taboo to talk

[ryanruck]

Pretty petty using someone's death to try and make your point.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry you feel that way. It's very sad it happened but I thought it was a rather poignant point of order considering what the poster of the comment owns.

 

[ke5eua]

 

[ryanruck]

This discussion is solely about the humvee.

Stay on track.

And has already been pointed out to you in this thread multiple times, HMMWVs, like all military vehicles are exempt from FMVSS.

You seem to be trying to stir the pot for some reason.

 

[doghead]

For the military or government, yes I agree they were exempt.

 

[doghead]

fwiw, I'm not trying to "stir the pot".

Not much of a conversation when everyone just nods and agrees.

I don't agree with many of the comments on this topic.

Some of the rational posted by humvee owners simply astounds me.

 

[ryanruck]

For the military or government, yes I agree they were exempt.

So are you advocating for an all out ban on civilian owned military surplus vehicles on the road since none of them meet FMVSS?

In any event since you glossed over it earlier. This is the official position of the NHTSA on the exemption of all military vehicles and their subsequent exemption to civilian owners.

However, NHTSA excuses vehicles from compliance with the FMVSS if they have been manufactured in accordance with contractual specifications of the armed forc es of the United States (49 CFR 571.7(a)). Furthermore, because the Safety Act does not regulate sales of vehicles to owners subsequent to the original one, the U.S. armed forces may sell military vehicles to the public at the end of their useful military life without having to bring them into conformity with the FMVSS​

Highlighted for your convenience.

 

[Tornadogt]

So, you guys have collapsible steering columns, reflective marker and taillights that are dot approved? Crash rated bumpers? Crumple zones that meet fed standards? Side door bracing for side impact collisions? Pass rollover tests?

The list goes on...

Just because some guy says it's ok, does not make it right.

https://icsw.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/FMVSS/

I am not aware of any 1 1/4 ton truck manufactured during the years that these tucks are made that have to comply with most (crumple zones, side door bracing, crash rated bumers) of these items mentioned above.

 

[doghead]

Could you show me where that statement originated?

 

[doghead]

I am not aware of any 1 1/4 ton truck manufactured during the years that these tucks are made that have to comply with any of these items mentioned above.

Again, we're only talking about humvees here.

Not interested in any other vehicles in this forum, even for comparison.

 

[ryanruck]

Could you show me where that statement originated?

I linked to it when I posted it before but here it is again: http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/gm/94/nht94-1.78.html

It and other supporting documentation can be found in the PDF that cwc posted on page 12.

 

[Behr]

Again, we're only talking about humvees here.

Not interested in any other vehicles in this forum, even for comparison.

You might not be interested in comparison, but that is the whole point and argument being made against the state. The whole basis for legality in a court of law would be based on comparable vehicles made during the same time. I'm not sure what your point is except that for some reason you are placing military vehicles in a different category, they are only vehicles, especially the hmmwv. The hmmwv is only a truck, that is the case being discussed, nothing special about it because it's called a hmmwv.

 

[doghead]

[FONT=&quot](however, because of safety policy considerations they have not done so with respect to M-151 jeeps and HMMV vehicles).[/FONT]

How do you interpret this statement from that 1994 "document"?

 

[ke5eua]

The principal reason the federal government limits ex-military Humvees for offroaduse only is because they are not street legal due to not being manufacturedto U.S. EPA emissions standards and U.S. DOT standards for on-road use in theUnited States.

We can all agree on two things with this I imagine.

EPA reason - It is exempt, that reason of it not being manufactured to epa regulations is false. It uses a heavy duty engine to begin with and is epa exempt.

U.S. DOT Standards - It is exempt as it was built for the military and is exempt from the guid lines set forth by the FMCSA

Here is TR-54 from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/TR-54_38480_7.pdf

Everything listed the HMMWV has. It wasn't originally built to be an off road vehicle. So the reasons Michigan gives go against FMCSA. If Michigan allows you to title any other military vehicle be it a willys jeep to a HET then they have to title the HMMWV as the standards set forth to build it were the same for all other vehicles, epa and safety.

 

[ryanruck]

How do you interpret this statement from that 1994 "document"?

Now, it does state that the HMMWV is not sold for "safety policy considerations" but, there is no specificity anywhere (except perhaps the original opinion of AMG) of what safety issues there are with the HMMWV and what precluded them from sales.

