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.