[digitalPhonix]

The loophole is to classify them as “light” commercial vehicles.

I’m fine with that if US regulation was consistent with that commercial classification and they required a CDL to drive (and all the associated annual medical checks and zero BAC etc.)

If that consistency was there every manufacturer would immediately drop the commercial classification and figure out how to make their trucks satisfy the passenger classification in FMVSS.

[linksnapzz]

>The loophole is to classify them as “light” commercial vehicles.

Not a loophole. There are (broadly) eight different FMCSA classifications; and a CDL is usually required only when the GVWR is at or over ...26,000lbs. Everything below that is medium or light duty. Heavy-duty is the upper end of class 6 (think school busses), class 7 ( garbage trucks & cement mixers ) and class 8 (18-wheel semis).

[digitalPhonix]

I know all that (I have a class A). That’s why I am calling out the inconsistency as a loophole.

One part of the regulatory/legislative system allows a vehicle to be classified as commercial (to get the benefits of looser regulation) but another part does not consider it a commercial vehicle (and it benefits from the looser regulations of a passenger vehicle).

[linksnapzz]

Ah, I see.

Yes, there's too much ambiguity in the adjective 'commercial' used in multiple contexts in legislation.