How are "monster trucks" street legal?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Army5339 @ May 24 2007, 08:25 AM) [snapback]448970[/snapback]</div>

It's not that I don't like monster trucks, it's that they compromise MY safety, and so infringe upon MY desire (might it even be a right? I'm not sure...) to drive on roads which are as reasonably safe as possible.

Doing this to one's vehicle is no different than speeding.

It's making a personal decision to perform an action which may also have an impact (no pun intended) on others who have NOT consented to participate.

If I'm ever rear ended by a jacked up truck...and it overrides my rear bumper...and I'm injured because of it...you'd better believe I'm going to get litigious about the matter.

So, sure, build/buy a monster truck if one likes. Just know that if one messes up and injures someone, the injured party might end up pretty pissed...because that the last thing they remember before the accident is your front axle coming through the rear window.

Also curious how one's insurance company feels about it. I do know that when you take a production car and modify it to go faster, and you don't tell them...and if you're in an accident where speed even *might* have been an issue, they have the legal right to deny claims, since the vehicle you were driving in the accident isn't the same as the one they agreed to insure.

Wondering if the same holds true with monster trucks. If the modifications have an effect on the truck's handling and braking, and the insurance company isn't informed that the vehicle is no longer stock...and it hits me 'cause it can't stop quickly enough...I find myself wondering if I might end up with not only the monster truck itself, but the owner's five bedroom, four bath split level.

I'd be absolutely sure about this sort of thing before ordering the lift kit and steering damper.

 

I pay extra for the value of modifications to my vehicles.
In regards to size differential I respectfully disagree. bicycles have as much right to use the road as any other vehicle and we are ALL deadly to them.

A vehicle that is not safe to be on public roads, regardless of size and shape is a threat to all of us. The few jacked pickup trucks I have personally tried out however corner at least as well (or better) as my 1990 lincoln Town Car I use once in awhile in the summer, and the ones I have driven brake just fine. There is no excuse however for a bad or unsafe driver in any vehicle on public property.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ May 24 2007, 07:58 AM) [snapback]449034[/snapback]</div>

Thank God for seatbelt laws . . . especially when it comes to children. But if you are the type who feels you needn't wear a seatbelt - for whatever reason . . . 'I'm a good driver, I'm invincible' . . . whatever :wacko: - you are just the type the laws are designed for. Think New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine: He was safe . . . he was in a convoy of two 2005 Chevy Suburban Assault Vehicles, a state trooper was driving the vehicles for God sake . . . so why wear a seatbelt?????
Well, Corzine knows now.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tnthub @ May 24 2007, 06:55 AM) [snapback]448996[/snapback]</div>

I too wish to be as safe as I can. Therefor damn existing laws . . . I'm going to upgrade to a civilianized version of the Army's Stryker vehicle. At 38,000 pounds, that should be safe. And we all know that eight wheel drive is twice as safe as lowly four wheel drive. And forget about using a state trooper as my chauffeur, oh no . . . I'm getting me a race car driver to increase my level of safety.

53 gallon diesel fuel tank and 5.7 miles per gallon? Yeah, that's good enough for me . . . after all, it's my God given right as an American to waste as much fuel as I want. And really, who cares about, or can enjoy the environment if you can't be as safe as possible.

And if you aren't doing all you can to match my level of safety . . . if you, or your mother, wife, sister, daughter are inattentive enough to run through a stop sign and I just happen to be driving through at the same time . . . tough luck! I'm the safe driver in the safe vehicle.

Oh, and by the way, I'm gonna modify my Stryker by jacking it up even higher, install extra bright lights, and install the reactive armor package once it becomes available. Hey, if you crash into me because you didn't see me - your fault, but that's OK, I'll be safe, and the reactive armor will probably kill you and you won't know the difference anyway.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ May 25 2007, 04:00 AM) [snapback]449670[/snapback]</div>

Look, I'm not wanting criminals to go free here... I make a living with autmobiles and technology. The more I know the more I don't know and I'm sure there is a high schooler somewhere that knows a lot more than I do, but I do read the newspapers and state accident reports.

