If they enforced that then they couldn't mow down homeless people off duty in their big personal vehicles

No

No but they do set fire to the personal property of those less fortunate.

Can you elaborate?

Look for the thread in this sub. Sheriff Arnott enforced the state anti-homelessness law by kicking some folks off private land and then allowed a property owner (or maybe even members of his own department) to destroy personal property belonging to the homeless individuals.

Lol, next you'll want them to crack down on expired/non existent tags.

I saw that but didn’t see any mention of an off duty officer hitting and killing a pedestrian. I would not be surprised, though.

I haven’t heard anything about that. I just assumed it was sarcasm tinged in truth related to Arnott and the homeless incident.

One is a safety issue the other is not. I'd expect them to prioritize getting unsafe vehicles off the road before revenue infractions.

From reading the statute it makes it seem that this is a problem that should be solved at inspection stations. There doesn’t seem to be any sort of enforcement besides saying that it won’t pass inspection.

If the police were to start enforcing stuff, I personally would prefer they start enforcing traffic signals. I’ve seen significantly more wrecks and injuries from people running reds than pickups high bumpers causing damage/harm. Granted, it’s be nice if lots of things were enforced, but the longer I live here it seems that less and less is happening.

Please. Clearly they’re too busy attending right-wing “conferences” and setting homeless camps on fire to worry about pesky things like safety.

Similar language is in the statute for broken headlights/rear lights as well but the police ticket for them all the time. And yes, it would be nice if they policed the traffic signals better.

Yes, because what we need is more law enforcement and more useless/victimless laws to extort citizens with…

Found the guy with the jacked up truck, truck nuts, and aggressive bumper stickers.

First of all it is NOT victimless/useless. It is a significant safety concern. The higher the bumper is on a vehicle the more likely it is to cause major harm to the other's occupants.

Second it is not extortion to enforce safety rules. Do you believe it is extortion to enforce stop signs, one way streets, working headlights, and other safety requirements?

And finally, you do know the reason for this specific regulation and the history behind it? You do know that back in the day it was not regulated and after several horrific accidents we the people added this rule for a very good reason.

Ironically no, you found the guy that commutes by bicycle 😂😂😂

Yes. It’s extortion. Of all the car accidents I’ve worked in a 7yr and going career of fire/ems around here guess how many have been caused by a truck over 22”?

Caused has NOTHING to with it. Simply being in one is enough. We regulate vehicles for safety of everyone. Even those who fail to yield and cause an accident.

[removed]

Evidence for your assertation is not evident, kindly cite.

Where's your evidence of your assumptions towards the OP you replied to? That was the whole point of the response, to demonstrate why you shouldn't make such baseless assumptions on others just because you didn't like their response.

[removed]

How does this situation create harm?

High bumpers do disproportionately more damage and cause more severe injuries than standard height ones. Studies were done, tests were made, and measurements taken. Regulations were set off of the results of these. And are in fact a bit higher than what was recommended.

[deleted]