Swaybar Disconnects - Ford Raptor

[MagicMtnDan]

And it's hard to do that when they're all outside hugging trees :mrgreen:

 

[KaiserM715]

Nationwide indicates that it does not offer coverage on vehicles with any suspension alterations.

That makes no sense. Especially on some older cars, suspension modifications would make them handle better and therefore safer. Too bad things these days do not allow for common sense.

Regarding "suspensions", which is the category I think we can include the removal of a swaybar in, several states have no specific laws on the books regarding modifications. That would seem to support Mark's position. However, then you come to Colorado...

In Colorado, it is illegal to drive a vehicle with the front or rear suspension system altered or changed from the manufacturer's original design. Heavy duty springs and shock absorbers are allowed to be installed.

I don't know about you, but that right there is a show stopper. In no uncertain terms the law says you cannot alter or change the manufacturer's original design. If you do, you've *potentially* violated not just the general "unsafe" law all states seem to have, but you've definitely violated the state law that specifically says 'no'.

Not quite... As listed on the Liftlaws website, it states: "Note: This law was found to be unconstitutionally overboard (People vs. Von Tersch)."
Note: color and emphasis directly from website. Jason, was that not there when you quoted it?

 

[BigJ]

Good catch. I failed to make note of that when compiling the info.

However now that I'm looking, that ruling is definitely not a free license to remove your swaybar (for example). Here's a summary of what exactly People vs Von Tersch decided. It sure reads to me that this was a case based on the verbiage chosen for the code, not the constitutionality of modifying your suspension.

Governmental purpose may not be achieved by unnecessarily broad means. A governmental purpose to control or prevent certain activities, which may be constitutionally subject to state or municipal regulation under the police power, may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly. People v. Von Tersch, 180 Colo. 295, 505 P.2d 5 (1973).

And here's the current section, after having been amended (bolding emphasis added by me; I'm guessing this is what was added to make it constitutional again... can anyone confirm/refute that?) I'm guessing removing a swaybar is not a permitted alteration as established by the department of revenue.

42-4-233. Alteration of suspension system.

233. Alteration of suspension system.
(1) No person shall operate a motor vehicle of a type required to be registered under the
laws of this state upon a public highway with either the rear or front suspension system altered or
changed from the manufacturer's original design except in accordance with specifications
permitting such alteration established by the department of revenue. Nothing contained in this
section shall prevent the installation of manufactured heavy duty equipment to include shock
absorbers and overload springs, nor shall anything contained in this section prevent a person
from operating a motor vehicle on a public highway with normal wear of the suspension system
if normal wear shall not affect the control of the vehicle.

(2) This section shall not apply to motor vehicles designed or modified primarily for offhighway
racing purposes, and such motor vehicles may be lawfully towed on the highways of
this state.

Section 2 is interesting. Can you or me, average Joe's, be considered "designers" of our offhighway racing vehicles? And if yes, it sounds like we're only allowed to tow them anyway, not drive them.

But lets not get hung up on interpreting Colorado constitutional law. Not when there are other examples to point at...

How about New Jersey? Would a swaybar consist of a "basic element"?

Suspension systems must consist of the originally installed basic elements.

Or maybe Washington is the most poignant of all:

There are no specific suspension lift limits in Washington. Body lifts are allowed, but they cannot be home made. Anti-sway bars are mandatory.

PS: I sent those guys an email asking them to comment on swaybars specifically. Hopefully they'll respond soon.

 

[MarkT]

And yet, with the MILLIONS of vehicles on the road with modified suspensions not one confirmed case where someone had their insurance coverage denied for an accident after the fact solely because of the mods.

(I'd bet there are cases... but it certainly is not an epidemic (yet). Nor do I believe it would hold up in court.)

And exactly what does proof that in some states suspension mods are illegal have to do with the claim made that you will be left uninsured for an accident?? Speeding is illegal in every state... so does that mean your insurance won't have to pay the claim if an expert finds you were speeding?

If you buy into the idea that some expert might say your mods are "unsafe" and the result will be that your insurance won't cover a loss, why would the result be different if some expert said you were driving unsafely?

So are you going to get a letter from your insurance company stating you are covered if it is determined by an expert that you were driving unsafely? (Good luck with that one!)

Where I see a possible issue is in the area of fault determination. For example, some expert might make a case that you somehow contributed to the accident which otherwise was not your fault. This might reduce what you can collect. But the burden of proof is on them. How did that specific mod contribute to the accident? The last time I checked, in this country you are still innocent until proven guilty.

If you are at fault, you are at fault. It doesn't matter why. You lost control or made a mistake. Maybe you even broke the law. But that's what insurance is for. You could be cancelled afterwards if your state law allows it... but I believe the insurance will still be bound to pay the claim.

As far as the rest of the "what if's"??? All the "doom and gloom" thinking? Back it up with facts. Show me some statistics on what chances I have of an insurance company refusing to pay a claim because of a mod. Now compare that with the chance the insurance company might deny the claim for some other reason.. except fraud, misrepresentation, or flat out violating the terms of the policy.

