Deuce bumper illegal in CT

[Iski]

Hello, just failed inspection at Wethersfield DMV. They insist that I have to fabricate a bumper to meet CT standards. They also said that the deuce does not have a bumper as built.

I know that new vehicles and composites need to have lower bumpers, but did not know that vehicles currently on the road, (like Deuce), were not legal. I’m going to search the web a little and then make some sort of bumper for registration.

Anyone have more info on CT regulations?

Thanks
Iski

 

[Squirt-Truck]

The inspection station should provide you with the code section that they say is in violation.
We would be curious just what it says.

 

[barefootin]

Do your research... I can't answer for CT. I had a mechanic try to fail my '67 MGBGT a few years ago for not having hazards, reverse activated lights, or meeting minimum bumper height requirements... It took a more seasoned fellow to show the young'un that "as built" trumped his handbook he had learned from....

 

[Iski]

They cited a federal standard, not a CT one. They say that this is for all states.

Federal Standard 393.86: Rear impact guards and rear end protection

(b)(1) Requirements for motor vehicles manufactured after December 31, 1952 (except trailers or semitrailers manufactured on or after January 26, 199. Each motor vehicle manufactured after December 31, 1952, (except truck tractors, pole trailers, pulpwood trailers, or vehicles in driveaway-towaway operations) in which the vertical distance between the rear bottom edge of the body (or the chassis assembly if the chassis is the rearmost part of the vehicle) and the ground is greater than 76.2 cm (30 inches) when the motor vehicle is empty, shall be equipped with a rear impact guard(s). The rear impact guard(s) must be installed and maintained in such a manner that:
(i) The vertical distance between the bottom of the guard(s) and the ground does not exceed 76.2 cm (30 inches) when the motor vehicle is empty;
(ii) The maximum lateral distance between the closest points between guards, if more than one is used, does not exceed 61 cm (24 inches);
(iii) The outermost surfaces of the horizontal member of the guard are no more than 45.7 cm (18 inches) from each side extremity of the motor vehicle;
(iv) The impact guard(s) are no more than 61 cm (24 inches) forward of the rear extremity of the motor vehicle.
(2) Construction and attachment. The rear impact guard(s) must be substantially constructed and attached by means of bolts, welding, or other comparable means.
(3) Vehicle components and structures that may be used to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section. Low chassis vehicles, special purpose vehicles, or wheels back vehicles constructed and maintained so that the body, chassis, or other parts of the vehicle provide the rear end protection comparable to impact guard(s) conforming to the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be considered to be in compliance with those requirements.

 

[Iski]

I think that they are calling the Deuce a large truck as this verbage comes from a truck safety site. I think that CT just may have enacted this locally for all trucks/

 

[rosco]

I was just thinking on this issue. I have a 2" receiver hitch for pulling small stuff, below the Pintle. Why can't one weld up a cross piece, that fits to the 2" receiver, in the form of a bumper? When you want to pull a trailer, take it out. While the trailer is on, the issue is a moot point!

 

[rosco]

Iski: Regs are Regs. Enforcement is something else, altogether. Often depends on how they feel, and if you passed the "Attitude Test".

 

[Iski]

Rosco I was really all smiles and I have a temp for ten more days so I can put on a few miles. I'm in no hurry. They said they have had a few military vehicles in the last few weeks that all failed this. I purchased a trailer hitch, but wonder if it would be stable enough side to side as the bumper must be within 18 inches of the sides which is sort of long. I have some thick stainless steel plates that will work fine, but I have to think about how to bolt them up.

I may bolt some thick angle iron to the rear bumper and weld to the stainless steel plates. The plates are 3/16 n thick with 1 inch bends along the sides for added strength.

These are new regulations since July of last year, and I think that someone in CT must have registered a Deuce or 5 ton since then.

 

[Csm Davis]

Would bring up that all these military trucks met federal government standards when built and that unless they can show that all trucks have to be retrofitted to current standard they are incorrect in failing your truck.

 

[doghead]

They did not meet saftey standards(when built).

 

[acesneights1]

Don't go to Wethersfield. I will send you a PM.

 

[Fredo Corleone]

Do dump trucks in CT have these guards?

 

[wreckerman893]

I've often wondered what would happen if some buffoon ran up under the back of the M927 while engaged in distracted driving. There is a lot of real estate between the end of the bed and the rear axle. A SUV type vehicle would be at decapitation height if it hit moving at high speed. I've been considering adding a removable DOT type bumper that would at least attempt to keep a vehicle from going under. There are a lot of hungry trial lawyers out there just looking for a new field to plow.

 

[acesneights1]

His issue is where he went.

 

[Iski]

Thanks for the info. Now that I'm thinking about this I would like a modern style trailer hitch. I have purchased one from this site that goes under the pintle but would actually like to fab up something that goes a little lower.

I started to fab up the bumper part thinking about using the original bolt mounting for the bumper as they are existing for the original bumper and look like a good spot to mount a lower trailer hitch / car catcher.

The comment on about a trailer hitch has me thinking that I really should remake the bumper to have a hitch. I wonder if I could use a old front bumper to hold a hitch.

Iski

 

[renodogs]

Doghead, you have a source on your assertion about not meeting safety standards when built? It's extremely hard to believe that thousands of military trucks were simply allowed to be built when they didn't meet minimum safety standards.

 

[ke5eua]

Doghead, you have a source on your assertion about not meeting safety standards when built? It's extremely hard to believe that thousands of military trucks were simply allowed to be built when they didn't meet minimum safety standards.

Umm, even military vehicles today don't meet minimum safety requirements.

Where are the airbags, reinforcement in the doors for side impact?

Lights can be completely disabled, yep that doesn't meet minimum safety standards.

The military has a list of specifications that need to be meet and the lowest bidder meets them.

 

[renodogs]

Umm, even military vehicles today don't meet minimum safety requirements.

Where are the airbags, reinforcement in the doors for side impact?

Lights can be completely disabled, yep that doesn't meet minimum safety standards.

The military has a list of specifications that need to be meet and the lowest bidder meets them.

=========


Still waiting for a 'source' that states 'as built during manufacture' is meaningless to current regs.
If you own a 1953 Chevy and have it inspected, (pick anywhere), they cannot insist that you install airbags, sidemarkers, cat converters, blah blah blah. It's called a post facto law my friend.

You're also stating regs for passenger vehicles for public consumption. Apples and oranges. We're not talking semantics here, regulations are mis-applied all the time by ignorant low level bureaucrats at DMV. All it takes is for a particular individual in a department to spread a fallacious premise by misinterpreting a regulation; if no one questions it, it becomes dang near impossible to get them to back off from the mistake they have made and correctly apply the regulation. Ever deal with a bureaucrat that has an ego the size of a house? It's not easy, but you shouldn't just wimper and run. Vehicle owners that just 'roll over' and accept it aren't doing themselves any favors. If you've ever been in the military, worked in Law Enforcement, you'd have to concede there are boneheads everywhere in these departments that make these incorrect interpretations. I've done both, and I just shake my head at those who just give up and accept stupid regulations from stupid bureaucrats.

 

[ke5eua]

Your right, but also by that thinking ever vehicle manufactured for the military after the mandate to require airbags should have come with them.

 

[Csm Davis]

Your right, but also by that thinking ever vehicle manufactured for the military after the mandate to require airbags should have come with them.

You are comparing passenger cars to heavy trucks even the humvee is over the 1 ton size that starts to separate the classes and the larger vehicles much more discretion and time on the additional safety features before they are mandatory.