Do chains make it a wide load?

Chains, binders and straps are not property CARRYING devices, they are securing devices, or non-property-carrying devices. Dunnage would be a property carrying device, as the freight sets on the dunnage.
From the first link I posted: (j) Tie-down assembly on platform trailers
From the second link I posted:
(b) The following shall be excluded from either the measured length or width of commercial motor vehicles, as applicable:

(1) Rear view mirrors, turn signal lamps, handholds for cab entry/egress, splash and spray suppressant devices, load induced tire bulge;

(2) All non-property-carrying devices, or components thereof

 

saw a picture of a w9 with a flatbed on and the duals on the truck stuck out just a little passed the trailer but not much

 

It must have been a 96" trailer? Even back when we were USING 96" trailers the drives didn't hang out past the trailer. I'm gonna go measure the OAW on my drives now!

 

This seems to dispute that characterization, however. --emphasis added

After trying to see where I missed something with SHC's comment, I found that "(j) Tie-down assembly on platform trailers" after following the bouncing legislation ball. I still have to question if this applies for us because I think the exclusion is primarily for non-cargo carrying parts (Tarp System) rather than the securement devices (headerboard) which it stipulates in the section on the tarping system as to why it requires the (headerboard) to remain at 102" because it is cargo carrying restraint. ---emphasis added

If the key is that it is load bearing, than this calls into question the exact meaning with regards to binders as securement devices that are load bearing. Tie down, in the exclusion could well refer to chain tie down rings, in this case. Edit: the exclusion can't include rub rail components.

Now, there is still this little tidbit that brings question on to it, and I'd like clarification from our resident DOT officer as to his take on it, but this section is quite explicit in what it expects with the only exception being when not possible:--emphasis added.

This looks like something that a DOT officer could rule subjectively on, since unless the load is space constrained (goes over the rails) it could very well be a violation based on this and other sections I came across if the binders, dunnage etc exceeds the rail distances. If the load is going over the rails (on a 102") then it needs an OS permit. Either way, it's a subjective call.

I'd like to see our DOT expert give us his take.

Now I know most are not usually going to nail a binder over the edge a little, I'm not trying to be difficult, but I also know that I had to think about it when I did it, and see if there was another way I could have chained or secured a load with that concern in my mind.

Thanks for those cites though Autocar...more area's to look.

 

You are reading things into this that are not there.

BTW, notice in your second question, on tie downs, it states "Whenever practicable". If the load is 102" wide, and on the deck, it is not "practicable" to place the tiedowns inside the rubrails.

 

so what did you find out?

 

NO, DOT allows for your binders and/or D-rings

 

just ask the dot office at the next scale you enter

 

If I'm overhanging in Colorado with a 96, they ALWAYS measure the width of the trailer before they get out the poles so that if it's a 102 they know they dont need them. I overhang with 96 all the time there and we go thru the same song and dance everytime. AS LONG AS THE LOAD IS UNDER 102 it really don't matter how wide the trailer is.

 

if there's one thing i've learned. is that no two officers think alike.

like my last overweight load through montana. 3 scales yes i can buy a permit. but when i hit the first scale. it was a different dude and he said no way. i get a citation. luckily though, they allow an extra 1000 pounds. and i was only 700.