[davidbanham]

Definitions are hard. By that wording, any Land Cruiser outside the 70 series is forbidden because they're a full time 4WD. Nobody will argue that an 80, 100 or 200 series cruiser isn't a very capable 4WD.

I don't begrudge the parks people that wrote the regulation, though. Fundamentally what they're trying to say is just "Don't be dumb, only drive the trails in a vehicle that you know is capable, and if you don't have the experience to know that you have your answer".

The job of the regulation is to give them the ability to deliver an enforcement action where it's warranted. The job of the rangers is to use their judgement in a given situation, and either pull someone up or just wave hello. That's what's happened here, the system works.

[nofunsir]

I begrudge them. The law can simply say what you paraphrased and not try to get into nitty gritty, and leave it at good ol common sense. It's funny how when we interpret laws, they stop at what THEY consider common sense and not at the level that EVERYONE considers common sense. What I mean by that is, say you try to argue (for whatever reason) that your vehicle DOES meet the definition that was oh-so-difficult to write (Won't someone think of the law clerks?), they clearly have a conclusion already in their mind that they are so benevolently protecting us from, and YOU VIOLATED IT, YOU FIEND. But say you get up on the stand and try to argue the exact circumstances of your vehicle, you had a record of every bump and balance point, an IMS log, and a log PROVING the wheels never once slipped, even though you "DIDN'T HAVE 4WD". You could go as far as you want proving them wrong. In the end they'll just tell you to stop trying to be so pedantic and proclaim you guilty.