How big an issue is weight?

[ctilsie242]

Maybe I'm a stickler for weight, but given four facts:

1: The insurance company knows my make/model/year of TT.
2: The make/model has the dry/wet weight easily cross referenced.
3: The insurance company knows my make/model/year of TV.
4: That can be cross referenced with tow capacity.

If a wreck does happen, it wouldn't be tough for the insco to show that the TV was overloaded, come claim time, and refuse to pay, citing negligence? Is this a realistic scenario, or should I put away the tinfoil?

[fulltimedaniel]

cmcdar wrote:
it is evident by your post that you are an expert in regard to bunk.

If by that you mean that I can spot BS when I see it and

That I can follow an idea or notion to it's logical conclusion and

That I know and understand the LAW

Then yes you are right.

[wing_zealot]

Comment deleted -

[spud1957]

Please!!! Stop the madness!!!

[Hoppy220]

Can one of the self proclaimed weigh police please tell me the difference in my 2005 Silverado 2500hd and the same 3500hd. The little sticker on the door jam gives you the "as left factory" recommended ratings. So you think you can look at me towing my 44' 5er down the highway and say I'm over weight. Let's look at a few facts, and if you have personal experience of being sued or cited for over weight I would love to hear it. Yes I am well aware that the 3500 left the factory with a helper spring and a slightly larger tire. But here are the facts. I used Autozone just because of the ease of their web sight finding part numbers.

2500hd. 3500hd

Rear brake caliper. 18-B4729. Same??? Must be bigger rotors
Rear rotor. 55055. Same??? Must be better pads
Rear pads. DG974A. Same??? Maybe it's up front
Front rotor. 55072. Same??? Must be better pads here
Front pads. DG785. Same??? Suspension???
Front ball joints lower CA16323. Same???
Already mentioned the rear helper spring in the 3500
Frame and rear axle are the same on both series trucks. So best I can see tire size and helper spring is only real world difference between the 2500 and 3500
Now upgrades to my 2500 after factory placed sticker
5000 lb air bags, far sight better than the couple hundred lbs the helper springs on the 3500 added
285/75/16 load range E tires rated at 3750lbs far superior to the 245 OEM tire rated at 3042 lbs, (which incidentally is exactly what the rear axle is rated at per Chevy) the actual manufacturer has it rated at like 11000lbs (trying to recall from memory on that one)
Now all the above is comparing SRW to SRW, there is no debate the a 1 ton dually is the better tv for larger 5ers, but I'm still at the age of taking kids on vacation and I can tell you the parking a CC long bed dally in the middle of myrtle beach, or any other tourist trap just adds stress to my other wise peaceful vacation.
So next time, before the weight police pipe in about how I am putting the safety of your family and mine in jeopardy because I have my 5er hooked to a 2500 instead of a 3500 do your home work. My set up is far safer than the same 3500 SRW off the lot. And I would use this in the court of law and make the judge tell me that my upgrades didn't alter that **** sticker.

[Desert_Captain]

Rhagfo;

Not sure what your point is but it seems to me that the overwhelming majority of lively weight threads involve half tons and what they can and cannot safely tow. :h Maybe we should revive the half ton towable fiver nonsense... just kidding. Re read the OP's initial post and you'll see it is all about what insurance companies can and/or will do if you are in an accident and are overweight. We've drifted a long way from there.

I have my doubts that insurance companies are going to turn a blind eye to flagrant excess weight that may have contributed to an accident. Even if they pay the claim you will pay dearly when you try for new insurance {if you can even get it}, and civil liability always lurks.

For the record.... I could care less about dry weights and so called towing capacities as they are both a complete joke. I do get concerned when folks exceed, often grossly, GVWR/payload and GAWR. To do so is foolish and potentially dangerous but endlessly rationalized in these discussions. INHO: If you need "X" amount of axle capacity or GVWR/payload then buy enough truck {or less trailer}, instead of going cheap and arguing that it really is not an issue.

It is still a semi free country where {sadly}, folks buying RV's will usually vote with their wallets instead of their brains.

As always.... Opinions and YMMV

:C

[kofire]

Desert Captain wrote:
"Please Captain tell me what "Safety Hazard" is magically fixed when I am within my numbers."

Rhagfo:

Since most of your post ignores the subject of this thread permit me to answer the one salient question you asked...

If you are within your numbers {so to speak}, you are not overloading your rig as determined by the engineers who built it. These are the guys that determined what the limits for safe operation are. Brakes, suspension systems, drive trains, tires etc., are only being tasked with doing what they are rated to do. Unless you know more than them, and we all know that you do not, follow their recommendations. That my friend, is precisely what "Safety Hazard" is magically fixed... Duh!

As to the many other issues you brought up I share your concerns about distracted drivers etc., but re read this thread. That is NOT what we are discussing. As far as distracted drivers I think hanging, even with a new rope, is too good for them... but I digress.

Got to admit I not only do not understand but also am extremely troubled by the folks here who defend those that choose to ignore the limits of their rigs at the expense of the safety of the general public. It is like saying drunk drivers are OK as long as they are only a little over the legal limit... Arrrrg!

:E

You mention brakes, suspension, drive trains, tires etc. GCVWR can change with nothing more then a gear upgrade, NO brake upgrades at all. Axles are rated from a manafacturer then downgraded to a specific number because of the tires they happen to put on the unit. manafacturers suggested tow ratings are to protect the manafacturer in warranty claims. They have no legal bearing beyond that. If it were that big of a deal there would be laws in place that restrict it.

