*1 (Nos. 87147, 87148, 87149, 87150 cons.
THE PEOPLE OF THE ILLINOIS, STATE OF Appel-
lant, v. DANIEL J. CONLAN. —THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, v. RICK C. Appellant, SCOTT. —THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IL- LINOIS, v. STEPHEN M. Appellant, MAIERS.— THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Ap- v. pellant, ROBERT T. WITTMAN. February
Opinion 2000. filed *2 (Joel General, Ryan, Attorney Springfield E. of James Bertocchi, General, D. and William L. Browers Solicitor General, Attorneys of Zavett, and Rebecca Assistant student), counsel, Jay Dahlin, law for E Chicago, the People. appellees.
No appearance opinion delivered the CHIEF JUSTICE HARRISON of the court: constitu
At issue in these consolidated cases the the Illinois Vehicle Code tionality section 15—111 of (Code) (625 (West 1998)), a statute ILCS 5/15 —111 operating upon and loads of vehicles regulating weights question in come before highways. Illinois The six cases County the court of Jo Daviess this court from circuit them, holding judge where an associate circuit dismissed due the violates process that section 15—111 of Code pursuant The for vagueness. appeals is void State 603). (134 reverse Rule Ill. 2d R. We Court Supreme and remand. rulings in court’s which culminated the
The events 2, 1997, defendant Robert Witt- began on October when man was a traffic issued ticket in Jo County, Daviess Il- linois, for allegedly operating a truck a gross 6,320 pounds in excess of the maximum weight allowed by charge section 15 —111 against Code. de- fendant was dismissed after bench trial conducted on 12, 1998, May finding the trial court that statute was void for vagueness and violated guarantees fundamental process. due As both by noted the circuit court State, that decision was not and is appealed not before However, this court for review. the circuit court chose to make the transcript that abbreviated bench trial a part subsequent rulings and, other cases alone, sense it is a of the record part cases now before us. Wittman, truck,
Defendant driving same was 111(f) thereafter ticketed for violations of section 15 — 9, 1997, 12, 1997, Code on October December dates, November On 1998. those truck was al- his leged overweight have been pounds, pounds and Those three pounds, respectively. cases come before us case No. 87150.
Defendant Daniel J. a Conlan was ticketed for viola- 111(f) tion of section while driving aforemen- 15 — tioned truck on January 1, 1998. The truck was allegedly in pounds legal excess of limits. That case comes before us as case No. 87147.
Defendant Stephen driving M. Maiers was the truck in 29, 1998, on March he question charged when was operating at a weight 3,500 in pounds by excess the maximum allowed 15— section 111(f). case That comes before this court as case No. 87149.
Finally, defendant Rick C. on charged Scott was May 19, 1998, operation truck which was different in excess of the limitation set forth 111(f). in section That case before us as case No. 15 — 87148. first cases involv- that the two indicate
Docket entries against defendants Wittman, and the cases ing defendant Maiers, proceedings” for “further were set Conlan and entered summary to a order According 1998. May on oral each defendant’s date, granted court that the circuit dismiss, ruling prior the court’s upon to based motion original Wittman case. findings that motions to reconsider The State filed of the re- and dismissal the statute is unconstitutional defendant Scott had meantime, In the spective charges. matters were charge. motion to dismiss his Those filed a Witt- January 6, 1999, when defendant still pending trial. final came the court for bench man’s case before testified that trial, Lowary Michael Trooper At that Transportation employees he Department and two County in Jo Daviess portable were scales operating he vehicle which 19, 1998, when observed a November to be significant bulge appeared of its tires had a truck, tanker de- overweight. operated five-axle Wittman, weighed on the porta- fendant was stopped weighed ble Individual axles were the results scales. together gross weight were added to determine the weight, included the ve- loaded vehicle. The which hauled, hicle, being and the load was found to driver testimony is some- Although Lowary’s be pounds. to a he referred places, what difficult follow because of the record on part ap- not made diagram which was it he then measured the distance be- peal, appears rear) (front That axles the vehicle. tween extreme length, which feet, 9 inches distance measured (thus feet) pursu- foot Lowary rounded to nearest Apparently, Lowary ant to the directive the statute. certain inner axles between also measured the distance carried over being if an load was determine excessive axles, i.e., bridge an inner violation. and between those *4 no individual axle testified there was violation of Lowary load limitations and no “inner bridge violation”; however, he weight calculated the gross vehicle, of the with its load, to be legal in excess of the limit as set 111(f) forth in a table section of the Code. Accord- 15— ing to Lowary, applicable provides table that a vehi- cle length, axles, 26 feet in with four can have a maximum stated, He pounds. “Illinois *** law does permit the tabulation of five axles single testified, in vehicles.” He single case vehi- cle, as opposed vehicles operated combination, maximum gross limit on the calculated basis vehicle, a four-axle irrespective additional axles the vehicle. Lowary’s After testimony, adjourned the court January 14, until 1999. resumed, Wittman,
