North Carolina Fishing Reports

JB2C · Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:31 pm Post subject: Boat trailer legislation

OK, spent some time today going thru the various bills that have been introduced in the legislature. Here is a quick run-down, and some not-so-quick comments. This will be a long one, so bear with me.

S1588- Just a resolution, not a bill.

S1589- This says the same thing as the resolution S1589.
-102" to 120" requires permit and allows 24/7/365
-Over 120" with permit, 365, but no nights
Was sent to Senate Rules and Operations Committee, which typically means it's getting killed.

S1695- This seems to be the one most people are suggesting to support. I think it will have the greatest chance of pasing simply because of who is behind it. But I don't agree with it because of the permit requirement for 102-120". Also, NCGA website says S1695 = H2408 but this is not the case. See below for H2408. I've also heard that the Class C portion of this bill will not pass.
-102 to 120" requires a permit but allows 24/7/365
-Over 120" requires permit, allows 365 but no nights
-Proposes more roads be changed to primary highways
-Class C lisc. OK to operate if under 26,001 lbs

H2408-It is almost identical to the above S1695, with an important exception for boaters, the 102-120" no permit.
-No permit required for 102-120", 24/7/365 allowed.
-121" and over requires permit, allows 365 but no nights.
-Class C lisc. Ok for operating under 26,001 lbs.
-Nothing here about changing classification to add more primary highways, as in S1695, another difference in the two.

H2167-
-No permit for under 121"
-Allows 24/7/365 for all sizes of boats
-Permit required if over 120"
-Reduces permit fee to $25 (instead of the current $100)

H2150-This one has lots of secondary sponsors in the House.
-No permit for under 121"
-24/7/365 for all boat sizes
-Reduces permit fee to $25
-Reduces fine levels to $50 (current fines vary depending on infraction)

Now my take on all these. I think none of them are the right solution. I guess I should be quiet and 'take what we can get' since this is the short session. But I feel strongly that 120" is too wide to travel without a permit. There are just too many secondary roads in NC with narrow lanes such that it's not safe for a 10' wide boat to travel on. Common sense tells you that a 10' wide boat on a 10' wide lane isn't safe. I do, however, think it would be very reasonable for them to increase the width allowed without a permit required. 9' seems very reasonable to me. The accident stats do not indicate there is a problem with overwidth boats in NC. So an increase of 6" should be very reasonable.

To me, one of the more unfair things about this issue is the fact that guys bought boats at 8'6" thinking they were avoiding the permit requirement. Many boat mfgs. have, over the years, produced boats at 8'6" for this very reason. Suddenly it is a problem in North Carolina (but not most other states, who are still doing what they have been doing for years). Boat mfgs. made the boat to what they called 8'6", but you guys know that typically it's just off of that. Usually over a touch, due to rubrails, etc. Then the trailer guides, trailer fenders, trailer lights, etc. add a bit more. I think if the state is suddenly going to start enforcing an old law (that was intended for OTR and commercial truck traffic to begin with), they should at least make some allowance for all the boats out there that were bought with the idea to stay under what was commonly accepted at that time to be OK for trailering without a permit. To me, that means increase the width allowed to 9', which I think can be done very safely. Or as an alternate, provide a 6" exemption for non-load bearing appertenuances such as those just mentioned.

Thus, I can't support either of the Senate bills as they are. Hopefully, they will make some adjustments in committee to one of these, to allow something above 8'6" in width without a permit required. Either that, or the House representatives will stand their ground somewhat when/if it comes time to go to joint committee and come to an agreement on this thing.

