Wanderlodge Gurus - The Member Funded Wanderlodge Forum

Pages: 1 2

It is amazing how long these arguments can go. There's a current thread about
non-CDL As and Bs on rv.net that has been going for months. A recent post
contained (love the spelling, etc):

The following was a reply from DPS Austin.

Dear Mr. T____:

Thank you for allowing the Department of Public Safety to assist you. According
to Federal regulations, as long as a motor home is for personal recreational
purposes only, yes it would be exempt from being a CDL. However it could still
be a class A or B non-CDL depending on the weight, and if you were to be towinq
a vehicle you could be required to have a combination and or double or triples
endorsement. You would still be required to take the written test and the
driving test.

Basically all the non-exemption is for is to keep you from having to pay the
$60.00 for a CDL, but all the requirements still stand, depending on weight and
what you are towning.

If I can be of futher assistance please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

S____ B____

CDL/CLERK IV 512-424-2010 EXT 2030

LICENSE ISSUANCE BUREAU

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

The Driver License Division is committed to quality and excellence in customer
service. Please share your thoughts with us via our online customer service
survey at http://www.survey.utexas.edu/txdps/

Don Bradner
90 PT40 "Blue Thunder"
My location: http://www.bbirdmaps.com/user2.cfm?user=1

By g*d, I love it! If I don't think a law is right, all I have to do is find a
higher-numbered section. Now that's one worth taking to the supreme court!!!!

Why, oh why, do you guys think that having a Texas lawyer tell you that you are
right or wrong will actually make you right or wrong?

We can do away with every thing else in the system - just ask a lawyer!

On 4/3/2009 at 3:36 PM Ron Thompson wrote:

>I agree with Wallace. Rule Chapter 522 follows 521 and corrects 521
>since it is the latter ruling. wouldn't that make sense. I agree that a
>qualified Texas lawyer needs to rule on it. I have enough lawyer fees
>already or I would pay for one.

Way to go Pete!!...I knew I liked you from the start. I think that I will go back to the bar and get another tottie and sit back and let them rip it up some more. I'll sit back and wait for the correction or confirmation in next month FMCA.

Scooter 2000LX Ocqueoc, MI

To: WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com
From: aeonix1@...
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:34:44 -0700
Subject: Re: [WanderlodgeForum] Texas CDL class B

My dad, a lawyer, state legislator, and judge for over 50 years once told me:

If you have the law on your side, argue the law.

If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts.

If you have neither the law nor the facts on your side, ... just argue.

Pete Masterson

'95 Blue Bird Wanderlodge WBDA 42

El Sobrante CA

"aeonix1@mac.com"

On Apr 3, 2009, at 9:18 AM, Wallace Craig wrote:

So you say.

Wallace Craig

95 WLWB 42

Azle, Texas

--- OnFri, 4/3/09, Don Bradner<"bluethunder@arcatapet.com">wrote:

From: Don Bradner <"bluethunder@arcatapet.com">
Subject: Re: [WanderlodgeForum] Texas CDL class B
To:"WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com"
Date: Friday, April 3, 2009, 11:12 AM

That's part of what makes it hard to understand why you would try to apply a law beyond its scope. Some laws are difficult to understand. This one isn't.

On 4/3/2009 at 8:57 AM Wallace Craig wrote:

>Of course I am sturbon, I am a trial lawyer retired after 45 years
>fighting insurance companies. I just hope FMCA steps up to the plate and
>pays for a legal opinion as I have asked them to do.
>
>
>Wallace Craig
>95 WLWB 42
>Azle, Texas
>
>--- On Fri, 4/3/09, Don Bradner <bluethunder@arcatapet.com> wrote:
>
>
>From: Don Bradner <bluethunder@arcatapet.com>
>Subject: Re: [WanderlodgeForum] Texas CDL class B
>To:WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com
>Date: Friday, April 3, 2009, 10:50 AM
>
>
>D**n, you are stubborn! You take a clear and unambiguous statement and
>then apply it beyond its scope.
>
>522.004 states, clearly and unambiguously, that RVs are excluded from
>chapter 522. Period. That does not allow the statement to apply to chapter
>521 where a Class A or B (nothing about CDL) is required for any vehicle
>over 26K, and there is no RV exemption in that chapter.
>
>On 4/3/2009 at 8:06 AM Wallace Craig wrote:
>
>>It is with no particular satisfaction that my opinion remains unchanged;
>>the article about Texas CDL appearing in the current issue of Family Motor
>>Coach is wrong. The exemption contained at TRC 522.004 statinng that
>>recreational vehicles areexcluded from CDL is clear and unambigious. I
>>have prevailed on the librarian at Tarrant County to run a sheppards
>>citator on the statute and she find no case law on the question and no
>>Attorney Generals opinion on the issue. She does agree with my position
>>that a CDL
>>
>>
>>Wallace Craig
>>95 WLWB 42
>>Azle, Texas
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WanderlodgeForum/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WanderlodgeForum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:WanderlodgeForum-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:WanderlodgeForum-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WanderlodgeForum-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

I don't know about the others who are NOT residents of Texas, but I for one
don't really care whether or not Texas requires a CDL.