When court defendant who represented trial, himself throughout testified in his own behalf to his efforts to with the his comply law and axles,” belief that representing his “turnable the “new- est do less technology,” damage to the road than older axles. cross-examination, Under defendant admitted that he driving truck, was a “straight” combination, not a that his vehicle was feet long weighed 67,550 pounds, that his vehicle was he overweight, although disputed the extent to which that was true. He noted that his individual axles were all under allowable limits he maintained that not damaging highway. was At the conclusion of testimony, defendant’s the court took the matter under advisement. 27, 1999,
On January the circuit court entered an or- denying der the State’s motion to reconsider disposition of the four cases previously dismissing dismissed de- remaining fendant Wittman’s case and that of defendant Scott. The court held section 15—111 of the Code constitutionally “infirm in all of its applications,” viola- tive of due process vagueness.” and “void for The court found “several significant and substantial im- problems mediately We from the apparent.” quote court’s order:
291 The under of it. section is the sheer volume “There small pages, columns of of three double scrutiny consists *** volume. Bar Association in the official State print beginning to theme from tone or There is not a consistent There use of defined terms. not a There is consistent end. definition, of most variety terms without of a of is use {e.g. understanding beyond ordinary which are terms loads’). loads’, is loads’, and ‘allowable There ‘wheel ‘axle formula, and there are algebraic reference to at least one lim- specifyweight purporting to two ‘tabular form’ charts replete The text is certain circumstances. itations under thats’ ***.” exceptions ‘provided and with the of circuit court that statute opinion It was warning prohibited. of the conduct did not fair provide ways the different The was also troubled judge statute, offending an could violate which felt accorded the undue apparently police which he found The circuit court charging an offense. discretion mystery,” and was “bridge “particular method” a “gross calculation of a vehicle’s uncertain whether occupants other weight” included driver that the stat- the vehicle. The court concluded the cab of ordinary clearly by persons “cannot be understood ute it intelligence,” and was thus unconstitutional. case, in each timely appeal
The filed notice State to the pursuant and we consolidated the cases review brief; a defendants State’s motion. State has filed filed they neither entered nor have appearances have de holding briefs. We review nova circuit court’s v. constitutionality a statute. Russell respect Resources, 434, 183 2d 441 Natural Ill. Department of (1998). outset, recently we as we emphasize,
At the wish to 281, (1998), 2d that 184 Ill. 285 People Every, did v. constitutionality. While enjoy presumption statutes unassailable, nei certainly they not mean are does un- declare lightly cavalierly circuit courts ther should representatives constitutional that which the of the people fit have seen to enact. satisfy principles
In order to constitutional of due process, give person ordinary a statute must intel ligence opportunity a reasonable to know what prohibited, accordingly, provide so that he act explicit police judges standards for officers, those juries apply prevent arbitrary who it in order discriminating Grayned City enforcement. v. Rockford, 104, 108, U.S. 222, 227, L. Ed. 2d 92 S. Ct. (1972); Russell, 2298-99 Where, 183 Ill. at 442. 2d implicated, here, no first amendment concern is there is *6 right challenge being vague no to the statute as on its clearly applies if face it to Russell, defendants’ conduct. 183 Ill. at Thus, 2d 442. the issue is whether section unconstitutionally vague ap 15—110 Code is as plied to the conduct for which these defendants were prosecuted. People Jihan, See v. 379, 127 2d Ill. 385 (1989);Russell, 2d 183 Ill. at 442. We hold that it is not. complained
