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.
WHOA. My words are getting twisted around.
To be crystal clear... I agree with all that has been said about code and law violations if they apply to you and where you live. Those are things that I don't ignore nor have I recommended anyone ignore.
I also agree with the "privilege and not a right" statements.
But let me remind everyone that what started this was a statement on another thread was not about code violations... or law violations... the statement was about "insurance issues" and "losing your warranty" if you removed your sway bar. Statements that instill real fear (or should).
These fear-inducing statements are not the same as pointing out
factual "legalities" of a mod. Where are the facts and statistics that prove you have a substantial chance of being left uninsured? And the fear presented is not minor like "getting a ticket"... claims have been made that a mod could threaten your livelihood and ruin your life!
Yet even though MILLIONS of vehicles have suspension mods, no substantial and verifiable proof of someone actually finding themselves uninsured has been presented in this thread. I agree it is a possibility. What I don't agree with, after a lot of research, after reading all of the posts here, and after speaking to my insurance agent, is that it is a significant risk.
Statements have been made that an "expert" might find something you did "unsafe" or heaven forbid, illegal. It was stated that if that happened, you're screwed. No insurance. Your life as you know it is over. It will be a catastrophic event you may never recover from. (that's some serious ****!)
My logic dictates that if an insurance company could leave you uninsured for an "unsafe act" or "code violation" or "breaking the law", then the insurance company would leave nearly every driver who was at fault in an accident without insurance coverage! (Perhaps this is why you falsely believe I support ignoring the law or violating code?)
And I've said that you need to check your policy and with your agent... are mods prohibited by the agreement? And never commit "material misrepresentation" as that is almost a guarantee you could be cancelled.
So why am I the "bad guy"? Some of the comments directed at me are bordering on personal attacks... what happened to "debate the topic, not the poster"?? (I'm afraid I've struck a nerve.)
Because I said being denied insurance coverage for a mod is nothing more than the "boogeyman" in my book?
Twist my words. Accuse me of things I didn't say and don't believe. My opinion has not changed. Not doing a mod you are considering without any proof that you could be denied insurance coverage is the same as being afraid of the boogeyman hiding under the bed. The fear might be real, but the actual danger isn't.
And living in fear of the boogeyman is not
my idea of freedom, my friend.
Nor is my idea of freedom "asking permission" from my insurance company to do something that I don't believe is unsafe, wrong, against any law or code, or in violation of my agreement with them.
I have not taken the claims made lightly. I have done my research. I have asked repeatedly for proof of the claims. And in the end I have made a concious and educated choice to not be afraid of the boogeyman. Which is not the same thing as saying I'm OK with breaking the law or that I'm sticking my head in the sand.
(If this was about "do not call" lists for cellphones instead of insurance loss for a mod, I would expect to see it on Snopes. Seriously. I'm afraid a bunch or well-meaning people have been sucked into repeating a rumor... probably based on an incident... but something that has not been shown to be a significant risk.)
)
