road is very small. If I want fast and have the money I can buy a Z06 Corvette that will run 125 mph in the quarter mile in 11 seconds. If I have the money and want to buy a vehicle with lots of ground clearance I can buy a hummer. If I want to go fast with no driver protection I can buy a motorcycle.

What I am hearing here is an argument against people modifying their vehicles...

I really like technology and I enjoy reading about EV mode, strut tower braces, and the benefits of changing tire sizes and compounds for better fuel economy. These are vehicle modifications. I like reading how people can put a tow hitch in a Prius (against manufacturer recommendation), and I like to hear about people upgrading their stereos and changing their seats for more headroom and comfort, and putting in sunroofs, and some people even like to disable their backup alarms...

The fundamentals of modifying vehicles are that as owners we should have the right to make changes.

Vehicle manufacturers are confined by massive amounts of regulations and legislation about vehicle safety, economy, and performance. They need to sell their products to make a profit. They have insurance price points and volume points, and warranty services and product recalls.

The automotive aftermarket is a large and varied community that tends to produce products that meed the demand of the public that dealers do not or can not offer at a competitive price.

Just because I may not "like" or appreciate what a neighbor has done to their vehicle does not mean they should not have the right to do it as long as it is basically "safe" within reason.

If I choose to live in a managed housing community I often give up my right to select the color of my home, and I may also give up the right to change my oil in my driverway, or plant flowers by the curb, or select the type of mailbox I have. However I have the right to choose to not live in a managed community and buy a house on a private lot, paint it purple, put up a 30 foot flagpole, and listen to my stereo at a loud volume.

The roads are like the private lot where we ALL have a right to use them in cars, on motorcycles, on horseback, on foot, on bike, and even in a home made vehicle of our choice as long as it meets general safety requirements.

Nobody needs a 500 hp vehicle to go to the store but conversely nobody "needs" to get 60 miles per gallon either, from the perspective of personal "need".

I find enjoyment in getting 25-26 miles per gallon out of my old 1990 Lincoln Town Car that I use a few weekends a year. I find enjoyment in getting 60 mpg out of a Honda Civic Hybrid on the same route as my wife in a Prius when she gets 58 mpg... I also find enjoyment in racing at the drag strip where I have 45 victories in seven years and two season championships.

What I do NOT like is when I see legislation banning cell phones when they should be providing funds to assist law enforcement in pulling over "distracted drivers". I do not like seeing tourists (drivers) reading maps while driving in their cars because it is "legal" in Maine to read a map while driving. I do not like it when drivers interpret "YIELD" to mean speed up and cut someone off. I do not like it when I see people yield at stop signs. I do not like it when people do not use turn signals.

The accident rate on Montana's highways went up when the speed limit was dropped to 55. The autobahn has a consistently higher safety record than US highways. Why is this?

It seems we consistently focus on legislating the symptom instead of the problem. If we want cleaner air and to become fuel independant we need to drive less, encourage development of new (more efficient)vehicles, new and cleaner fuels, and retrofit our current vehicles with more fuel efficient systems. We should educate our drivers better and encourage people to "take it to the track" if they want to drive fast instead of legislating drag strips out of existance.

We can't change people and their wants and likes and dislikes, but we can provide outlets for them that are appropriate and reasonable. This is not an "us" or "them" scenario. This is give and take and work together to achieve a result that benefits all of us.

Better and more efficient air filters and induction systems, better computer tuning, better exhaust systems, synthetic fuels and transmission coolers (Prius excepted), and better driving habits, revisit traffic lights and traffic patterns, more bike lanes, more mass transit... The list goes on and on of the things we can do to make a positive difference in this world. Outlawing a small minority of rednecks vehicles I do not see as helpful in the grand scheme of theings.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ May 24 2007, 12:51 AM) [snapback]448817[/snapback]</div>

I read the headlines. I see the news. Accident caused by.... Snow? Ice? Rain? Poor visibility? Fog? Speeding? Didn't see someone coming? Didn't hear them? Couldn't see them? Alcohol? Talking on phone? Spilled coffee?

These are driver failures in judgement. If you can't see then pull over. If the road is wet slow down. If it is slippery stay home. Look before you turn. Slow down....

The "accidents" are nothing of the sort. The "accidents" are mostly errors in judgement by the driver. An accident is when a wheel falls off... How often do you hear that?

Cars to day have largely ABS brakes, traction control, and front wheel drive. This allows the driver who would stay home in a storm if they had an older rear wheel drive vehicle to now venture onto the public roads with a feeling of some competency and safety. As much as this may be a good thing for that driver it may be a bad thing for the rest of us...

 

I think the race car driver on here is getting the negative benefit of me having a coworker in our building who makes a point of talking about his 'race cars'... He just bought a race car and is excited to go pick it up, he is leaving early today to go down to the newspaper, they are interviewing all the race winners from this weekend. He works in a professional office but shows up with the untarnished leather jacket with the sponsor patches on it.

