Tie down laws

[Jaydog]

Okay what does the LAW say??????

So, I emailed the WSP and got a long email back and thought I would post it here so that if you need to know the law it would be easy to find, Sorry, but the links are broken.


The regulations covering load securement are contained in CFRs 393.100 through 393.136. The requirements specifically to the securement of vehicles is 393.128. It may be a possibility to have an officer to provide training on load securement to the group. Please call if you are interested and I will forward the information to the local detachment.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
<o></o>
<o></o>

 

[CrustyJeep]

That's confusing...

 

[1 grumpy]

That's confusing...

I'm with you on that one:eeek:

 

[crash2]

My head just fell off :eeek:

 

[zukkev]

So, for the sake of law, what they're saying is as long as the vehicle can't move while on the trailer,and you have at least one strap/chain/whatever at each end (for loads 10K and less), you're ok---man, I'm with Crash....:thud:
They give no minmum strap strength requirement for a given weight, or any thing like that!!!They only state that the factory tie down points on the vehicle must be used--:wtf: WHO HERE HAS THAT ON THEIR BUGGY!!! Or on any 4x4 that's been highly modified!! Those little hoops the samis have are a joke--not to mention GONE!!!

 

[Jaydog]

So, for the sake of law, what they're saying is as long as the vehicle can't move while on the trailer,and you have at least one strap/chain/whatever at each end (for loads 10K and less), you're ok---man, I'm with Crash....:thud:
They give no minmum strap strength requirement for a given weight, or any thing like that!!!

393.102
(a)(1) gives the calculations needed for strength.

G-force x wieght = breaking strength (I think)

Somebody check my math.

I believe 1g of deceleration on a 3500 lb rig would be equal to 7000 lbs

So, 7000 lbs would be the minimum breaking strength for the tie down used on a 1g deceleration rule, although the law is .8g

I'm with all of you, it gives me a headache to figure it all out. :eeek:

 

[JOOP]

Did rich write that law because it basically doesn't say **** other than to make sure your load is secure.

All stock Jeep's and I believe vehicles produced from 1980 and up have these as factory tie-downs. (see pic)





So in accordance with WA state law it looks like I'm right. Secure it at the frame. :flipoff: :haha:


You ladies argue over this while I go build a shed. :haha:

 

[CrustyJeep]

393.102
(a)(1) gives the calculations needed for strength.

G-force x wieght = breaking strength (I think)

Somebody check my math.

I believe 1g of deceleration on a 3500 lb rig would be equal to 7000 lbs

So, 7000 lbs would be the minimum breaking strength for the tie down used on a 1g deceleration rule, although the law is .8g

Which is ridiculous, because even in a light collision, you'll see many many MANY g's momentarily.

 

[Jaydog]

Which is ridiculous, because even in a light collision, you'll see many many MANY g's momentarily.

I totally agree, I was just stating the requirement of the law.

I found a good equation for measuring G force.

"The following equation can be used to calculate the deceleration forces generated when an object slows from one speed to another in some given distance. The deceleration is measured in Gs.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=300 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD> </TD><TD>

(speed change)​

 

[Binder]

"(b) Prevention against loss of load. Each commercial motor vehicle must, when transporting cargo on public roads, be loaded and equipped, and the cargo secured, in accordance with this subpart to prevent the cargo from leaking, spilling, blowing or falling from the motor vehicle."

The way I read this is if you loose your load you would get a ticket regardless of how or what you tie it down with. Given that the rest of that stuff doesn't really matter being that you usually won't get inspected anyways.
Aside from all of this there are other issues. If you loose a load and hurt or kill someone you're likely to get sued no matter how "legal" your load was. On top of that we all have a morale obligation to try and not kill inocent people just minding their own business.
So you see it goes much deeper than just a written law.

 

[CrustyJeep]

So you see it goes much deeper than just a written law.

Oh absolutely, but there should be some sort of simple guidelines that people can follow. I just toss a set of 10K lbs straps on the heep and hope for the best. I really don't have a clue what's going to happen if I t-bone a Honda at 35 MPH. I realize that you could break anything if you hit something hard enough, but I'd at least like some clue what I'm in for at any given time.

 

[FiFo]

So if I get into a head on collision I need tie downs with a minimum breaking strength of 105,000 lbs to keep it on the trailer :haha:

I don't think it's nearly that bad. You forget that most people have 2 straps per end, so they would only need a minimum breaking strength of 52,500 lbs. :awesomework:

 

[mthompson223]

I always make sure my cargo is very well secured. I know that if I get into an accident, it's most likely not going to be my fault. I want to bring the biggest gun the the fight and be able to completely devastate whoever gets in my way.

 

[zukkev]

Did rich write that law because it basically doesn't say **** other than to make sure your load is secure.

All stock Jeep's and I believe vehicles produced from 1980 and up have these as factory tie-downs. (see pic)





So in accordance with WA state law it looks like I'm right. Secure it at the frame. :flipoff: :haha:


You ladies argue over this while I go build a shed. :haha:

Have you seen a vehicle's frame tiedown like the one pictured after an accident? I have, and the frame hole was torn completely out; hook was pulled thru the bottom of the frame---needless to say, the load came off the trailer.
I used to tie mine down at the bumpers, but didn't like the way it 'snapped' when going over bumps, so I now tie the axles down.

 

[JOOP]

:kiss:

 

[zukkev]

:kiss:

You're back!!! You get that shed built?:haha: That's funny, cuz I've been spending my spare time building an 8x24 leanto off the side of the shop myself!!

 

[JOOP]

You're back!!! You get that shed built?:haha: That's funny, cuz I've been spending my spare time building an 8x24 leanto off the side of the shop myself!!

Yep got it built for the most part, about 90% done. Damn that crap is sharp.

 

[zukkev]

Yep got it built for the most part, about 90% done. Damn that crap is sharp.

No **** it's sharp!!! I'm about the same (85% done)-just need to finish the end wall, build a door, and get some crushed for the floor for the time being....

 

[Dieselbreath]

I believe that manufactures put suspension on vehicles for a reason... to take up the bumps in the road. I will never tie down a vehicle by the frame. About 3 years ago I broke a class 70 chain due to the vehicle not being able to move. Something has to give when things get wiggling. The only proper way to tie down a vehicle from the frame would be to eliminate the suspension movement. The athorities can and will write tickets for tying down to the frame. You cannot get a standard binder tight enough to eliminate the bounce, or flex of the sidewall of the tires. They do make spring loaded binders for those that want to tie the suspension down.

 

[JOOP]

I believe that manufactures put suspension on vehicles for a reason... to take up the bumps in the road. I will never tie down a vehicle by the frame. About 3 years ago I broke a class 70 chain due to the vehicle not being able to move. Something has to give when things get wiggling. The only proper way to tie down a vehicle from the frame would be to eliminate the suspension movement. The athorities can and will write tickets for tying down to the frame. You cannot get a standard binder tight enough to eliminate the bounce, or flex of the sidewall of the tires. They do make spring loaded binders for those that want to tie the suspension down.

you sure about that because thats not what the law states. :stirpot: