Wisconsin dot to propose mv ban

[dcwilkie]

The best argument by far I believe is pointing out the multifuel burning abilities of diesel-powered MVs. I think you could make the argument that a ban would certainly decrese Wisconson's ability to dispose of waste motor oil and waste vegetable oil in a most expedient fashoin. In fact, I feel people who use WMO and WVO should be given a tax break for being "green"!

 

[Stretch44875]

Pretty sure pointing out the use of non-taxed fuel is not going to help your cause. Not to mention the emissions that may be worse with used oil.

 

[dcwilkie]

Pretty sure pointing out the use of non-taxed fuel is not going to help your cause. Not to mention the emissions that may be worse with used oil.

Dang! Just like a politician- I didn't think of the unintended consequences!

 

[SuperiorRam]

any info here?
going to tag a 2.5 ton soon in WI

 

[CatMan]

Superior Ram,

I replied on your other post when you asked for options.

This is about safety and that gets peoples attention. The DOT has no data to back any claim that former military trucks are more dangerous that anything else, but the DOT continues to hold to their case that they are recieving over 1500 applications/ month for vehicles that are "questionable" and military trucks are just one of many that are on the radar screen.

GL is well aware of the issue as well.

As I said in my other reply, we are working with the legislature to create a special catagory for historic Military vehicles but it will have some restrictions on vehicle use.

And just because you got a title and registration at the local DMV office this week, doesn't mean you will the next time. The DOT knows this and is working to close the door on inconsistant transactions from office to office.

It's a good thing I'm retired because this legislative stuff is becoming a full time job!

Cat Man

 

[Ruppster]

Pretty sure pointing out the use of non-taxed fuel is not going to help your cause. Not to mention the emissions that may be worse with used oil.

The best thing to do would be to just point out the ability to burn WVO. Sell the environmental plus side to driving one of these trucks. Don't mention the used oil aspect.

As far as WVO being "non-taxed" from what I understand if you are burning WMO or WVO on public roads you are supposed to file a separate fuel tax form. If you are caught with fuel in your tank that doesn't have the right colored dye in it you will face a large fine if you do not have the tax form on hand to show you are following the rules. WVO is still taxed, just not at the pumps like normal fuel. So it should not be a problem to bring up the WVO ability as you would still be paying fuel taxes on the stuff either way.

Ruppster
1964 Dodge C700
1970 Dodge CT800
1974 International 4300

 

[tamangel]

Homemade fuel requirement for taxes/records?

As far as road tax is concerned, Seems I have read on some site , somewhere, you only have to pay taxes once a year so just keep good/accessible records that you can show the LEO/Tax person that you are keeping track of how much you make and use. Then in April, you can dole out the per gallon tax costs to the proper entities and get the proper receipts.. Fed road tax and State road tax (read fuel tax) maybe different costs and ways of calculating/requirements for payment/record keeping/ need to pay quarterly or whatever..

I don't see how they can require road/fuel tax to be paid as you use it if you make it at home or collect it regularly..Do they want you to go in and pay your 18 cents a gallon every time you make up a batch.."Hello Sir, here's my $18.00 fuel tax..see you next month when I make another 100 gallons" . Its just currently convenient for most folks/bean counters as you-pay-at-the-pump. You are responsible for road/fuel taxes..its just a question on when you have to pay if you don't get it at the pump and what records you have to keep..

Would be an interesting research project for all states..You know they aren't going to want to hear this discussion/scenario...

Anyone checked out their state in regards to this conversation?

here's a publication from California:
http://www.boe.ca.gov/pdf/pub96.pdf

Mike

 

[USAFSS-ColdWarrior]

Would be an interesting research project for all states..You know they aren't going to want to hear this discussion/scenario...

Anyone checked out their state in regards to this conversation?

I prefer to remain ignorant of those rules and believe I shall abide by the credo: "DON'T ASK/DON'T PAY" on this one

As long as your WVOiesel ratio isn't too extreme the proper dye would still be visible. Just DO NOT EVER put industrial Deisel (RED dye) into your ON-ROAD vehicle

 

[poof]

I prefer to remain ignorant of those rules and believe I shall abide by the credo: "DON'T ASK/DON'T PAY" on this one

As long as your WVOiesel ratio isn't too extreme the proper dye would still be visible. Just DO NOT EVER put industrial Deisel (RED dye) into your ON-ROAD vehicle

USAFSS-ColdWarrior you Almost sound like the Pot calling the Kettle Black.
To Quote you from another similar thread

"Please do not advise others to commit fraud through FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS - I understand it is a CRIME and would certainly HURT THE HOBBY "

This " As long as your WVOiesel ratio isn't too extreme " and "DON'T ASK/DON'T PAY" almost sounds like "advise" for getting around some fule tax .

sorry for wandering off topic of Wisconsin and the DOT rule Trans 123 proposal .

Being creative is what we do as Humans.
we Wiscinsinites need to follow this close and defeat Trans 123.
In the mean time ,don't stop creative thinking on how we can register and title and drive our beloved MV,s. and share that thinking.
In every other instance Its called a "LOOP HOLE" not "Fraud"
& I dont have any problem with "don't ask don't tell.".
We as Americans don't like to be told "NO!" and when we are, we tend to find a way around it.. Its one of the things we do best.
My opionion is that no one is going to "HURT THE HOBBY "
through open discution.
J.P.
P.S. pass the role of tin foil

 

[undysworld]

Attention ALL Wisconsin Residents​

As you're probably aware, Wisconsin Dept. of Transportation (WisDOT) is seeking additional authority to inspect many older vehicles, such as pre-1968, ex-U.S. Military, and imported vehicles.

A copy of the proposed rule is available here: Trans 123 Public Hearing - 29 July 2009 | www.wisconsin-pinzgauers.org

[The Pinzgauer website was created after WisDOT cancelled the titles and registration of all the Pinzgauers in Wisconsin (some had been registered for over 7 years!). I appealed the cancellation, won the case, and WisDOT reregistered all Pinzgauers]

The next step is for the proposal to be presented to the Wis. Senate and Assembly committees. Unless they act on the proposal within 30 days, the proposal automatically takes effect.

It will be critical for Wisconsin residents to contact their elected officials and support, or object to, Trans 123 within that time.

We are currently working to set up a website page to allow Wisconsin residents to register to be notified when the proposal reaches the committees.

Remember, it is possible that WisDOT may change this proposal to make it acceptable. Let's hope so.

Questions and Comments invited.

Thanks,
Paul Underwood

 

[poof]

http://www.steelsoldiers.com/deuce/39868-wi-title-denied-options.html

this is a link to another thread with information about some one that was unable to register a deuce Yesterday..
J.P.

 

[USAFSS-ColdWarrior]

USAFSS-ColdWarrior you Almost sound like the Pot calling the Kettle Black.

Point very well taken. Guilty as charged.

This confirms that "I woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning" and seem to be taking out my frustrations upon the system of taxation (Fuel Taxes).

I'm usually in a much better mood that this. You have my apologies for the obvious contradition. I rescind my advice to circumvent the rules.

 

[Michael]

I thought everyone was adding WVO and WMO to their fuel as a fuel additive to increase the new diesel fuel's lubrication.

Keep up the good work fighting the WI DOT and keep us informed

 

[92RT-TT]

I know this is an old thread, but I've only just come into the hobby and started hearing people talking about this, where does wi stand now? I found some sites that say they are banned and others that they arent yet but are working on banning them :/

 

[Michael]

They got their bill passed. Search for Wisconsin DOT and you should find the thread. Short version is they asked for and got a bill allowing all HMVs to be registered as a special category of antique vehicle with the very limited use that comes with antique tags. That is the only way any ex military vehicle can be registered there.

Kind of a good example of "be careful of what you wish for because you just might get it" in my book, but the people from Wisconsin seem to be happy so what can I say.

 

[Wolf.Dose]

Without reading me through all these threads, however, some I did read, I only can say, after several time ago and as I posted somewere else, I did read me throught the requirements for classic/historical/vintage vehicles of Wisconsin, I found that the requirements are almost the same as over here in Germany. And we CAN live with these requirements and the restrictions of use, which over here do not come from the regisration requirement, however from the inshurance.
So why do you over there in WI can not live with these restrictions. A classic vehicle is not a daily use vehicle! Off course noone over here and I guess in Wi claims, if you use your M35A1 for picking up the winter wood from the woods, however they do not like you to go to your daily work.
And one more thing: We MUST go through a periodically vehicle inspection. You not.
You do modifications on MV as you like. We MUST get these modifications inspected. If not ok for vintage vehicles, we loose the status of a vintage vehicle!
My M715 is vintage over here as well as my trailer. What is not original: The engine and the fuel I need for the engine. This is legal for the modification could have been done more than 20 years ago. The engine was built in 1984. And the seats, which I changed in 1982. By that time the truck was just a used one and vintage requirements did not exist. Therefor excepted.
Wolf

 

[undysworld]

Michael,

There were TWO bills which were passed into law here in Wis. in '10. One was, as you say, for very limited use (parades only).

The other, which I worked to pass, allows much less restrictive operations - "vehicle may be used as are other vehicles... ...except that" No passengers for hire, and no operating in January. That's it. We were exempted from the payload restrictions, so we can carry stuff.

You're right, the "parade" guys got what they asked for. I didn't get all I asked for, but darn near.

WolfDose,

Here in Wisconsin, your M715 could be registered for this less-restrictive use.

Whether German regulations are similar to ours or not, I don't know. But I can attest to the fact that Wisconsin has, for decades, allowed ex-mil vehicles to be used for work - logging, farming, whatever. Why ISN'T a classic vehicle able to be used as it was designed? Did it suddenly get arthritis from old age or something?

In Wisconsin, you cannot LEGALLY use your M35 for hauling ANYTHING. Of course, you can do so illegally, so long as you don't get caught!

Vehicles covered by the "parade" law CANNOT be modified. They must maintain their original design and markings. Vehicles covered by the second law CAN be modified, etc.

Look, here's my position. Vehicles which meet state equipment requirements deserve to be able to be registered for whatever use the owner chooses and is willing to pay for, including utility functions. Vehicles which are preserved for history, and are not going to be used for any utility functions deserve to be able to be registered as "historic", and be operated as such, even if they do not fully comply with state equipment requirements. There are two different uses, and there should be two different registrations.

FWIW, I support SEMA's proposal that engine/drive train swaps should be allowed, provided the engine/drive train is newer than the vehicle it's going into.


In any case, these two bills are now law in Wisconsin. Thanks for your comments.

Paul

 

[Tanner]

Undy -

How does Wisconsin get around the 'no hauling in an M35' rule on state-owned M-series vehicles - like those that fire departments or US Forestry Service might use?

Did they exempt themselves?

'Tanner'

 

[mckeeranger]

Undy -

How does Wisconsin get around the 'no hauling in an M35' rule on state-owned M-series vehicles - like those that fire departments or US Forestry Service might use?

Did they exempt themselves?

'Tanner'

Yes, they did. I don't have time to look for where I read it, but I think it's in the newer thread about Wis picking on all classic imports.

 

[undysworld]

Correct, the "parade" bill also has a provision which exempts municipalities. This would still seem to be in direct conflict with WisDOT's current mis-interpretation of s.341.10(6), which is where the whole milveh prohibition in Wisconsin effort began.

Milvehs are too unsafe to operate on public highways, unless they are operated by public employees. That's why the bill included no provisions for providing training for those employees.

If this makes no sense to you, then that makes 2 of us. But that's the way it was passed.

If you are a private owner, only the bill which I pushed for allows you to haul loads, and unfortunately that law only makes provisions for four specific vehicles. Sorry, but that's what happened.

Paul