Dear Editor,
I am writing in response to recent opinion pieces directed at
the California Highway Patrol’s enforcement of truck length
laws.
CHP Simply Enforcing the Truck-Length Law, Not Targeting Local Farmers
Dear Editor,
I am writing in response to recent opinion pieces directed at the California Highway Patrol’s enforcement of truck length laws.
In order to clarify the CHP’s length law enforcement efforts, I should explain the law which applies. Section 35401 of the California Vehicle Code limits the length of a combination of vehicles, in this case a truck-tractor and semi-trailer, to 65 feet. The intent is to ensure traffic safety on older and narrower roadways, as longer combinations tend to be less safe when negotiating curves and turns. I’m sure many of your readers have also noticed a signal light or sign which had been hit my a truck which was unable to safely make a turn. So, it should be clear the length law was enacted for purpose of public safety.
About 20 years ago, the legislature passed Vehicle Code section 35401.5, which allows combinations of vehicles longer than 65 feet on specified state highways. These “super-trucks” may use U.S.-101 and other designated state routes throughout California. However, they are not allowed on local roads unless that route has been approved for use by the local city or county, to ensure the roadway can safely accommodate their turning radius.
The process for requesting approval is simple, straightforward and expeditious. Any person who wishes super-trucks to have access to their location needs only to file a written request with the local city of county having jurisdiction. The local authority has 90 days to review the request prior to a decision. Requests may only be denied based on safety or engineering concerns. Over recent years, as part of the CHP’s efforts toward safety, education and cooperation with industry, our office has shared these procedures with members of industry. Some businesses have followed these provisions and gained approval in having their local access roads reclassified.
Your recent opinion pieces implied that the CHP has set out to make life difficult for local farmers by making enforcement of length laws a special priority. Nothing could be further from the truth. Of 33,293 citations written by the CHP in San Benito and southern Santa Clara County during 2006, only 98 were issued to super-trucks using unauthorized routes. Less than one percent of citations is not indicative of a priority. The editorial implied the CHP is neglecting speed enforcement to “create havoc for local businesses.” I would venture the 13,477 drivers cited for speeding in 2006, in the Hollister-Gilroy area, didn’t feel neglected.
In closing, the author’s suggestion that to help our local farmers CHP officers should look the other way, or that I should order them to do so, not only flies in the face of what is right, it reeks of special treatment. When CHP officers are sworn in, they subscribed to a Code of Honor which read, in part: “… and enforce law without fear, favor, or discrimination.” I have followed this Code of Honor throughout my 24 years as a law enforcement officer and expect nothing less from the officers who work under my command.
M.O. Delaney, Lieutenant Commander,
Gilroy Inspection Facility
CHP ‘Gestapo’ Tactics Have Local Rancher Wondering What is Really Going On
Dear Editor,
I thought that I had heard everything, but apparently I haven’t.
My husband and I live out of state, but still own property in the Gilroy area. Every year he drives the 700 miles from our home to our Gilroy place to check on things, make any needed repairs, and visit friends and family. He’s there anywhere from one to three months depending on what needs to be done.
Today he called to tell me that he was pulled over by a CHP D.O.T. officer, (Officer Little). The officer wanted to know what he was doing in California with out of state license plates on his pickup and flatbed trailer. My husband explained to the officer that he lived in another state, but owned property in Gilroy, and was there to make some repairs. Then the officer asked my husband what he was going to do with the lumber that he had on the trailer. My husband told him that he was building some steps. “For yourself or for someone else?” the officer asked. “For myself,” my husband said. “Well, how can you be building steps for yourself when you live in another state?,” the officer asked.
This nonsense went on for several minutes. The officer wanted to know where our property in Gilroy was at. When my husband gave him the address, the officer said: “Well, that doesn’t tell me anything.” Then he informed my husband that if he was in California for six months he would need to change his driver’s license and vehicle registration over to California. This conversation went on and on with my husband being treated like he had no right to be in the state!
This is pitiful! Are things so tough in California that the California Highway Patrol has resorted to this kind of “gestapo” tactics? I didn’t realize that a passport and a detailed agenda were needed to travel into California. What’s next? Has everyone lost their common sense? Or is Officer Little just a man who has let his badge and authority go to his head?
Rodney and Pam Sequeria, Idaho