I can't remember the last time i saw an accident that was caused by having tires too large or a bumper too high. However there are plenty of DWI/OUI, Speeding, Driving to endanger, failure to stop/yield, type of accidents going on that cost innocent people their lives on a daily basis.

Hybrids running on electric only are creating a whole new class of accidents because people cannot hear them and there are far more of them on the road than "monster trucks"... Which i assume is a euphamism for big trucks jackup up with big tires and not "real" monster trucks.

Conversion vans, Dune Buggys, Chopper motorcycles, Restored roadsters... There are all kinds of modified vehicles on the road to varying degrees the majority of which are not a problem. My Prius salesperson wife was told to remover her "suicide knob" in order to pass state inspection the other day... So she did and then put it back on ten minutes later... How foolish is that?

All i am saying is that accidents are far and away caused by driver error. NHTSA claims 80% of accidents are caused by driver distraction within three seconds of the crash. The single largest distraction is "trying to find a moving object" (like a sliding book or grocery bag or sunglasses) while driving. "Looking for a moving object" creates a situation where a driver is nine times more likely to have an accident. Cell phone use and putting on lipstick constitute equally a three time increased risk of a crash. Nowhere on the list do wide tires and jacked up bumpers appear.

On a side note, my Camaro achieved a 1 mile per gallon increase by going to 28" tires from the 26" stock size...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tnthub @ May 25 2007, 08:33 AM) [snapback]449724[/snapback]</div>

And none of us are suggesting that an intelligent modification of a vehicle would increase the accident rate. What we are saying is that a modification, while it may not be at fault for the accident, could cause much more damage and possibly loss of life than if the modification had been performed. Someone rear ends a truck with a jacked up bumper, it's not the bumper thats at fault, it's the idiot behind the wheel. That doesn't stop the bumper from going through their windshield, though.

So we aren't objecting to some modifications based on "cause of accident", but rather the consequences of the accident when it happens.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ May 25 2007, 10:36 AM) [snapback]449764[/snapback]</div>

And you will receive no argument from me on this point. I agree. However if someone behind a "monster truck" runs into it then most likely we have one more "distracted driver" problem that might possibly have been alleviated with a little more driver education, driver safety training, and better judgement on the road.

We are all at risk every time we get behind the wheel or step onto a public way and there are far more flatbed trucks carrying overhanging lumber and rebar than there are "monster trucks" where some additional legislation for flashing lights and reflectors might do some good...

In the past, one of my prohject was widening a bridge in Portland Maine that provided access for over 45,000 vehicles each day and the project last 1 1/2 years.

The good news is there was only 1 serious accident that resulted in death (after the project had started but prior to the beginning of actual construction). The bad news is that despite the best signing and traffic control we could obtain the project still averaged one accident per day for the entire duration. None of the accidents were the fault of the contractor or the state and none of them involved equipment failure. In the many of the cases, speed in excess of common sense was a factor, but the vast majority simply involved someone failng to stop, failing to look before merging, or failing to read the signs. none involved "monster trucks" (that I can remember) and one of the worst was when a semi trailer went too fast around a tight corner and rolled over spilling a trailerload of potatoes that spewed all over like a massive round of buckshot. Fortunately the driver and other vehicles were unharmed. It turned out he had fallen asleep at the wheel and his log book confirmed he was over his driving limit.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tnthub @ May 25 2007, 12:43 PM) [snapback]449929[/snapback]</div>

Agreed that the most likely problem is the nut behind the wheel, not the one on the bumper However, if you think education and training could possibly improve the nut behind the wheel, you're delusional. Yes, education goes a long way towards helping young drivers get everything figured out. A majority of the people i see speeding are 40-somethings in nice cars. They know the law, they know the speed limit, and no amount of sitting in a classroom being lectured on the dangers of speeding will change their habits. Education and training can only take us so far, and i honestly don't think there's any education or training that could possibly help the nut behind the wheel in most cases.

 

You may well be correct with education not helping but i had an awakening at age 38 when i actually took my car down the drag strip for the first time...