[Ductape]

Weight is always a huge issue here in the netherworld.

In the real world, not so much.

[rhagfo]

Desert Captain wrote:
"Please Captain tell me what "Safety Hazard" is magically fixed when I am within my numbers."

Rhagfo:

Since most of your post ignores the subject of this thread permit me to answer the one salient question you asked...

If you are within your numbers {so to speak}, you are not overloading your rig as determined by the engineers who built it. These are the guys that determined what the limits for safe operation are. Brakes, suspension systems, drive trains, tires etc., are only being tasked with doing what they are rated to do. Unless you know more than them, and we all know that you do not, follow their recommendations. That my friend, is precisely what "Safety Hazard" is magically fixed... Duh!

As to the many other issues you brought up I share your concerns about distracted drivers etc., but re read this thread. That is NOT what we are discussing. As far as distracted drivers I think hanging, even with a new rope, is too good for them... but I digress.

Got to admit I not only do not understand but also am extremely troubled by the folks here who defend those that choose to ignore the limits of their rigs at the expense of the safety of the general public. It is like saying drunk drivers are OK as long as they are only a little over the legal limit... Arrrrg!

:E

Well I will clarify my rant a bit.
Most weight threads are those with diesel 250/2500's that exceed the class restricted 10,000# GVWR, and load based on the rear GAWR. The logic that the only difference between 250/2500's and 350/3500 SRW is maybe a spring leaf a 3 instead of a 2 on the badge and a higher GVWR.

In these cases I believe that one would have a strong defense. One would only be in real trouble if they exceed rear axle and tire/wheel ratings.

[spoon059]

cmcdar wrote:
It is a falicy to claim that Insurance companies PAY ALL CLAIMS.

My wife was leaving work one day and was backing out of a parking space. At one point she hit a car that was passing by.

A claim was filed against our insurance co. by the other driver.

We were told by our insurance company that the claim was denied because the other driver had a responsibility to attempt to stop.

To assume insurance companies mindlessly pay on any and all claims is just plain ridiculous.

I don't think anyone suggested that insurance pays on every single claim. In your instance, your insurance company made a decision that your wife was not at fault, therefore they declined to play the other person's damages.

However, if your wife was at fault, insurance would have had to pay the claim or mount a legal defense as to why they didn't pay.

That has nothing to do with the vague argument that being 3 lbs overweight will automatically trigger a denial of service from your insurance company... that was what people discussing.

[Desert_Captain]

"Please Captain tell me what "Safety Hazard" is magically fixed when I am within my numbers."

Rhagfo:

Since most of your post ignores the subject of this thread permit me to answer the one salient question you asked...

If you are within your numbers {so to speak}, you are not overloading your rig as determined by the engineers who built it. These are the guys that determined what the limits for safe operation are. Brakes, suspension systems, drive trains, tires etc., are only being tasked with doing what they are rated to do. Unless you know more than them, and we all know that you do not, follow their recommendations. That my friend, is precisely what "Safety Hazard" is magically fixed... Duh!

As to the many other issues you brought up I share your concerns about distracted drivers etc., but re read this thread. That is NOT what we are discussing. As far as distracted drivers I think hanging, even with a new rope, is too good for them... but I digress.

Got to admit I not only do not understand but also am extremely troubled by the folks here who defend those that choose to ignore the limits of their rigs at the expense of the safety of the general public. It is like saying drunk drivers are OK as long as they are only a little over the legal limit... Arrrrg!

:E

[DrewE]

Well, I recall reading about this rather freaky tragic accident but I couldn't find with a quick search if criminal charges were eventually filed or not.

This was a pretty extreme case of what seems to me to be negligence in basic trailer safety. The trailer's weight exceeded the rating of its coupler by a few hundred pounds, and the coupler failed, with the trailer running into another vehicle and causing the death of one of the occupants. The trailer ran into the other vehicle after the coupler failed because the safety chains were not attached (or at least not properly attached). The trailer was also not equipped with a breakaway braking system as was required for trailers of its weight in the state. That's at least three basic failures on required common practices. Even so, the charges being considered were "misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter without negligence." The bar for gross negligence is quite high, and this apparently didn't reach it.

I see no indication that the insurance company denied coverage, though that part of things isn't mentioned explicitly one way or the other in the article.

[kofire]

I would believe half of what the weight police say on here if they backed up their statements with facts. That outback story was sad but it didn't really prove anything. We have no idea if that truck even had a brake controller nor did the article say any laws were actually broken. Accidents happen all the time but if you are not braking any laws it's hard to prove negligence.
I'm all for being safe but there are no laws that I'm aware of in a non commercial setting that regulates staying within manafacturers tow ratings.
As far as the op is concerned I would imagine that either under weight or over weight the insurance will always try and deny the claim but will eventually have to pay. What they do after that is up to them. Even if you were totally legal your rates would still increase or possibly be dropped.
I would just like one example nationwide where a person was proven negligent with his claim denied and jail time was given over a overweight recreational wreck. Ive never seen one. I hear second hand claims and off the wall stories but nothing proven.

[2oldman]

troubledwaters wrote:
The exclusions are all right there in the policy. Everyone can read them and determine for themselves.

x2. Questions aren't necessarily here to be answered, they're here to be discussed.

[troubledwaters]

oops double post