Interesting take on vehicle modification

jadmt

ignore button user
Well, time to throw my hat into this ring.

For starters I am in Canada. BC to be exact. Land of the over-lifted, 35 to 37 inch tires sticking 2"- 4" outside the fenders on city trucks. This wonderful province has some of the most beautiful back country in the world. It also has a ton of regulations on the books that rarely get enforced. I live on Vancouver Island which has tourism as the third largest sector for the economy which equals tourists all year round but especially during the warmer months.

I have had the pleasure of witnessing and being first on scene for a number of bad accidents as a result because here on the island we have winding roads with off camber tight corners at the bottom of hills, narrow mountain roads, you name it. Overloaded SUVs, people using too small of automobile to tow too big of trailer (overloaded as well) is a common sight out this way. Overloaded 30+ year old vans and SUVs that are not maintained but part of the "van-life"/tourist scene are a common sight - so are these automobiles rolled in ditches with gear spread out a kilometer down the road after said crash. 95% of these crashes are avoidable - but does local law enforcement stop and ticket said people? Almost never - when they do people complain about it and it's impact on the tourism sector. People and yeah mostly the under 35 year old crowd buy an older truck/car to go and live the lifestyle and happily spend money on camera/video gear, cool clothes, cool e-bikes - meanwhile the factory suspension (that hasn't been repaired or updated since 1989) can't take all the weight, the brakes are faded and done and they don't have much actual real world experience driving said rigs. Makes for a beautiful cocktail of ******** going sideways fast.

The city-trucks as stated previously almost never see a backroad. My roomie's boyfriend is a prime example. Brand new F-150 Sport 4x4, sitting on 35" KO2's - it gets used to goto Costco and commute to his job where it parks beside 30 other city-trucks. Hey if he wants to spend $600.00 plus a month on gas to look "cool" to his fellow co-workers that is his choice. But it is damn funny watching him pull a "snow day" with brand new KO2's because the roads are covered in snow and are slippery and every-time I bring up the topic of real winter tires he points out how his KO2's are 3 peak rated. ( sigh )

I have had to replace four windshields in ten years because the guy in front had tires sticking way outside the fenders with no mudflaps or flares. Again, who do I blame?

I have to agree with most of the article. But then the way I build up my rigs has always been inline with Aussies. I personally don't like my wheels sticking out. I try and always keep my weight down. I don't like RTT because I don't want that much weight on my roof. I doubt I will ever own anything bigger than a set of 33" tires (on my SUV/mid-sized). I also have never cared what others think of my rigs. I like the quirkier ones (LOVE my Isuzu Troopers for example). I almost always over-engineer my builds and am happy to pay a professional to do the work I don't have the skills for. As we all know, proper maintenance should also be mod number 1.

I grew up during the 70's watching folks in Land Rovers/Land Cruisers in documentaries go to all these cool places and that has stuck with me my whole life. Thank the Gods we have smartened up since then though. I grew up in a time with tall and narrow ground grabber tires were the norm for the back country. It was an era where "lifted" meant two more inches of ground clearance. So yeah maybe I am now "that old guy", but as the bumper sticker says "remember, you have to drive it back home" has truly become my back-country motto.

Maybe with people starting to use dash-cams we will see people getting ticketed for their tires throwing rocks at the cars behind them. Maybe insurance companies will finally start denying claims because people are overloaded. Maybe we will get to the spot where when search and rescue has to be deployed because dumb people did dumb things they get a bill from SAR (it does happen in a number of places). I figure it will be insurance companies that will start hitting people for being over-lifted and with heavy steel off road bumpers when said trucks are involved in hitting pedestrians.

I am all for freedom of expression and the freedom to build your rig the way you want - until that is, your freedom puts my life/safety at risk.

Lots of folks build up damn cool off-road rigs around here - and they trailer them to the back roads for a reason.

Cheers for now folks.
Scott

ah that would be you....following too close no doubt.....
 

rruff

Explorer
Or is that just typical for driving in the country ?

I visited Australia 35 years ago. Driving across the outback/boonies at night was an exciting experience. Roos were everywhere. Nearly every vehicle has roobars, and for good reason.

If you are wondering if 85 mph is legal, google indicates that 110 km/hr is the max on most freeways and and there are some roads in the NT that allow 130 km/hr (81 mph).
 

billiebob

Well-known member
I don't claim to know anything about commercial insurance, but that doesn't apply here anyway. Still, if nobody were negligent then probably 95% of accidents wouldn't happen,
There is room for both arguements. Here in BC we have mandatory winter tires from Oct thru April.... the first thing we do recovering a vehicle from the ditch is note, record, photo the tires. If they are not winter snowflake tires insurance claims are often refused.

Hard to claim ignorance when these signs are everywhere.

DSCN0188.jpeg

Regarding being overweight.... same thing, GVWR are in EVERY Vehicle Manual.

Negligence, poor judgement, is not the same as driving a vehicle which is flagrantly breaking the law and yes, any overweight vehicle stands the chance of not just having an insurance claim refused but in the case of injury or death being liable for compensation. Driving an overweight vehicle is no accident. Injury or death claims.... every insurer is looking for a way out.
 