I thought i was a good driver before and frankly, growing up in a construction family and learning to handle bucket loaders and cranes at at early age did help me develop a "feel" for mechanical things, I was generally a more skilled pilot than many others... But... And it is a huge but... There is a world of difference between skilled and good.

The young drivers have generally better reflexes, better eyesight, their bodies are in generally better condition, and they often are very familiar with new technologies. The ohysical skills are often there for them to be better drivers than us older folks yet they consistently are at the top of the high risk heap... Barely ahead of the older folks who are dfficient in many areas yet have miles of experience behind them. Why is that?

In our 30-60 year old mindset most of us think we are good drivers, with experience, common sense, and many years of reflexive turn signals, brakes and gas pedals to make driving a second nature.

What I learned from my experience at the track was I didn't know diddly squat. It took me years to begin to understand the fine art of mastering an automobile and I had to check my ego at the door, ask for help and guidance from my peers, and suffer through many mistakes.

Ultimately I learned there are extremely few really good drivers in this world. Many people have the skills or the judgement or the knowledge or the physical prowess, but extremely few individuals posess all of these traits.

And when we get comfortable with our abilities we tend to relax. It is human nature. In driving a vehicle relaxing can be deadly.

I think the type of education we should have is simply in the car assistance with the complexities posed by changing road signs, changing weather conditions, changing technologies, and first hand knowledge of how other people have made themselves safer and better drivers. I think of it as continuing education and if all it does is to remind us that driving is a priviledge and a responsibility then it will have the effect of saving lives. Sccountants and doctors have to maintain their degrees. As a computer person i have to re-train and re-test on an ongoing basis. Why should driving be held to any less of a standard when we each hold the lives of those around us in balance with our abilities?

 

I will not doisagree that certain vehicle modificationsdecrease stability or braking or visibility and make a vehicle more dangerous. I will not disagree about some backyeard mechanics not understanding the total impact of suspension changes, brake changes, or other modifications. You will receive no argument from me.

SUVs in general are more prone to rollover than standard passenger cars. A stock 2007 Prius is less stable at 100mph than a stock 2007 Corvette, but neither are "safe" at that speed and going that fast on a public road is in my opinion, very stupid.

However a 1990 vintage Lincoln is generally more stable with P245 tires on the back than it is with the stock P225s but in snowy conditions the P225s are safer, especially with studs, but on dry pavement the studs decease traction.

Each vehicle is different. Motorcycles are unsafe on snow and ice yet i see a few folks every winter riding them to the store. :blink:

Generally the more extreme the modifications the less road time a vehicle sees. Is it any worse to put a teenager behince the wheel of a 400 horsepower car than it is to put an experienced driver behind the wheel of a lifted truck?

Even in your story which details a tragedy, in the final analysis the driver of the vehicle was drunk which speaks volumes about the judgement and common dense of the individual who created the truck in the first place.

Many people are shot by guns but the tragedies are not the fault of the gun makers. People have been killing each other through bad judgement since people have been alive and although the story you cited is tragic and perhaps lives could have been saved had the driver of the ruck been operating a Geo Metro, the results may have been even worse if he had been driving a perfectly legal pickup truck with a snowplow attached to it or a small dump truck...

 

Some of the really jacked-up trucks IMO pose a greater risk of damage/injury. At the very least, they should have a higher insurance rate due to the risk. It kind of defeats the purpose of the federally mandated 5mph bumbers; no help if the bumpers don't line up at contact. It seems to me they have regulations here concerning bumper height, but it's not always inforced, kind of like a certain brand of american motorcycle running with no mufflers.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusincc @ May 28 2007, 11:43 AM) [snapback]450974[/snapback]</div>

I can validate that statement. A (sober) friend of mine was driving his lifted 1983 GMC full-size pickup. Someone in a Subaru Impreza wagon was (sober and was) tailgating him because my friend in the GMC was driving the speed limit. Mr. Impreza decided that he was going to teach my buddy a lesson. The Impreza wagon sped around the big, lifted GMC, swerved in front to cut off the truck, and then slammed on the brakes. My friend tried to stop, but it was no use. The front bumper of the truck made contact with the pillars of the rear hatch, destroying the rear hatch glass and totaling the rear end of the Impreza wagon. I am completely convinced that if it had been the Impreza coupe/sedan, the GMC would have ridden up on the trunk and probably demolished at least the rear half of the passenger compartment.

