Just maybe not all that mature...
Just maybe not all that mature...
Wrong state gents. This is a North Carolina law, not a South Carolina law. They are our law-abiding idiot brother to the north. 
South Carolina doesn't care. As a resident and a proponent of you do you, I don't particularly care either. In the last several years, I've seen maybe a dozen trucks that were squatted, none of them to the extent that the blue one posted above is. I don't see it as any different than the stance guys, the hot rodders, the donks, or any other group that modifies vehicles. If you want to be able to change your vehicles from stock, you should be willing to let others do what they want as well.
SC does have laws for bumper heights and such, but they are for cars, not trucks. Don't lift your Cadillac Fleetwood and put 44" tires on it. You will get stopped.
Apis Mellifera said:Episode 1
What, in the berkeleying berkeley, did I just watch?
In reply to Mr_Asa :
I watched all three. Kinda annoying kid. The fact that he thought the truck was annoying was not lost on me. Here in Jacksonville we call that the Palatka rake.
In reply to ShawnG :
We'll just gloss over how frequently those VIs are being handed to folks driving stock or near stock cars.
Could they be used for good? Yes.
Are they? No.
Toyman01 + Sized and said:If you want to be able to change your vehicles from stock, you should be willing to let others do what they want as well.
Yeah, I don't get that. It'd be like telling law abiding gun owners that they shouldn't support attempts to get guns out of the hands of criminals. All modifications are not created equal, and wereas 95 percent of the upgrades discussed on this site are to improve performance and handling, the "squat" makes low riders look positively sensible by comparison.
In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :
They are equal in that they are not stock. Not manufacturer installed components.
How many deaths have squatted trucks caused? How about ricers or donks?
Is it a problem? Or do we have politicians grandstanding for votes again.
Toyman01 + Sized and said:As a resident and a proponent of you do you, I don't particularly care either. In the last several years, I've seen maybe a dozen trucks that were squatted, none of them to the extent that the blue one posted above is. I don't see it as any different than the stance guys, the hot rodders, the donks, or any other group that modifies vehicles. If you want to be able to change your vehicles from stock, you should be willing to let others do what they want as well.
I dunno about that in this particular case. Stock trucks already get a bad rap for pedestrian deaths just because of how tall they are in general and how tall their grilles are in particular. Something like that hideousness in those videos isn't going to hit a pedestrian and cause him to bounce off, its going to hit a pedestrian and run them over. Combined with the lack of visibility that was highlighted and any of half a dozen other issues and I don't think these things are good candidates for "live and let live."
I'm all for that when the most unsafe thing it can do is cause a premature blowout like the stance cars, but when the average person who doesn't know how a car works can start pointing out problems then there is cause for a stronger look at it.
In reply to SnowMongoose :
I'll give you that.
Trying to imitate these guys?
NOHOME said:Not THE most stupid trend to emerge.
It's gunnin' for the lead, though.
wheelsmithy (Joe-with-an-L) said:Trying to imitate these guys?
Those trucks have bizarre suspension damping, lots of bump and little rebound, so the ride height 'packs up" in rough stuff and settles low for smooth fast sections.
IIRC the "squat look" was from tractor pullers too broke/poor/cheap to get big tires at all four corners, so they'd put big gnarly tires only on the back and lower the rear/raise the front to make it level in competition. Then, on street rubber, it'd be all cockeyed.
I think it's a stupid trend; but, I also hate gov't overreach and redundancy. I hate most of California's public governing bodies and their overreach but for something like this it's simple a ticketable offense if it doesn't meet a certain threshold...i.e. car is too low, headlights aimed up, etc. I think this would be a more reasonable thing to go after.
While I’m no fan of “the man” telling me what to do it begs the question. These trucks with significant modifications/ resulting blinding headlights are OK but we’ll pull some sorry SOB over for a blown license plate or stop light bulb?
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:Oh if only someone would make an 800 hp reinforced wedge Carolina squat truck flip car.....
Okay it's not 500 hp, but it would totally work.
