Wapsi Square Forum

A Class-C commercial driver's license (CDL) is required in all states to operate vehicles which seat 16 (including driver) or 12 if passengers are minors. Some states have additional limitations: New Jersey requires the Class-C CDL for anything that seats more than 8, California requires anyone transporting passengers to have a Class-C CDL.
If the vehicle has a GVWR of more than 26,001lb/11,794kg, you need a Class-B; combination vehicles require an A.
At 6.5 short tons empty (13,000lb/5,897kg) and a payload of 2.5 short tons (5,000lb/2,268kg), the DUKW falls in C territory.

Anyone transporting passengers in California needs a Class C CDL?

If you have anyone with you at all, you're technically transporting passengers, so you have to get an extra license just to use the carpool lane. At least, that's how you worded it.

Alkarii wrote:Anyone transporting passengers in California needs a Class C CDL?

If you have anyone with you at all, you're technically transporting passengers, so you have to get an extra license just to use the carpool lane. At least, that's how you worded it.

I don't think that's correct, at least as far as the state is concerned.

A California "commercial" Class C license is required to drive any vehicle intended to carry 10 or more people (including the driver), or any single vehicle exceeding 26,000 pounds gross weight.

I cannot find anything in the state's information about a "basic" (noncommercial) Class C license, which says that it can't be used to transport passengers (either freely or for hire) in a vehicle which otherwise qualifies for this license class.

It's entirely possible that some cities or counties may have their own local restrictions, requiring that anyone who carries passengers "for hire" must have a commercial license or some other sort of permit in order to operate legally.

And, in fact... yup, that's what the DMV says. It's a local rule, not a statewide rule. As far as the DMV is concerned, taxi-cab and limo and ride-share drivers do not generally need a CDL.

Sorry, I should have said "passengers for hire", and that came from the Wiki write-up, so they may have paraphrased the references.

Texas state law delegates taxicab regs to the communities... I frequently get asked whether a CDL is required here.

Keep in mind that the DUKW's are going on 70 years old, too.

It could be that having the dual axle on the back puts it in a different category,,,

TazManiac wrote:Around San Francisco (and maaaaybe San Diego too) they've turned some of those things into Tour Buses...

Awwww, looks like they shut down;

- http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/R ... 493582.php

- http://abc7news.com/business/ride-the-d ... n-/976634/

yeah, if you look at some of the promo's back around the time of the accident here in Seattle, and even in the current Company History webpage, you'll find that the website for "Ride the Ducks" tours USED to have Seattle listed on their page... no longer there now, especially after a SECOND accident just this June where they caused a traffic jam of some kind, with the driver as probable cause... nobody hurt, but I'll bet that was the straw-that-broke-the-camel's-back for this branch of the tour group company...

They still run those things in Philadelphia, too. I think it's been 3 or 4 years since the last disaster.

But they've had disasters with the Baltimore water taxis, too, and those are modern watercraft.

Touring a working harbor in a bucket, I expect the tickets impose a liability waiver on the passengers.

Typeminer wrote:Touring a working harbor in a bucket, I expect the tickets impose a liability waiver on the passengers.

Might not be able to, depending on just what sort of Common Carrier license they're operating under.

Here in Boston they're dual-registered - the water registration as a boat and the road license is as a bus - so CDL is definitely the name of the game there.

I see them every day. It's interesting to be sitting in traffic then have a corrugated wall of steel pull up next to you dripping water.

Most profound image ever:

ShneekeyTheLost wrote:Most profound image ever:

Ah - this you mean?


You posted the page link, not the image link.