Both drivers were completely sober. Because of the size and suspension configuration of the GMC, which was merely adequate in stock configuration to begin with, the truck was unable to come to a stop before making impact with the Subaru.

A truck with a suspension lift kit and over sized tires is not safe for driving on city streets. Period.

Or, try my 1989 Pontiac Firebird Formula 350. Completely stock, with the only modification being a set of 15" wheels running low-profile tires - in good condition, with 85% tread life remaining. I was completely sober when I was behind the wheel. At 45 mph, on the Interstate and in wet weather, I was carefully accelerating to the posted speed limit of 55 mph. For no apparent reason the rear tires lost traction, and I went into a skid. I did manage to recover from the skid, only to be going in the direction of a light pole at 40 mph. With less than 20 yards between the light pole and myself, I had no chance of maneuvering. The 'Bird was totaled.
Now, how is it safe to drive a muscle car, modified to produce high amounts of horsepower, when it's possible for a 235 hp Firebird to be uncontrollable in wet weather?

Things such as the EV mod were called out. That doesn't make the vehicle uncontrollable, or unsafe. Although a sober, alert driver is much better than a drunk or fatigued driver, it is my belief that any car modified to produce more than a 10% increase over stock horsepower is unsafe. Period. The same as any vehicle that has a suspension lift.

In my opinion, no street-legal vehicle should modified in those ways at all. No street-driven automobile should be modified to go faster than what it's capable of going from the factory; nor should any street-driven truck be modified to have a huge suspension.

And if it were my decision, I'd write legislation into effect that would keep it that way. You want to go fast? Go to a racetrack. You want to go off-road in your lifted truck? Go to an ORV park. Keep them off of our streets and highways.

 

I had a 1988 trans Am with a 350 (one year older than yours). The bottom line is wide tires will generally hydroplane much easier than narrow tires. Even my current Camaro, back when it was stock..... I got stuck in a parking lot one day with just a couple of inches of snow and "everybody else" was driving just fine. I put narrow snow tires on all four wheels, with studs, and a couple hundred pounds in the rear hatch area and no more problems. The car was that bad from the factory and with a simple modification it became much safer in winter weather.

The guy with the lifted truck in your story... Sober or not, and poor handling vehicle or not, was cut off by a very bad (sober or not) driver exercising very bad judgement who intentionally cut the guy off.

A loaded tractor trailer cannot stop very well either. What type pf person would cut one of those off and stop quickly in front of it? If you listen to the CB radio chatter of the commercial truck drivers you will hear things all day and night that will make goosebumps grow on your arms and the hair stand up on your neck.

Sure the lifted truck didn't handle as well or stop as quickly. Someone listening to the radio will not react to the sound of a horn as quickly either and someone driving to the sun will not react as quickly to tail lights.

We are all to blame, myself included, for driving stupidly at times... Driving too fast, driving too slow, not holding a constant speed, tailgating, not using a turn signal,not coming to a complete stop, not double checking a blind spot, looking away from the road, ar doing things that contribute to the likelihood of an accident.

Front wheel drive cars in general are far less safe than rear wheel drive in inclement weather because the driver cannot drive out of a skid. The first time I drove a front wheel drive car was a friends driveway and I immediately got stuck when it slipped on the snow and I could not control it like a traditional American vehicle. Front wheel drive is less likely to skid and less likely to get stuck but when it does slip you lose steering, traction, and braking all at the same time which creates the most dangerous situation a driver can face. In a rear wheel drive vehicle a person at least has a chance to gain control of a situation.

A new Z06 Corvette runs the quarter mile in about 11 seconds with a skilled driver at about 125 miles per hour. It is quiet, has all the ammenities, and gets 26 miles per gallon. However the average driver would easily kill themselves with this car. It is almost frightening as to how fast it will accelerate. I believe that having production vehicles like this that are so far beyond the skills of the average driver who buys it to be potentially very dangerous. Fortunately the average teenager cannot afford one.