I don't know this guy's first name but anytime I'm in the elevator or happen to get in the same area for a couple minutes I hear this racing stuff come out of him.... as if I cared I guess. I'm always polite when he says it, but it leave me wondering if this guy is for real. What constitutes a 'race car', and what kind of racing are we talking about here?

The 294 horse power and 11 second quarter miles in this thread really made that ring back loud.

From what I know of fast modified cars and jacked up trucks, the bell curve is weighed heavy on the "they have absolutely no clue" end. People with more money than common sense are buying fast cars that they don't even understand why it's fast or how to handle it, or they're paying to have big trucks jacked up but they have no understanding of how much less stable it is being so high and with balloon tires.

There are some who can build it all in the back of the shop for themselves and understand why to jack it how much and which suspension upgrades and why, but from what I know, those who really understand this are in the minority of those who are behind the wheel at game time.

Then, when they wreck it and kill someone in a camery just trying to make it another day, it was an 'accident'. Sure, but it was one that common sense could have predicted and prevented.

Government is already too big, so regulating and enforcing this seems hard to do... I doubt we can tax it out, so I'm not sure how to handle it, other than for myself to watch out for the moron in the jacked up tahoe.

 

So the safety of the smaller vehicle is why we legislate the size and look of larger vehicles?

Does this mean that small gas cars and hybrids should be taken off the streets as well because they pose a mortal danger to motorcycles and other smaller street legal vehicles? I don't care if you are driving a fully electric type car, and donate to the local children's charity, if you run a stop sign and hit me on my motorcycle, I will die.

If a monster truck runs a stop sign, you will probably live.

If you don't like larger trucks, fine. It doesn't mean we go willy-nilly banning things just because we don't like them.

 

All I am saying is the deadliest thing about driving is the driver and if we want to improve actual safety that is where we should start before targeting specific vehicle types.

 

Yes, the driver is by far the most dangerous thing... but really, what else can they do to make the driver safer? They've already set speed limits, and we've all seen how effective that is. They have stop signs and traffic lights, and we've all seen someone blow through one of those. The government can only do so much to improve safety on the roads... IMO regulating safety features on vehicles for the inevitable situation where someone makes a mistake is probably the best they can do.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ May 24 2007, 10:05 AM) [snapback]449000[/snapback]</div>

There is a point where safety features and choice sometimes come into conflict...

Nobody disputes seat belts save lives and that people should wear them. But should we be "required" to wear them?

ABS brakes and air bags may be the greatest safety features of the past 20 years and of the two, the ABS brakes have the ability to increase safety to other drivers on the road in that they actually help prevent accidents.

But to have laws that inhibit out ability to change the gear ratio in our vehicles for either better gas mileage or performance, like we have in Maine is not in my opinion, a safety issue.

To assume automobile manufacturers provide the best and safest options for their products goes against the common sense reasoning of their needing to make a profit and meet a requirement. That matrix is not always in the best interest of the consumer.

I am all for requiring horns, lights, brakes, windshield wipers, good tires, seatbelts, and other good basic safety features and for having state inspections (not all states even have an inspection process currently). I am all for enforcing the laws and obeying speed limits and exercising extra caution in neighborhoods, city streets, and school zones. I am all for not driving in bad weather.

But the fact is that SUVs are often marketed as vehicles that are safer in bad weather and less likely to slip or get stuck on bad roads. Consequently people often drive them faster than they should and this lack of judgement can have terrible consequences. This scenario is created by the manufacturers of our vehicles.

I do not want to "assume" that Toyota, GM, Ford, Nissan, or any other manufacturer knows best when their primary purpose is to ultimately grow and make a profit. I want to have the legal ability to insure my own safety as best I can and if that means modifying a vehicle then I would like to have that freedom preserved and not legislated out of existance.

 

I would tend to agree with what you said - some amount of modification should be allowed... but there are and should be limits to that. you might be safer changing the gear ratios and what have you, and that doesn't effect other drivers, so IMO go ahead. But if you, for example, change your bumper height, then you might make things more dangerous for others or yourself if you're involved in an accident, thus the necessity for some amount of laws governing what constitutes a legal vehicle.

As for the seat belts, I would agree that wearing them should be a matter of choice (except in the case of minors, who the courts tend to hold can't make any decisions for themselves)... the only thing is, many, if not most, states by now have instituted seat belt laws.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tnthub @ May 24 2007, 08:55 AM) [snapback]448996[/snapback]</div>

I still, respectfully, disagree. Changing the styling of new vehicles is MUCH EASIER than amending the behaviour of adults.

How on Earth could we ever accomplish what you're suggesting?

The folks who probably need 'improvement' the most are likely the ones who'd be least receptive to it.