Last edited:

billiebob

Well-known member
I didn't miss it, I just didn't beat around the bush for a full page about it.

I don't care what you do with your vehicle, and you shouldn't care about what I do with mine. That clear enough?

Many in this thread are proposing that legislation against vehicle mods would be a good thing.
WOW

No one is proposing new legislation and it is not legislation against vehicle mods, it is just enforcement of existing legislation.
 

DRAX

Active member
There is room for both arguements. Here in BC we have mandatory winter tires from Oct thru April.... the first thing we do recovering a vehicle from the ditch is note, record, photo the tires. If they are not winter snowflake tires insurance claims are often refused.

Hard to claim ignorance when these signs are everywhere.

View attachment 705565

Regarding being overweight.... same thing, GVWR are in EVERY Vehicle Manual.

Negligence, poor judgement, is not the same as driving a vehicle which is flagrantly breaking the law and yes, any overweight vehicle stands the chance of not just having an insurance claim refused but in the case of injury or death being liable for compensation. Driving an overweight vehicle is no accident. Injury or death claims.... every insurer is looking for a way out.

Things are different in the US. There is nothing stopping someone from suing someone else for negligence or for someone being sued by "the people" for gross/criminal negligence and that is not something insurance would generally cover, but there has never been a documented case in the US, that I or anyone else has seen, where insurance refused to pay out due to the insured's negligence, whether it was speeding, drunk driving, texting, towing/hauling overweight, etc. People on RV forums claim all the time that if you're overweight and you cause an accident then your insurance won't cover the damages. That is simply false and not a single person has been able to produce proof of what they're claiming. If this ever happened you can be sure there would be first-hand accounts of it because the vast majority of recreational towers are overweight, knowingly or not. I've been involved in numerous forums over the years and have seen some wicked accidents where vehicles were clearly overweight. Nobody has ever said they got screwed and their insurance didn't pay out when they were at fault.

Insurance is literally coverage for negligence. Poor judgement is negligence. There are various degrees of negligence. Speeding when there are signs posted is negligence. "Poor judgement" isn't a legal definition. Shared fault, aka contributory negligence, can affect how much someone can recover from someone else for damages, but that doesn't mean someone's insurance won't kick in to cover what the other party's won't cover as long as you have the necessary coverage.

I know nothing about how insurance in Canada works but I've heard some not so great stories about people getting screwed. Here in the US there are different coverages available with auto insurance and the biggest issues are making sure you have sufficient coverage to CYA and also be made whole should someone else have no or insufficient coverage when they cause damage to your property.

Dashcams are becoming very important as well, can't count the number of times a dashcam has saved someone's bacon because the driver at fault lied about what happened and without the dashcam footage the damage may be plausible based on the other party's lies.

Anyhoo...

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
 

jadmt

ignore button user
There is room for both arguements. Here in BC we have mandatory winter tires from Oct thru April.... the first thing we do recovering a vehicle from the ditch is note, record, photo the tires. If they are not winter snowflake tires insurance claims are often refused.

Hard to claim ignorance when these signs are everywhere.

View attachment 705565

Regarding being overweight.... same thing, GVWR are in EVERY Vehicle Manual.

Negligence, poor judgement, is not the same as driving a vehicle which is flagrantly breaking the law and yes, any overweight vehicle stands the chance of not just having an insurance claim refused but in the case of injury or death being liable for compensation. Driving an overweight vehicle is no accident. Injury or death claims.... every insurer is looking for a way out.
yet it indicates M+S or the snowflake...pretty much any AT tire I have ever seen has had M+S on the sidewall. many do not have the snowflake however.
 

rruff

Explorer
Negligence, poor judgement, is not the same as driving a vehicle which is flagrantly breaking the law and yes, any overweight vehicle stands the chance of not just having an insurance claim refused but in the case of injury or death being liable for compensation. Driving an overweight vehicle is no accident. Injury or death claims.... every insurer is looking for a way out.

GVWR isn't even a law, though... so what you are suggesting doesn't ever happen in the US. It's a number that the manufacturer dreams up to limit *their* liability. It also isn't negligent or unsafe to drive a vehicle that is over GVWR. You can be cited for an unsafe load but that isn't determined by GVWR.
 

NatersXJ6

Explorer
I fall somewhere in the middle of the various arguments posted here, so I find it hard to care, but I did consider this guy comical.

Taken this morning on H1 in Honolulu right after reading the first 2 pages of this thread. You can see the rear brake (drum?) on the left. That means these wheels have serious negative backspace, AND thick wheel spacers. It was so unsteerable that he kept twitching the wheel to keep it in the lane. I can only assume that he is waiting on a tax return to get the lift kit that so dearly needs to go with this!