For me, a solid and safe car like the Prius or any other small efficient car (or any stock production mainstream automobile) is very frustrating to drive long term as it simply will not handle, accelerate, or brake in a manner consistent with my personal abilities. I do not feel safe in this type of car as I cannot avoid accidents as quickly as I could in a more performance oriented vehicle.

I also would not feel safe in a "monster truck" as I could not corner as well and I would be concerned about being in a situation where a rollover could be imminent.

Drivers and vehicles in my opinion, in a perfect world, should be matched to their capabilities. In a performance car I am simply not driving on the road in bad weather. In a small efficient car I am not going on the highay in snow, ice, and tractor trailers wizzing by. I don't use a CJ jeep to transport a crock of lobster stew to my inlaws as it will spill all over. I don't use a Lincoln Town car if I am going to be street parking in NYC for a week.

Outlaw vehicles based on modifications? FLA does not even have a state inspection for vehicles. You could drive a 15 foot tall monster truck in FLA built out of steel beams and balsa wood if you wanted.

I would much rather the basic concpts of brakes, lights, horns, seatbelts, wheel bearings, and good tires, be subject to some sort of universal safety inspection process. And I would also like to see some sort of re-testing and continuing education for people with driver licenses on an ongoing basis. I would like to see stiffer fines and penalties for driving while intoxicated.

In other words... I would like to see the focus the larger 80% of the problem before going after the 20% of the problem.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tnthub @ May 29 2007, 07:57 AM) [snapback]451406[/snapback]</div>

How?

People are people; we're (as they say) human.

We'll always make mistakes, especially when performing tasks such as driving, which is usually routine and monotonous, but can change from that in an instant.

Our brains and physiology aren't really optimized for this.

Tell us, how, specifically, we'd "go after the other 80% of the problem."

I mean, really, what do you propose that would be able to sweepingly change the majority of American's attitudes about driving, and make the change permanent on a daily basis?

This is where it falls apart for me.

This seems like a "personal freedom" issue for you, cloaked in a "personal responsibility" guise. It's not anyone's freedom to kill me with a vehicle that's been modified with a significantly higher center of gravity and who knows what kind of handling characteristics (not to mention the bumper height stuff).

Also, technically, there are nuisance laws regarding tires protruding past the dimensions of the body, etc.

I dig modified vehicles, but some extreme monster trucks have been altered in ways that make them perform very poorly on-road. I really don't see how you can't admit this is true. How do you think on of these things would do on a skidpad? C'mon.

What's most troubling is, we can only hope their drivers choose to operate them in a manner which acknowledges this. As you say, respect for the driving task is currently not what it should be.

Why, then, are you so eager to assume that the operators of these monster trucks aren't still part of the problem? Driver error means miscalculating your vehicle's limits in that situation at that time. This happens to everybody, including monster truck drivers.

If somebody's going to make that calculation incorrectly, I'd *really* rather that our bumpers met up nice and square...and for all the energy absorbing structural stuff to take its shot at preventing me from billing my insurance company hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars for care after I'm permanently disabled by that weighty Dick Cepek mudder coming through the rear hatch of my Prius (and let's not even talk about the Pinto!)

 

To follow on with Pinto Girl's statement, do you realize how much better off we'd be without those trucks roaming freely on the road? Think about it. The cost savings from preventing the accidents caused by those ridiculously modified trucks alone could save a significant amount of money!

A person can change. People, as a whole, don't change quickly. Take someone out of their Integra Type-R and stick them behind the wheel of a lifted F-350 and watch how they drive. Cautious at first, but then they begin to revert back to their previous driving style. The only difference? They now drive a monstrous truck versus a lightweight rice rocket.

Modifications have their place. On a track. In an ORV park. Not on the streets where they could (God and Heaven forbid) hit priusincc, Pinto Girl, airportkid, darreldd, daronspicher, galaxee, me, you, shall I go on? Do I have to make it personal to get the point across?

Yes, people get seriously injured in car accidents. Yes, a lack of judgment can happen at any time. The difference? A 2500-lb car generates a whole lot less force than a 6,000-lb truck does.