The circuit court first that the “sheer volume” of the statute was one of the factors which unconstitutionally vague. it rendered The court also many exceptions “provided believed it contained too authority thats.” We are of no aware case would which Many authorize invalidation aof statute on those bases. regulations necessarily lengthy statutes and are replete exceptions they and conditions because ad complexity. dress diverse matters of considerable live We society. complex reality in a That is in reflected the his tory very question, undergone of the statute in which has change application substantial since this court held of a (see prior, simpler People version constitutional (1967); Hinchey, 410, v. 37 Ill. 2d Ill. Rev.Stat. 228), par. judge 951/2, ch. decision to which the instant exception. took also The “sheer volume” of the statute may exceptions read, indeed make it tedious to follow, it is it to but render more laborious therein according pref- our statute not role to rewrite the our whether the statute is before is erences. The issue us comprehensible provides it fair notice what such that perused Having thoroughly prohibited. statute, we is, it and it does. find that objectionable it what next found
The circuit court perceived “tone” or “theme” a lack of consistent as Although court’s concern with the statute. circuit certainly legal notion, believe tone is a novel we statute’s relegated to the be better such an observation would literary place criticism, it has no this realm of statute, theme of the we believe context. As intelligence readily recognize ordinary person of would regulates “wheel it and axle loads and weights.” simply has to read section One the seven-word title. professed
The circuit court also its belief that “a consistent use of defined terms” and statute lacks variety definition, most of which uses “a terms without ordinary understanding.” beyond terms Our review are terminology of the statute does reveal inconsistent meaning are or the terms which without definition which cannot be discerned from their context. anyone attempts in earnest
We believe who fully comprehend can its terms understand the statute importantly, prohibited. *7 and, more is understand what simplify summarize Tables set forth in the statute ready providing guide text, in certain matters addressed specific application for in situations. We see these tables understanding significant the statute as a aid in what comprehension, prohibits, as the not a hindrance to algebraic suggests. formula forth in circuit court The set “bridge” apparently the formula statute, which actually confusing ill-defined, is circuit court found (f) expressed in of the statute in tabular form subsection to accommodate those who are not mathematically inclined. Of the terms which the highlighted circuit court in its as problematic, order “axle is load” in fact defined in the last sentence of the first full of the 1996 paragraph (West 111(a) version of the statute. ILCS 5/15 — 1996). In 1998, the definition was moved and now ap- (625 pears in section 1—105.6 of the Code ILCS 5/1— (West 1998)) 105.6 general with other definitions. The (625 (West of “gross weight” definitions ILCS 5/1 —125 1998)) (625 (West and “tandem axles” ILCS 5/1 —204.3 1998)) part also in that appear the Code. The term load,” defined, “wheel while not specifically in fact is ad- 111(a) (625 dressed in third sentence of section 15 — (West 111(a) 1998)). ILCS 5/15 — the term Finally, “allowable im- load” is used (f). mediately preceding the table of subsection in Read context, there can be no in ambiguity its The meaning. circuit suggested court the term might refer to load, weight the vehicle is cargo, carrying, or the load of vehicle on cargo Clearly, the road surface. the term in used the statute synonymously “gross weight.” (f) The last sentence of the first of subsection paragraph prohibits weights any on pounds excess one or 34,000 axle, axle pounds any tandem then proceeds “a prohibit gross weight excess of more, combinations axles or or a of 2 or more consecutive axles in group excess produced by of the application follow- ing formula.” algebraic “bridge” The formula follows. Then, immediately preceding the table expressing formula, the statute “The provides, above formula when allowable loads in tabular form expressed results added.) formula, follows.” (Emphasis which ex- presses permissible “gross weights,” applicable vehicle, set of consecutive axles on the also “al- expresses lowable loads” for those consecutive axles. The terms are *8 For another interchangeably. in this context used weight” of “gross maximum note that the example, we text, as the appears in referenced pounds, in three of load” [allowable] “maximum table. different columns in the every term analysis need not conduct an We here only are concerned previously; As noted we statute. defendants, to these due notice provided that the statute ex- warning prohibited, of what is them fair giving The engaged for those enforcement. standards plicit test. that clearly passes statute (f) 15—111 its terms applies of section Subsection of Interstate and Defense System National to “the system in the State highways and other Highways designated by Department have highways that been 1998). 111(f) (West I, II, or III.” 625 ILCS as Class 5/15 — County, has been through Route Jo Daviess U.S. Thus, highway. weight II restric- designated a Class (f) defendants, all whom apply tions of subsection they were traveling highway stopped when were ticketed. against defen-