The thing that bothers me the most about all this "doom and gloom" talk (besides that insurance claim denial has not been confirmed in even one case) is the result:

Many who have read this thread probably feels less free. Less free to mod their vehicle in a safe and responsible way for fear of the unknown. For fear of the "what might happens" that could very well be an insignificant risk in real life.

We don't need "them" to take away our freedom... we are doing it to ourselves.

 

[BigJ]

. Again, it's about choices.

I'm not afraid. I don't feel less free.

However I do feel more educated thanks to this thread. Understanding the potential ramifications of my actions helps me make more informed decisions.

And that knowledge keeps me from being a victim. That knowledge is power. And it's use? THAT is freedom.

YMMV

 

[MagicMtnDan]

Many who have read this thread probably feels less free. Less free to mod their vehicle in a safe and responsible way for fear of the unknown. For fear of the "what might happens" that could very well be an insignificant risk in real life.

We don't need "them" to take away our freedom... we are doing it to ourselves.

Mark, I like to try (try) and make things simple. And my simplistic take on this issue is this:

* Knowledge is power. We now have more information and we know more.

* There are often two ways to look at things: (1) Ignorance is bliss - what I don't know won't hurt me and if I find out I can ignore it by hiding my head in the sand or, (2) Knowledge is power - having the information I need to make an informed decision helps me make my life better.

* As in most cases I prefer to know more. I do now and I'm better off because of it.

I think we all are - we don't have to fear the unknown.

 

[MarkT]

Mark, I like to try (try) and make things simple. And my simplistic take on this issue is this:

* Knowledge is power. We now have more information and we know more.

* There are often two ways to look at things: (1) Ignorance is bliss - what I don't know won't hurt me and if I find out I can ignore it by hiding my head in the sand or, (2) Knowledge is power - having the information I need to make an informed decision helps me make my life better.

* As in most cases I prefer to know more. I do now and I'm better off because of it.

I think we all are - we don't have to fear the unknown.

I mostly agree.

J also said that knowledge keeps him from being a victim... except that there is a difference between factual knowledge and knowledge based mostly on fear (the boogeyman in the closet). And that has been the point of this discussion. Is the fear of having your insurance (or warranty) denied if you remove your sway bar based on verifiable fact? Or is it based on unverifiable fears?

We all have choices to make and I choose to not be a victim of the boogeyman.

 

[BigJ]

I mostly agree.

J also said that knowledge keeps him from being a victim... except that there is a difference between factual knowledge and knowledge based mostly on fear (the boogeyman in the closet). And that has been the point of this discussion. Is the fear of having your insurance (or warranty) denied if you remove your sway bar based on verifiable fact? Or is it based on unverifiable fears?

We all have choices to make and I choose to not be a victim of the boogeyman.

Mark, be fair. It is NOT fear to point an on-the-books 'code' and say "hey look at that; what you did violates code." Bottom line, that is not fear. Just as pointing at a speed limit sign, reading it and saying "hey look at that; the speed limit is 55mph here" is not fear. If you continue to describe it as fear, you have completely missed my point and I would ask that you reread this entire discussion in efforts to understand what I'm saying. I don't know how to be more clear; you are wrong and you have missed my point entirely if 'fear' continues to be your linchpin.

Fear, my friend, is sticking your head in the sand, pretending the code doesn't exist, that its your right to do what you please and pretending all will be ok... that is fear.

Speaking of which... Ya know, there's been something that's nagged me about your argument since the first. I couldn't put my finger on it, but there's something... and then Kaiser got me thinking about the constitutionality of these codes and it hits me. I think there's a fundamental flaw in your argument Mark, and it is this: your philosophical approach hinges on the assertion that 'driving is a right'. You seem to feel that we should do what we wish, and not fear 'the man' because we are exercising our rights. That, if we don't do these things, we are sacrificing our rights...

Driving is NOT a right, as defined by and within our national and state constitutions. Driving on public roads is a privilege to be earned and maintained. You have no right, in the sense you invoke the word, to be on the roads. You must earn the privilege to be there.

What's the difference? You have every right in the world to mod your truck. Do it! Remove whatever you want, add whatever you want. That is your right to modify your property. But when it comes to the privaledge of driving on roads we all pay for, nuhhuh. Obey the codes. The codes created by those we've chosen to best represent our mutual interests when it comes to safety and organization. Don't want to follow the codes? No problem! Exercise your right to NOT do so... but then also don't be surprised if/when the privilege of driving that modified rig on public roads is taken away, and/or when you're made to pay because you exercised your freedom by not following the code.

See the difference? Its a key thing that cuts at the heart of why I think you're wrong.

 

[MagicMtnDan]

I can ignore it by hiding my head in the sand

Fear, my friend, is sticking your head in the sand, pretending the code doesn't exist

What's all this talk about hiding your head in the sand? Aren't we supposed to be flying over it?!

 

[BigJ]

Hey... fellers?... I know you're trying to be funny and all, and keep things light and all, but enough is enough, eh? Derailing as you guys are is actually against one of our rules, so please chill with it. Thanks.

Derailing a topic and/or trying to get a topic closed is prohibited. This is just bad form. Don't do it.