Beyond the width issue, none of the bills are adressing other problems with the boat trailering laws. They were intended for commercial trucking, not us boaters. We just sort of got thrown in there. I think legislators should take a hard look at the issue and make some more comprehensive changes. Crabpot, you asked what difference a reclass to recreational would make. Maybe not much. It depends on what the NC legislators are willing to pass. But the federal laws only affect commercial motor vehicles. If we are no longer commercial, then NC legislators can elect to increase the 102" if they will. That to me is the primary concern over reclassification. There's more to it than that, but again, I see that as primary. If we are reclassed to recreational, we could also get a 6" exemption for the non-load bearing appendages. Well, NC legislators would have to give it to us, but it is allowed on federal roadways for recreational classification, per 23 CFR 658.15(c)(2). With a reclass, we also wouldn't have to get an emissions inspection for our trailers, like NC law indicates! Or meet the other federal requirements for commercial. But the bottom line for me is that everyone I have talked with on this seems to be in agreement that we shouldn't be classed as commercial. We're not commercial, we're recreational. So why not introduce legislation to change it? Put us on equal footing with the RV industry. Again, I'm only talking here about reclass of boats up to a certain width. Whatever NC legislators decide to allow us (which should be 9' IMHO). As I said before, what a boat is used for on the water (commercial or recreational) should have no bearing on how it's classed as far as on-the-road towing regulations. It should be strictly width and weight that determines that, because it's a safety issue. A reclass should allow NC legislators to address this issue that way. Heck, boats and boat trailers don't even meet the federal definition of a commercial motor vehicle. So why are we classed that way?

Please tell me if my thinking is skewed on any of this, and what you guys think. Maybe we should jump on whatever we can get and run with it. But I'd like to see if you guys think any of these bills are adequate to the point we as boaters should support them. I myself just don't see anything that trips my trigger, and think we should expect our legislators to do more. Maybe a draft left in committee until the regular session starts is the right approach. But I don't know... I think we have their attention now. The old blacksmith adage 'strike while the iron is hot' thing.

BTW, I'd like to post this on the other NC fishing forums as well. But for some reason I can't sign on to NCWaterman or SFC.com over the past few weeks. I promise I've done nothing wrong at either of those sites! Not like I've been banned or anything. I know NCWaterman has been going through some changes, so assume that's the issue there. Can someone (that does have access) contact the Admin on those two sites and ask them to email me at jboone@suddenlink.net to see if we can figure out what the problem is? Would greatly appreciate that.

JB

cainsable · Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 10:06 pm Post subject:

1695 and 2408 are the same the difference is you are reading the second draft of 1695 and the first of 2408,2408 read exactaly the same as 1695 before it was rewrote,as for the 9' over the 10' i totally disagree they let farm equipment travel on the same roads. that we are talking about.if you read the rule books there are no exemptions for roads if you have the permit so why would it make a difference if they make it so you do not need one.
_________________
26 Mckee custom twin 200 optimax

JB2C · Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 10:45 am Post subject:

No, they are not the same. They may become the same, but right now, officially they are not. H2408 must go through committee for a proposed committee substitute and be voted on before any changes can be made. Probably will happen, but there are no guarentees.

Apparently alot of legislators agree with you on the 9' vs 10' thing! There's alot of support for the various house bills.

JB

Back-Lash · Ol'Salt Joined: Dec 15, 2004 Posts: 694 Location: MT.Olive

I read someplace that these trailers that are needing to be inspected are over 4000gvwr . it was posted this had to be the trailer weight not the weight that the trailer was transporting . If that is so I doubt that many aluminum trailers will weigh over 4000 gvwr . Anyone else heard this ?
_________________
Hydra-Sports powered by Yamaha !
www.terrellcampingcenter.com
Cape Lookout Lures

http://www.fryingpantower.com/modules.php?set_albumName=album316&op=

JB2C · Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:10 pm Post subject:

Backlash, no, it's the weight that the trailer is capable of hauling, plus the weight of the trailer. So that is going to be most trailers.

JB

Squid Row · Ol'Salt Joined: Jan 11, 2005 Posts: 701

The inspection is based on the weight of the trailer, not carrying capacity.

Copy and paste this into your browser

https://apps.dot.state.nc.us/ContactUS/Response.aspx?TrackingNumber=CTRISK6MX9&UserEmail=richard.anderson@wachovia.com
_________________

BILLFISHIN · Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:33 pm Post subject: ?

I will tow a 24ft sail boat 8 miles to the ramp around 4 times a year. Whats to keep someone from just taking the tag off thier power boat trailer for these few occasions? Boat is registerred and insurred.

JB2C · Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:53 pm Post subject:

Squid, nope. I don't know who answered the question in your link. But they are wrong. I spent way too much time checking into this. I think I got six different answers, depending on who I talked with. And most of the people I asked admitted they just did not know.

Finally ended up with the legal counsel for the NCSHP and NCDOT (I believe those were the two I ended up with). They researched it responded. Actually, looking back, I think what they are saying is the actual scale weight of the load, not the capacity it can haul. Not 100% clear. But it definitely is not just the weight of the trailer alone. I'd be happy to email you the email they sent me determining this. I believe it was toward the end of last month. I was hoping for what you said!

They also agreed it was very unclear, and they were going to try to put out something so that the public got a consistent asnwer if/when the question was asked. I hope that happens. Obviously it hasn't gotten through the chain as of Rich's question of 06/03/08.

JB

cainsable · Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:03 pm Post subject:

jb i read your post awile back about this,afterwards i went looking around the federal regs (that is where the law derives from) and it says the weight of the trailer ,not trailer and load and this in only in the motor carriers section that does not pertain to us.i also takes to the shp motor carriers group first sargent sgt hook and he concured.base on my conversation with him and the earlier lack of even finding anyone that could even do the inspection.even asking the dmv about it they said i did not need it..but like you said you will get different answers if you ask more than one.
_________________
26 Mckee custom twin 200 optimax

JB2C · Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:31 pm Post subject:

I spent at least two hours on the phone trying to get to the bottom of this. Kept getting transferred around to the point I got mad and made something different happen. Just for the heck of it, I just called again and asked the question. Was initially told it was determined by the weight on the registration card for the trailer. When I pushed, they started the phone trasnfer thing all over again. I cut that short and am waiting now for a phone call back. We'll see what they say. But it does 100% seem to depend on who you talk to as to the answer you get. I'll try to go back and find the emails I received and post those.

Do you recall the specific section in the CFR you say this? I'd love to argue the point with them!

JB

Back-Lash · Ol'Salt Joined: Dec 15, 2004 Posts: 694 Location: MT.Olive

Thanks JB it seems like it is the Blind leading the Blind but anyway I see said the Blind man to his Death & Mute brother
_________________
Hydra-Sports powered by Yamaha !
www.terrellcampingcenter.com
Cape Lookout Lures

http://www.fryingpantower.com/modules.php?set_albumName=album316&op=

cainsable · Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:25 pm Post subject:

i dont remember wich one, it was a few weeks ago and it was late and i forgot to save it to my favorites but i will try to find it again i do know it was on the fed site for motor carriers. the next time you talk to them also ask where you could get that insp done no one could tell me. so that tells me that no one knows the law ..even the GS say a trailer thats weight is over 4k.it does not say a loaded trailer over 4k that is why it is addressed by the feds in the motor carriers section it is meant for commercial trailers

quote="JB2C"]I spent at least two hours on the phone trying to get to the bottom of this. Kept getting transferred around to the point I got mad and made something different happen. Just for the heck of it, I just called again and asked the question. Was initially told it was determined by the weight on the registration card for the trailer. When I pushed, they started the phone trasnfer thing all over again. I cut that short and am waiting now for a phone call back. We'll see what they say. But it does 100% seem to depend on who you talk to as to the answer you get. I'll try to go back and find the emails I received and post those.

Do you recall the specific section in the CFR you say this? I'd love to argue the point with them!

JB[/quote]
_________________
26 Mckee custom twin 200 optimax


Create an Account		Home · ReefCast · WaveCast · Supermap · Tide Charts · NC Radar · Solunar · Account · Photo Gallery · Videos · Forums · Recipes · Classified Ads