Although charges two of the —those designated “bridge” as dants Maiers Scott —were as violations, remaining were written and the tickets charges alleged “gross” weight violations, all were 111(f) In a Code. as infractions section 15— they allege “bridge” violations because sense, charge all load, certain or over an area weight, spanning excessive vehicle, axles on a front axles. If the extreme consecutive considered, and the total rear, are being limits, weight violation load exceeds allowable If, sense. other has occurred the traditional in- hand, or load exists over consecutive excessive “in- referred to as an axles, ner then what is apparently dif- ner occurred. These semantic bridge” violation has for present purposes. are not important ferences (f) table subsection of section 15 —111 sets forth or weights allowable loads which “carried be *** group of 2 or axles,” more consecutive calculated against the “distance measured to the nearest *9 foot between of any extremes of 2 or group more consec- 111(1) (West 1998). utive axles.” 625 ILCS Regard- 5/15 — less of how the violation designated ticket, was on the “gross” or it “bridge,” that appears the officer in each instance totaled the of all weight axles, in taking essence into consideration between the vehicle’s axles, extreme measured the distance between those axles, and applied figures the relevant in the table to determine if the vehicle overweight, was taking into ac- count the statute’s admonishment the table should be to a applied single vehicle with than more four axles if 111(f) as it were a four-axle vehicle. 625 ILCS 5/15 — (West 1998).
Thus, pursuant to the table applied, as vehicle such as the five-axle truck tanker at issue in five of these six cases, which not a was combination which measured axles, feet extreme between should have been allowed or “load in 59,500. That pounds” figure is the which in fact was to the vehicle in applied each case. The truck defendant driving allegedly Scott was measured feet between and weighed axles pounds. Accord- ing table, to the the allowable load would have been Thus, pounds. defendant Scott charged is exceeding by allowable load pounds.
We find that the statute is not as vague tó applied these defendants. A person ordinary intelligence has a reasonable to know opportunity what is Nor prohibited. does to arbitrary the statute lend itself enforcement police. statute clear provides standards for statute, enforcement. The applied, violates no constitu- tional principles. stated,
For the reasons the judgment circuit is and the cause County is reversed Jo Daviess court of for further proceedings. to that court remanded
Reversed and remanded. HEIPLE, dissenting: JUSTICE prose- concerns the group consolidated cases This in driving overweight trucks cution óf defendants (West ILCS of Illinois statute. 625 violation 5/15 —111 1998). the same All one of six cases involves but in the milk-hauling That truck based truck. truck was a milk farm- up dairy which raw from picks State of Iowa Illinois, it to County, transports ers Jo Daviess processing. Iowa for the statute ques-
The issue this case whether ordinary by person vague indecipherable tion is judge, The trial unconstitutional. intelligence thus On Judge ruled that such was the case. Sprengelmeyer, statute, court, that the majority to our appeal opines though clear Judge Sprengelmeyer, unclear to should be *10 that, I ordinary intelligence. of With person respect- to ordinary of intel- fully disagree. people So that other I publish can form their own that stat- ligence opinions, This creation ute as an to this dissent. tortuous appendix on for several without legislature goes pages of the by algebraic save such as be afforded respite formulae and tables. cryptic out in his Judge pointed
Certainly, Sprengelmeyer of legitimacy no one the questions trial court opinion, The with weights highways. problem truck regulating statute, however, is that it vagueness subjects of police to at the whim the prosecution citizens selective of warning to fair prosecutors. Citizens are entitled 408 U.S. City Rockford, v. prohibited. Grayned what is of 2294, 104, 108, 222, 227, L. 2d 92 S. Ct. 2298-99 Ed. (1972). statute, to of the language his attention the
Directing stated: Judge opinion Sprengelmeyer’s “Turning analysis language to of itself, the of the statute significant there are several and substantial problems im- *** mediately apparent. There is the sheer volume of it. There is not consistent of use defined terms. There is use variety of a definition, terms without most of which are beyond ordinary terms understanding ***. There is refer- ence to algebraic formula, at least one and there are two ‘tabular form’ charts purporting specify weight limita- tions under certain replete circumstances. The text is with exceptions thats’, and ‘provided reading such that no any the part whole or of this section can leave a reasonable person any single conclusion that ‘At least this much ” is true:...’ testimony
“The
from all witnesses from both cases for
which there
been
has
trial better
hopeless
illustrates
the
language generates
confusion this
adjectives
than
this
***
apply.
Court
While the
Defen-
could
confusion
this
dant,
police
attorneys,
these
and these
and at least this one
Judge
certainly
[sic]
are
not determinative
important
questions,
Constitutional
the record here demonstrates
people
of ordinary intelligence and common under-
standing have
opportunity
no reasonable
to appreciate in
prohibited by
advance what is
this
text.
statute does
provide
warning.”
fair
“Can the statute be deemed to be infirm in
of its ap-
all
plications
[Village
to meet
test from
Estates
of Hoffman
Estates, Inc.,
489,
v. Flipside,
455 U.S.
71 L. Ed.
Hoffman
(1982)],
2d
“From language the statute itself and from the records cases, of these we can conclude with degree a fair that each wheel means certainty that the ‘axle’ method weighed be the is to separate to axle on vehicle connected ‘gross’ the may fairly conclude Likewise, one separately. vehicle, including or pay the load entire means the method (Whether any other the driver and cargo, weighed. to be is gross count this occupants of the cab of the vehicle clear.) method is a ‘bridge’ The or weight is so third mystery, simply method cannot and what this is particular by reading the statute or from the either be determined Some testimony in both of these trials. confusing set out the from the stat- suggest it is a method which formula (LN (W divided equals is 500 times the sum of applied ute - 1) 36). (625 111(f).) statute, + by N + ILCS N 5/15 — bridge ‘... (g) speaks separate limitations for subsection be- the vehicle is or elevated structure....’ which other weight of a vehicle as ing operated. Yet others discuss the vehicle, or of axles on the ‘bridge’ distributed across the the itself. It parts some other of the structure of really knows what the seems to this court that no one is, charge computed, or how it is be but ‘bridge’ important significant of all this is that the selec- fact admittedly yields or formula to be used tion of method different results!” Judge Sprengel- chides majority opinion
While analysis for his own meyer problem, discussion of its no of the statute. The light understanding adds respect separate statute for itself. In those speaks Accordingly, agree Judge I with analyses, Sprengelmeyer. I dissent. respectfully
APPENDIX gross weights, § 15 —111. and axle Wheel loads (a) of vehicles equipped No vehicle combination with tires be unladen or pneumatic operated, shall State when the load, upon highways this axle through any single the road surface a different thereof when pounds, except exceeds with Sec- limit accordance posted established motor any single axle axle except tion 15 —316 and *12 300 weighing 36,000
vehicle pounds or and not part less a of a combination vehicles, 20,000 shall not exceed pounds. Provided, however, any single axle a 2 axle motor with a equipped personnel lift or digger derrick, 36,000 weighing pounds less, or owned and operated by a public utility, 20,000 shall not exceed pounds. No vehicle or combination of vehicles with equipped other than pneumatic tires shall be unladen operated, load, or with upon highways of this State when the gross weight on the road surface through any wheel thereof exceeds pounds 800 inch per width of tire gross tread or when the weight on the road through any surface axle thereof 16,000 exceeds pounds. weight transmitted the road through surface tandem shall axles not exceed pounds no axle the series shall exceed the maximum weight permitted under this Section for a single axle. a Provided that on 4 axle 5 vehicle or on a or more axle combination of on weight vehicles a series of 3 axles whose centers are 96 apart, more than inches measured series, between extreme axles shall not exceed those on allowed 3 axles in the table contained in (f) subsection of this Section and no axle or tandem axle of the series shall exceed maximum permitted single under this Section a for or tandem axle. Provided also that 3 axle vehicle 3or axle truck registered mixer Vehicle, as a Special Hauling exclusively used for the mixing and transportation concrete, specially equipped with a road surface mixer engaging trailing axle, 4th manufactured to or in the model prior year of 2004 and registered 1, first in Illinois prior January 2005, awith greater distance than 72 inches but not more than 96 inches between 2 series of axles transmit to the road surface maximum
each of these axles gross weight these axles not to exceed Any such vehicle manufac- pounds. in the tured model of 2004 or or year thereafter first may trans- after December in Illinois registered 32,000 pounds a maximum mit road surface to the exceed of the axles shall 2 axles and none these through pounds. 18.000 specially equipped truck,
A not in combination roll-off hoist and or an industrial selfcompactor, awith container, garbage for refuse exclusively used roll-off exclusively the collection and a truck used operations, however, laden, trans- may, when rendering materials except when any highway mit the road surface of upon *13 Defense Interstate System the National part of single axle not more gross weight upon Highways, tandem not more upon axle 22,000 pounds, than unladen, however, those 40,000 pounds. than When applicable the axle limitations comply shall trucks all other trucks. loading A truck with a front equipped 2 axle specially refuse, exclusively garbage, used compactor 20,000 axle per provided transmit recycling of the vehicle does not exceed gross weight pounds. 40.000
(b) gross weight of vehicles combination of or combina- of the vehicle including vehicles subject forego- load shall be to the tion and its maximum following and further shall not exceed the ing limitations axles the number of gross weights upon dependent the vehicle or combina- distance between extreme axles of the nearest foot. longitudinally tion measured AXLES............36,000 pounds 2 VEHICLES HAVING 302 OR
VEHICLES COMBINATIONS HAVING 3 AXLES WithTandemAxles orWith Without TandemAxles Minimumdistance MaximumGross Minimumdistance MaximumGross Weight(pounds) Weight to nearestfoot betweenextreme axles nearest (pounds) to betweenextreme axles foot 41,000 46,000 10feet feet 16 42,000 47,000 11 17 43,000 47,500 12 18 44,000 48,000 13 19 44,500 49,000 14 20 45,000 50,000 15 feetor 21 more OR VEHICLES COMBINATIONS 4 HAVING AXLES Minimumdistance Gross Maximum Minimumdistance MaximumGross Weight(pounds) to nearest Weight(pounds) foot to nearestfoot betweenextreme betweenextreme axles axles 50,000 57,500 15feet feet 26 50,500 58,000 16 27 51,500 17 *14 52,500 60,000
19 30 53,500 60,500 20 31 54,000 61,500 21 32 54,500 62,000 22 33 55,500 62,500 23 34 56,000 63,500 24 35 56,500 64,000 25 36 feetor more more than having a vehicle above table to In applying combination, axles shall be only 4 axles that gross weights. maximum determining considered 5 OR MORE AXLES COMBINATIONS HAVING Weight Maximum Gross to nearest Minimum distance (pounds) extreme axles foot between 72,000 42 feet or less 73,000 44 feet or more OPERATING ON CRAWLER
VEHICLES TYPE TRACKS ........................................ EQUIPPED SELFCOMPACTORS OR
TRUCKS WITH FOR ROLL-OFF HOISTS AND ROLL-OFF CONTAINERS OR REFUSE HAULS ONLYAND TRUCKS GARBAGE USED FOR THE COLLECTION OF RENDERING
MATERIALS Part of Interstate Highway System On Not of National Highways Defense 36,000 pounds 2 axles 54,000 pounds with 3 axles A EQUIPPED AXLE WITH FRONT TWO TRUCKS USED EXCLUSIVELYFOR LOADING COMPACTOR REFUSE, GARBAGE, OR THE OF COLLECTION RECYCLING 40,000 pounds with 2 axles (c) than having a more Cities population 2 axle motor by ordinance axle loads may permit herein, above those but provided vehicles 331/2% city has of- effective until increase shall not become of the ficially passage Department notified *15 ordinance shall not apply to those vehicles when outside the of limits of the shall city, nor the gross weight 2 axle any motor vehicle operating any over street of the city exceed pounds.
(d) Weight limitations shall not apply vehicles loads) (including a operated by public utility when transporting equipment required emergency repair of public utility or or properties facilities water wells.
A vehicles, combination including a truck tow a disabled vehicle vehicles, or disabled combination that exceeds the weight imposed Code, restriction this by a . operated public be highway this State provided neither the disabled vehicle nor vehi- cle towed being nor the tow truck itself exceed shall the weight limitations under this permitted During Chapter. towing the operation, neither the tow truck nor the vehi- cle combination shall exceed the axle following weight limitations: axle;
A. pounds Single rear — 44,000 pounds axle; B. rear —Tandem weight Gross limits shall apply not to the combina- tion of the tow truck and being vehicles towed. The tow truck license must plate cover the operating empty the weight only. tow truck of each vehicle shall being by towed be covered valid license plate is- sued to the owner the operator being or vehicle towed If no displayed that vehicle. valid issued to plate the or owner of that operator vehicle is on that displayed vehicle, the plate displayed or on that does vehicle cover vehicle, of the weight of vehicle shall be covered the third tow truck issued to plate operator owner the tow truck and temporarily addition, being affixed to vehicle In towed. fol- lowing conditions must be met:
(1) the towing vehicle must be: specifically designed having
a. as a tow truck weight rating vehicle at least lbs. provided air that air brakes equipped towing required only if the shall brakes be semitrailer, towing vehicle, or tractor-trailer *16 airbrakes; equipped with combination that flashing, rotating oscillating or equipped b. with in all lights, least feet amber visible at directions; and utilizing lighting braking capable
c. of the of systems of the disabled vehicle or combination vehicles.
(2) towing highways of on the of this The the vehicles point initial of miles from the State exceed 20 shall the Any additional movement of wreck or disablement. only upon issuance of authorization for vehicles shall occur provisions the of Sections 15—301 that movement under Chapter. of through 15—319 this or by regulation prescribe rule may Department However, in nothing Code requirements. additional this of a prohibit police shall a truck under instructions tow vehicle, that legally officer from a disabled clearing in from weight Chapter, be violation of limitations of this roadway highway. to the berm or shoulder of the subsection, gross
For the this vehicle purpose of GVWR, or value weight rating, shall mean the specified of by weight manufacturer as the loaded the tow truck.
(e) or equipped No vehicle combination of vehicles pneumatic with tires unladen or with operated, shall be load, in upon the of this State violation of highways of provisions any permit provisions of issued under the 15—301 of this through Chapter. Sections 15—319 (f) Code, provision other in this Notwithstanding any (d) of for those of subsection this Sec- except provisions tion of relating emergency operations public utilities engaged and tow in the of actually towing trucks while vehicle, disabled for which the Depart- those vehicles overweight authority ment of Sec- issues under permits Code, weight tion of this limitations con- 15—301 tained in this apply subsection shall National of System Interstate Highways Defense and other in the highways system highways State have that been designated by the Department I, II, as Class or III. No be on operated shall highways weight excess pounds carried one axle or any with a tandem axle pounds, excess or gross weight excess of for vehicle more, combinations 5 axles or or a gross weight on a 2of group more consecutive axles in excess by the produced application the following formula: = (LN N-l)
W 500 times the sum divided + 2N +36 equals gross weight Where “W” overall group of 2 or more consecutive axles to pounds; the nearest 500 *17 “L” the distance to equals measured the nearest foot be- tween extremes 2 any or group of more consecutive axles; and “N” equals number of in the axles group under consideration, 2 except consecutive sets of may carry tandem axles load 34,000 pounds each, provided the overall distance between the first and last axles the consecutive sets of tandem axles is 36 feet or more. also registered Provided that a 3-axle vehicle as a Special Hauling Vehicle manufactured to or in prior year the model registered and first Illinois prior 1, 2005, January with a than 72 greater distance inches but not more than 96 the 2 inches between rear axles transmit to the road surface a maximum 18,000 weight of on each of the 2 rear axles a gross weight 36,000 2 these axles exceed pounds. Any registered a Special Hauling Vehi- cle manufactured to or in model of 2004 prior year or thereafter first in Illinois registered after December 31, 2004, may to the transmit road surface a maximum neither 2 rear axles and 34,000 pounds through 20,000 pounds. shall exceed the rear axles form in tabular expressed when formula above loads as follows: in allowable results Distancemeasured to foot thenearest betweenthe extremesof anygroup 2 or poundscarried loadin groupof 2 or more Maximum more axles axles consecutive consecutive axles 4 axles 5 axles 3 axles feet axles 34,000
34,000
34,000
34,000
38,000* 42,000 39,000 42,500 40,000 43,500
44,000
45,000
50,000
50,500
45,000
46,500
51,500
52,000
47,000
52,500
58,000
48,000
53,500
58,500
48,500
54,000
59,000
49,500
*18
66,000
51,000
55,500
60,500
20
66,500
56,000
51,500
61,000
21
67,000
56,500
61,500
52,500
22
68,000
57,500
62,500
53,000
23
People
54,000 58,000 63,000 68,500 54,500 58,500 63,500 69,000 55,500 59,500 64,000 69,500 56,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 57,000 60,500 65,500 71,000 57,500 61,500 66,000 71,500 58,500 62,000 66,500 72,000 59,000 62,500 67,500 72,500 60,000 63,500 68,000 73,000 64,000 68,500 74,000 64,500 69,000 74,500 65,500 70,000 75,000 66,000 70,500 75,500 66,500 71,000 76,000 67,500 72,000 77,000 68,000 72,500 77,500 68,500 73,000 78,000 69,500 73,500 78,500 70,000 74,000 79,000 70,500 75,000 80,000 71,500 75,500 72,000 76,000 72,500 76,500 73,500 77,500 74,000 *19 309 5 axles 6 3 axles 4 axles axles 2 axles feet [50] 75,500 79,000 [51] 76,000 80,000 [52] 76,500 [53] 77,500 [54] 78,000 [55] 78,500 [56] 79,500 [57] 80,000 * less, is 96 or If the distance between 2 axles inches the maximum load 2 axles are tandem axles and 34,000 notwithstanding higher pounds, permitted of the formula. resulting application limit from having In the above formula to applying combination, 4 axles only than that is not a more axles gross in the maximum determining shall be considered more having and for a of vehicles weight, combination axles, shall considered in determin- only than 6 6 axles be ing gross weight. the maximum table, sets
