393.118.3 (ii)

Razororange, is giving them the benefit of the doubt of interpretation, but I will not.

I'd challenge that, and pursue it. The officer is definitely and purposely misreading it. The wording of the "legalese" is quite clear. The section is meant to specify the spacers between bundles. Read the section:

(d) Securement of bundles transported using more than one tier. Bundles carried in more than one tier must be either:
.........
(3) Placed directly on top of other bundles or on spacers and secured in accordance with the following:
(i) The length of spacers between bundles must provide support to all pieces in the bottom row of the bundle.
(ii) The width of individual spacers must be equal to or greater than the height.
(iii) If spacers are comprised of layers of material, the layers must be unitized or fastened together in a manner which ensures that the spacer performs as a single piece of material.​

This part deals specifically with the placement "directly on top of other bundles or on spacers" and when reading it, it's clear that the spacers in this regards are applied to how the "following" bundles are placed on other bundles. This does not refer to dunnage, that the whole load is sitting on. The or in this case only allows there to be two options. Bundles on top of each other, or on spacers. Not the whole load.

Above, I've bolded the pertinent portions of the regulation. The very section name says "bundles...using more than one tier", and then goes about describing how those bundles are to be laid on each other. Not what the load itself sits on,

The definition of dunnage (not spacer) is:

Dunnage. All loose materials used to support and protect cargo.​

Spacer isn't even defined for this section. Dunnage is not likewise specified as is a spacer definition in this section. But dunnage is what is used to support cargo.
Even 393.104(d) specifies again, dunnage like so:

Material for dunnage, chocks, cradles, shoring bars, blocking and bracing. Material used as dunnage or dunnage bags, chocks, cradles, shoring bars, or used for blocking and bracing, must not have damage or defects which would compromise the effectiveness of the securement system.​

There is no reasonable way to accidentally misinterpret this language, especially if they've been trained properly. With the shortage of qualified LEO's because of the current societal state, it's not surprizing to see them dipping, like the US Postal service, to the bottom of the barrel for warm bodies.
The trooper's reading of this section, isn't even consistent with that of a 7th grade level for reading comprehension, and any judge hearing this case would agree.

I'd challenge it. As Razororange says, there's really nothing you can do at the time of, unless you did ask to go over his head to his supervisor, and considering the costs and the infraction on the record, that's exactly what I'd do. Delivery will have to wait until you had a chance to properly handle it on site. Barring that, contest the ticket in court, if possible, and/or DataQ it. It's hard to prove malfeasance, but that's what this was. A money grab by someone thinking they're a lawyer getting their client off with an inane defense, instead of being a trained Trooper.

 

Actually, kylefitzy and me were discussing this a few weeks back about the lack of proper securement by the bimbo in the YouTuber thread. Same section we were discussing, with regard to the tiered securement requirements.

 

I agree the regulation was misinterpreted. That being said I had 6 stacks of limestone saw blocks move on me when a car did a u turn and then stoped completely in front of me at 65 mph. The load had 12 straps that were tight, the 4x6’s standing up on edge still rolled. I won’t stand dunnage up anymore unless it’s the only option.

As for chicken #### cops, especially in Arkansas, I had the opposite experience of @Razororange. I had a 56’ long, 2000 pound crate with 8 straps over the top. I was put out of service because one strap was one notch loose on a hand ratchet. I reached up and gave it one click and the officer said, “okay you’re back in service, let’s go do the paperwork”. ####ing prick.

 

The state of Texas like to use “Failure to maintain lane” as the all purpose reason to make a traffic stop. That leads to a “reasonable cause” for DUI testing and of course a vehicle search. Usually ending in an arrest. That is the goal, make an arrest and put people in jail and into the legal system. Have to justify the existence somehow.

 

That's a Ohio red flag too. Had a buddy beat a dui because the patrolman said at 2500 feet he crossed the fog line, but at 500 feet it appeared he crossed the yellow line. No let's be clear, he deserved a DUI. That actual judge ripped the patrolman butt for writing the report like this. Tossed case out, because of patrolmans written report.

 

I’ve heard of it and I follow by it. One of the steel fabricators we haul for will build up the dunnage if needed as a “Pyramid”. But they mostly use 8x8’s

 

I understand your point, but even that judge has a superior or someone over them. I'm very familiar with the "local" power broker games. I fought it for over 20 years and it's not a road most people will travel, to seek justice...it's not for the faint of heart...and I understand your point. We have an entire 'left coast' judiciary (the 9th Circuit) that sees things through politically charged glasses, but even they have their superiors. I'm not blind to what you say, only that I've challenged and won, several times when authority oversteps it's bounds. I am a law abiding person, and take great pains to remain within the law, but that said, I also don't tolerate or back down from authority that doesn't stay within it's bounds, either.

I'd say this is one of those times. No authority backs down, willingly. You have to take them on to get them to reassess or reevaluate their position...it's the American way.

 

In practice, I agree with you kylefitzy, I don't tend to do that either...but I had with the last job, a problem with the pipe loads where we delivered, because they had forks 4" thick for most of the length of their blades, so the 4 X 4's (actually 3.5 X 3.5's) holding the load would allow the loader to push the pipe rather than lift them, damaging the pipe stakes on the other side...so I took thoses oak 4 x 4's and added oak 2 x 4's with nuts, bolts and washers joining them, to get them the height needed essentially creating a 4 x 6. If hauling lumber though, I would lay those on their sides, but that would be my choice of operation, not something that is mandatory per regulation.