My two cents.

Marv
2004 M380
Ocean Shores, WA

--- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "Don Bradner" wrote:
>
> By g*d, I love it! If I don't think a law is right, all I have to do is find a
higher-numbered section. Now that's one worth taking to the supreme court!!!!
>
> Why, oh why, do you guys think that having a Texas lawyer tell you that you
are right or wrong will actually make you right or wrong?
>
> We can do away with every thing else in the system - just ask a lawyer!
>
> On 4/3/2009 at 3:36 PM Ron Thompson wrote:
>
> >I agree with Wallace. Rule Chapter 522 follows 521 and corrects 521
> >since it is the latter ruling. wouldn't that make sense. I agree that a
> >qualified Texas lawyer needs to rule on it. I have enough lawyer fees
> >already or I would pay for one.
>

I suppose, but I still find it irksome that even you throw out the red-herring
letters "CDL."

There is one state in the US that requires a CDL for large RVs: Hawaii (DC also
has that requirement, see oddity about Wisconsin, below)

Otherwise, remember that people change state of residence, with Texas being one
of the two most commonly used in retirement by fulltimers, so knowing what state
laws are about a heavy coach can be a factor. That makes it a valid topic for
discussion/argument.

15 states require special driver's licensing (NOT CDL) for larger RVs at some
point. Most have the break at 26K, including:
KS, MS, NC, NM, NY, PA, SC, TX, UT, and WY

States with special driver's licensing (NOT CDL) for RVs under some circumstance
other than 26K weight limits include:
CA, CT, IL, MI, and NV.

Wisconsin has an oddity in that it requires a CDL, but only for a Motor Home or
Fifth-wheel over 45 feet, which makes it essentially non-existent. And yes, in
that case it would be a CDL.

On 4/4/2009 at 1:50 AM Marv & Jean wrote:

>I don't know about the others who are NOT residents of Texas, but I for
>one don't really care whether or not Texas requires a CDL.
>
>My two cents.
>
>Marv
>2004 M380
>Ocean Shores, WA

the hype about using the proper license is all off the mark. even with the
proper license used, that use is no defense for careless driving. or operating
an unsafe vehicle. most of the folks who worry about this stuff define their
motorcoach 'personal' to limit their need for a commercial license then they
register the motorchoach as owned by a LLC to avoid yet another set of fees and
rules. I love the line "keep a copy of the statute with you and show it to a cop
who tries to give you a ticket" Thats as good as me saying " officer, cut me a
break my boyfriend 's a cop"
I think these busses should require commercial license issue with drug/alc
monitoring, safety checks, special training and twice the impact fines ( oh
yea,smog check requirements as well)
Greg of Tim&Greg

--- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "Don Bradner" wrote:
>
> D**n, you are stubborn! You take a clear and unambiguous statement and then
apply it beyond its scope.
>
> 522.004 states, clearly and unambiguously, that RVs are excluded from chapter
522. Period. That does not allow the statement to apply to chapter 521 where a
Class A or B (nothing about CDL) is required for any vehicle over 26K, and there
is no RV exemption in that chapter.
>
> On 4/3/2009 at 8:06 AM Wallace Craig wrote:
>
> >It is with no particular satisfaction that my opinion remains unchanged;
> >the article about Texas CDL appearing in the current issue of Family Motor
> >Coach is wrong. The exemption contained at TRC 522.004 statinng that
> >recreational vehicles are excluded from CDL is clear and unambigious. I
> >have prevailed on the librarian at Tarrant County to run a sheppards
> >citator on the statute and she find no case law on the question and no
> >Attorney Generals opinion on the issue. She does agree with my position
> >that a CDL
> >
> >
> >Wallace Craig
> >95 WLWB 42
> >Azle, Texas
>

Pages: 1 2

Wanderlodge Gurus - The Member Funded Wanderlodge Forum

Don Bradner

Don Bradner

Al Scudder

Marv & Jean

Don Bradner

timvasqz