C0E0EBE2-E794-4EDC-A858-1F3DB826B077.jpeg
 

bartheil

Member
Things are different in the US. There is nothing stopping someone from suing someone else for negligence or for someone being sued by "the people" for gross/criminal negligence and that is not something insurance would generally cover, but there has never been a documented case in the US, that I or anyone else has seen, where insurance refused to pay out due to the insured's negligence, whether it was speeding, drunk driving, texting, towing/hauling overweight, etc. People on RV forums claim all the time that if you're overweight and you cause an accident then your insurance won't cover the damages. That is simply false and not a single person has been able to produce proof of what they're claiming. If this ever happened you can be sure there would be first-hand accounts of it because the vast majority of recreational towers are overweight, knowingly or not. I've been involved in numerous forums over the years and have seen some wicked accidents where vehicles were clearly overweight. Nobody has ever said they got screwed and their insurance didn't pay out when they were at fault.

Insurance is literally coverage for negligence. Poor judgement is negligence. There are various degrees of negligence. Speeding when there are signs posted is negligence. "Poor judgement" isn't a legal definition. Shared fault, aka contributory negligence, can affect how much someone can recover from someone else for damages, but that doesn't mean someone's insurance won't kick in to cover what the other party's won't cover as long as you have the necessary coverage.

I know nothing about how insurance in Canada works but I've heard some not so great stories about people getting screwed. Here in the US there are different coverages available with auto insurance and the biggest issues are making sure you have sufficient coverage to CYA and also be made whole should someone else have no or insufficient coverage when they cause damage to your property.

Dashcams are becoming very important as well, can't count the number of times a dashcam has saved someone's bacon because the driver at fault lied about what happened and without the dashcam footage the damage may be plausible based on the other party's lies.

Anyhoo...

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
I think in the US, the insurance company almost always pays out but... then they have to option to recover the money from the insured if there was a violation of the law or gross negligence etc. It's that way to make sure that the 3rd party is taken care of.
 

bartheil

Member
https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-gear/cars-trucks/build-overland-vehicle-like-australian/

Well at least the post made for interesting reading :p.
I don't live in the States anymore and don't care much about the (lack of) regulations regarding modifications that are allowed on public roads there. However, after a few (too many) years of lurking I finally got a SUV again (2018Chevy Trailblazer)with limited budget for modifications and this article is an interesting (in whatever way you define interesting) guideline for a beginner to modify a first vehicle.

My realistic wishlist is:
New tires - same size 265/60R18 AT tires (thinking about 265/65R18s)
Compressor and dynamic tow strap and a shovel (live in the UAE)
Max Traxx ??
Transmission Cooler as soon as the warranty on the drive train is done
Steel/Aluminum bash plate (The skid plate is steel, the bash plate is plastic)
Better lights
Relocate differential breathers (for when Wadis do have water)
 
  • Like
Reactions: SFP

Metcalf

Expedition Leader
WOW

No one is proposing new legislation and it is not legislation against vehicle mods, it is just enforcement of existing legislation.

Tomato Potato.

There are tons of random laws on the books limiting vehicle modification. Every state in the USA has it's own random version on top of a ton of vague federal level regulations.

Most (I actually think all, honestly) of the existing legislation is flat out stupid. Someone has to say it. Keeping people safe from themselves sounds noble, but is at its core, a racket.....taxes, fees, fines, added cost, etc. Punishing everyone because of the ineptitude, mistakes, or bad luck, of a few people is classic government, " we are here to help you ". Never mind that we already pay mountains of taxes to ensure access to quality services. Not a fan. Where does it stop?
 

WeLikeCamping

Explorer
Dashcams are becoming very important as well, can't count the number of times a dashcam has saved someone's bacon because the driver at fault lied about what happened and without the dashcam footage the damage may be plausible based on the other party's lies.
This. And more of this. I got brake-checked in heavy traffic by a Prius driver that thought he owned all the lanes, including my cushion. With my 16,000 pound load I nearly flattened him like an aluminum can underfoot. After that I invested in a dash-cam that I use whenever I hit the road with a load, there are simply too many entitled idiots driving. Hell, just the other day I was driving in an exit lane, and some woman came flying up on the bumper of the car to my left and just ahead of me, thinking she would just "squeeze" in front of me - perhaps after I braked for her. I mean, she did have her turn signal on. Sorry, not sorry. (yeah, I got triggered :)
 

Todd780

OverCamper
There is room for both arguements. Here in BC we have mandatory winter tires from Oct thru April.... the first thing we do recovering a vehicle from the ditch is note, record, photo the tires. If they are not winter snowflake tires insurance claims are often refused.

Hard to claim ignorance when these signs are everywhere.

View attachment 705565

Regarding being overweight.... same thing, GVWR are in EVERY Vehicle Manual.

Negligence, poor judgement, is not the same as driving a vehicle which is flagrantly breaking the law and yes, any overweight vehicle stands the chance of not just having an insurance claim refused but in the case of injury or death being liable for compensation. Driving an overweight vehicle is no accident. Injury or death claims.... every insurer is looking for a way out.
I *think* winter tires are mandatory in Quebec as well. But not 100% sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SFP

Forum statistics

Threads
188,019
Messages
2,901,194
Members
229,411
Latest member
IvaBru
Top