Notwithstanding the above consecutive may carry tandem axles each if between the first the overall distance pounds tandem is 36 last axles of the consecutive sets of axles more. feet or district commis- highway
Local authorities road sioners, highways under their streets respect fees, may ordi- by without additional also jurisdiction, of this nance or resolution allow the limitations subsection, any on provided gross weight the maximum maxi- and the one axle shall not exceed exceed any axle shall not gross weight mum tandem when designated highways appropri- pounds, upon are erected regulatory signs giving notice ate or highway portion street highway street or af- fected the ordinance or resolution. vehicles,
Combinations of registered Haul- Special ing Vehicles that include a semitrailer manufactured prior 2004, to or the model year registered and first prior January 1, Illinois having 5 axles with a distance of 42 feet or less between extreme axles shall be (a) limited to the weights prescribed subsections (b) of this Section and not to the subject formula bridge *20 System on the National of Interstate and Defense Highways and other the of highways system State highways designated by the For all Department. those vehicles, combinations of include that a semitrailer manufactured after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the overall distance between first the and of last axles the 2 sets of tandems must be feet 6 or more. All inches combinations of vehicles registered as Special Hauling Vehicles that include a semitrailer manufactured to or in prior year the model 2004 or of registered thereafter or first in Illinois after December 31, 2004, or that had cargo replaced has its container entirety 31, 2004, its after December are limited to the gross weight by the allowed above formula. truck combination,
A not in. a equipped with self or an compactor industrial roll-off hoist and roll-off container, exclusively used for or refuse garbage opera- tions, shall weights be allowed the as prescribed (a) (b) subject subsections and of this Section and not to bridge formula, the are provided not on a they operated highway that is of the Interstate part and Defense Highway System.
Vehicles under this subsection operating shall have for a of mile from highway access distance one to or a highway any highway, Class I street or unless there is access, a sign prohibiting highway or miles to or I, II, highway from a or III on a street or either Class highways system highway and State in the included highway designated any upon local authori- street or loading points commissioner or road district ties unloading repairs food, fuel, to facilities for rest. Proce- of the Illinois Administrative 5—35
Section rulemaking relating procedures shall dure Act designation highways apply under this subsec- to the tion.
(g) person operate a vehicle combination No shall bridge or elevated structure a other of vehicles over constituting part gross weight highway a weight permitted by greater maximum is Department, than the sign posted when the structure provided in this Section.
(h) any upon request Department from local authority may, upon its conduct shall, or own initiative bridge investigation structure an or other elevated constituting highway, part if it finds that safety structure cannot with to itself withstand permissible this Code of vehicles otherwise under Department and declare the maxi- shall determine mum vehicles that structures can with- *21 stating permit signs stand, and shall cause or suitable before maximum to be erected and maintained person operate end of No shall a ve- each the structure. hicle or combination vehicles over structure gross weight greater posted maximum that is than weight.
(i) any person charged Upon trial of with a viola- (h) (g) proof Section, of the tion of subsections of this weight by the maximum allowable determination of signs, Department and existence of the constitutes of the maximum that can be conclusive evidence safety bridge to the or structure. maintained with