And I have personally seen the sickening results of someone who short-braked a tractor-trailer. The result? Their mid-'80s Crown Victoria station wagon was flattened completely, lengthwise, down the center, with the semi stopped in front of the station wagon. The driver didn't stand a chance.

The point is, though, why do we want to let anyone take a truck that is already capable of causing a lot of damage and allow them to modify it in such a way that it becomes inherently dangerous to others in any situation?

That's been the whole point of this thread. It was not about not letting anyone modify their vehicle; no, it was asking the question of why we would want to allow anyone to take their truck, regardless of size, and modify it in such a way that someone in a small car (e.g. the Prius) stands no chance of surviving an accident against one of those trucks.

Would you stand on your opinion of allowing vehicles to be modified if one of these trucks hit your Camaro? Or your Prius?

 

Now that's got to be the best suggestion I've seen so far. I think I'll do the same.

 

My opinions are tempered and formed by my own experience living in a rural state with lots of snow and ice for a good part of the year. I began driving a bucket loader at the age of 12 plowing driveways out in the wintertime in my little hick town on my little road. It was illegal as all get out but in 1970 the world was a very different place. The bucket loader was extremely top heavy and the streering wheels were the rear wheels (non articulated) and if I went to fast it would get away from me so i learned at an early age to be very cautious around vehicles of all types.

There have been a great many lives saved in my state because people can get their lifted and modified trucks on the road to pull out people who have wrecked. Most of the volunteer fire department in my home town drives what you would consider "monster trucks" so they can get to the fire station in any type of weather condition.

I see no reason whatsoever to have a heavily modified "monster truck" in an urban scenario that is used on the street. However in the Maine wilderness or mountains of Vermont it makes sense to me to allow these vehicles to be street driven.

Personally i do not like "monster trucks" except for 15 minutes on the redneck channel once a year. I would rather go fast and safe for spend my time focused on trying to make all vehicles more efficient in terms of fuel consumption and less polluting.

That said, at least in my state, the vast majority of accidents do not involve monster trucks. When one of these vehicles is involved in an accident there is often poor driver judgement involved such as speeding, driving like a jerk, and often booze... These are people controllable bad practices that need to stop regardless of vehicle type.

The insurance industry claims the two safest groups of drivers, by profession, are farmers and firefighters. I believe it would be worthwhile to understand more about why these groups of drivers are the safest and implement what we learn into the rest of the driver population.

I suspect that learning to drive at an early age, in a variety of vehicles, in a variety of conditions, and a common sense understanding of basic mechanics and best safety practices will be the items that rise to the top of the priority level if these driver groups were to be examined more closely.

If a vehicle is unsafe then I do not want it on the road either. Commercial trucks tip over quite easily, but their drivers are trained to handle them and are one of the safest driver groups. They also use CB radios and cell phones, often have GPS screens, and drive in all kinds of weather. If I look at this group of drivers then I would be lead to the conclusion that additional driver education will help reduce accidents.

So....

Continuing driver education classes for all drivers.
Enforcement of traffic laws for turn signals, stop signs, yield signs, and other things we fail to do.
Perhaps altering the vehicle inspection laws to include traing and license certification for modified vehicles (state's love new ways to collect revenue).
Perhaps requiring a "permit" for altered vehicles (more revenue collection).
Outlawing vehicles that are not safe or fit for road use.
Requiring that insurance companies be informed of vehicle modifications (they like to raise rates anyways).

If we did the above items the roads would be safer for all of us without making a particular vehicle type illegal.

 

I think it an odd syndrome to want to ban things that cause significantly less death and destruction than other factors.

Reckless driving is what is at fault here. Make the penalties for reckless driving much harsher, no matter what you drive. You run a red light in your Prius, you lose your license for a year and pay a hefty fine. You speed in your huge jacked up truck, you also lose your license for a year and pay a hefty fine. You do any of these things on a bicycle, which is required to follow the rules of the road as well, you go to jail and pay a fine.

However, most people just want legislation that doesn't affect them. That is a mental illness.