NC squat car code enforcement!
11GTCS said:While I’m no fan of “the man” telling me what to do it begs the question. These trucks with significant modifications/ resulting blinding headlights are OK but we’ll pull some sorry SOB over for a blown license plate or stop light bulb?
I was gonna respond, but it probably would have ended with me visiting the patio
I'm actually surprised. Y'all made it two, almost three pages.
Tom1200 said:As for the overreach aspect; the article mentions "potentially" dangerous. So the question is has there been an uptick in accidents related to these modifications? The answer is likely no. I'd rather see my local/state government put the energy into kerbing impaired driving.
It's funny you mention impaired driving. If it wasn't currently illegal, I don't think it would be made illegal. It's become socially acceptable to think poorly of drunk driving. I'm guessing, but hundreds of thousands of people likely drive drunk every day. Back in '85 18k people died per year from impaired driving, now it's only around 10k/year. Millions of people's personal freedom is infringed upon by not being able to have fun and drive drunk. It's far less risky than many things with greater controversy. Overreach?
In reply to dean1484 :
It was in PA also when I was growing up. My first car = a '63 Lark had worn out springs in front and sat low in front. I had taller tires in the rear - it was a long time ago but I think it had 670 on the rear and 600 on the front which added to the 'look'.
If you can't see in front of your vehicle from the drivers seat (or your lights blind oncoming traffic) I do agree with the concern.
The law seems poorly written - but I'm not sure how else to write it - maybe measure from a level ground surface to some point at the front and rear of the vehicle, with a stated maximum allowable delta....
DirtyBird222 said:I think it's a stupid trend; but, I also hate gov't overreach and redundancy. I hate most of California's public governing bodies and their overreach but for something like this it's simple a ticketable offense if it doesn't meet a certain threshold...i.e. car is too low, headlights aimed up, etc. I think this would be a more reasonable thing to go after.
It would not be all that redundant, though, in the sense that when you're talking legal issues, it's best to have it codified in a precise way.
I mean, it'd be easy if the entire book of law had one line that said "Don't be an shiny happy person", but that is pretty subjective, no?
As far as government overreach, well... You can do whatever you want to your truck, but it's the government's business to say what can and cannot be operated on the government's roads.
I think I'm siding with Toyman01 on this one, as someone with an insanely custom hot rod truck. If they're going to outlaw squatted trucks due to bumper height, they should outlaw my hot rod due to not having any bumpers and being slammed so low it could fit under a semi.
What they should do is just write the law to level headlights. You can squat your truck, but if the beams don't point straight and flat and from a specified range of heights, you get a ticket. This should apply to manufactures as well, who still can't seem to design a good headlight housing that points light where it belongs.
Is there like a massive population of these things that exists somewhere that I'm not aware of? Because I can literally count on one hand the number of "Carolina Squatted" trucks I've seen in my lifetime, and that includes on travels to the south. I think we can all agree these things are stupid, but seems like much ado about nothing, IMO.
To me, the issue is mostly one of visibility from the driver's seat. The headlight issue is fixable, bumper height is already a concern on plenty of other stuff. But a lot of those trucks have one heck of a blind spot in front of them when trying to look over the huge hood at that angle.
In reply to maschinenbau :
OEM lighting is a huge peeve of mine. A lot of current trucks are illegal per many state laws as far as headlight height is concerned. (Laws enacted to eliminate heavily lifted trucks) Federal regs overrule state regs, with the only exception being California emissions laws, simply because CARB is grandfathered in because it existed before the EPA.
Hell, there are quite a few CARS that have taillights that are illegal per some old state laws regarding taillight light.
There was a thread a ways back where a guy with a GTO kept getting ticketed because of a state (maybe city) law regarding taillight design that the GTO didn't meet. When he tried to fight it in court by saying the car was as-produced by GM, he was told "well, it looks like you're going to keep getting tickets." THAT is poor judgin', because Federal overrides State per interstate commerce.
You'll need to log in to post.