Clearly those "safety policy considerations" were revised since they are now being sold and, even if they are being sold as restricted to off road use, in the eyes of the NHTSA, the end purchaser cannot be bound by that. Nor, would subsequent other buyers. And since it was "manufactured in accordance with contractual specifications of the armed forces of the United States (49 CFR 571.7(a)" it is exempt from FMVSS.

 

[Tornadogt]

Doghead please help me understand your opinion or stance on this issue. It is unclear to me if you are just being the devils advocate or if you have a personal opinion that the HMMWV is not safe to be on public roads? If you do have the opinion that HMMWV's should not be legally driven on the streets please inform me on what lead you to have that opinion. Also do you feel that other Formal Military Vehicles, which are currently not under discussion, are on the road but are not safe to be on public roads as well? Is is your opinion that a HWWMV should meet current 2017 safety requirements, or is there a level of requirement that you do believe they should meet for you personal to be comfortable with them on the road? I am not trying to put you on spot but if you can help us understand where you are coming from it could be beneficial for everyone.. Thank you.

 

[Action]

I don't see it as is it safe or not as much as I do that buyers agreed to the OFF ROAD ONLY terms when they bought these. Does a deuce have the OFF ROAD ONLY stipulations?
Does it really matter what the reasons are? You agreed to the terms.

 

[diesel dave]

One thing is certain. No one will ever know why these HMMWV's are being surplused as off road only. Clearly,EPA and safety issues aren't it,or none of former military vehicles would be surplused at all.
the fact remains that the government,through thier delegated agencies/contractor,did in 1999 sell HMMWV's with road titles to the public.
in 2016 the government,through thier delegated agencies/contractor did,and still is,selling HMMWV's with road titles.
those vehicles are no more road worthy than those being sold with off road titles. Those are the facts.
If the government,be it state or federal,is going to start pulling plates then they are going to have to pull them all,as Michigan has allegedly done IMO.
Michigan,IMO,stepped in thier own s..t pile by including the 1999's. They are now at odds with the federal government whom deemed them road worthy and gave titles!
with that said,it's pretty hard to fight government,as government is always right even when they're wrong.
I wish the Michigan owners luck. As they say "s..t rolls down hill". And sooner or later it's going to affect all of us who own military vehicles of all sorts if not stopped there.

 

[Tornadogt]

I don't see it as is it safe or not as much as I do that buyers agreed to the OFF ROAD ONLY terms when they bought these. Does a deuce have the OFF ROAD ONLY stipulations?
Does it really matter what the reasons are? You agreed to the terms.

I guess this is one of the highlighted points of this discussion. Action, it would seem you believe the "OFF ROAD ONLY" stamp on the SF-97 and other similar statements on the purchase documents apply to the "LIFE of the Item" .............. While the other side of the discussion is that those terms are the condition of the item at the time of purchase and is in place to remove any liability of the sellers (Ironplanet/DOD) from actions of the new owners. It also makes it perfectly clear to the new owner that at the time of purchase the sellers are making no statements in regards to the vehicles being compliant with use on public roads. The "Off Road Only" stamp makes it perfectly clear to the new owner that if they want to drive it on the road, it is up to the new owner to contact their state and do whatever (if possible) to get them to a condition that would be approved by their state for on road use. A PERSONAL OPINION of MINE, all vehicle sold on a SF-97, that is something that has never been titled should have to go through a DOT safety inspection (appropriate for the year that they were built or inline with the states laws) before titling. Dependent on the state exemptions do exist on MV and classic/antique vehicles as long as you are compliant with state laws I believe it is ok. I think a DOT inspection is not a bad thing when first purchasing and titling a MV with a SF-97 if it has an "off road only" stamp on the SF-97 or not. Just my opinion.

 

[hndrsonj]

I really believe it's a safety issue. For years the demil manuals (several versions) have stated the HMMWV's were demilled due to safety issues. It was right next to the M151 and Gamma Goat notes. Just because they were deemed "safe" for trained military drivers, doesn't mean the Govt believes they should be driven by Joe public. I am very sure AM General had a lot to do with this.

 

[Suprman]

The off road thing was probably part of the deal made between GP and dla to allow sales of humvees that until that point were only sold for scrap with a destruction requirement. GP gets to sell trucks, the gov gets money and a bunch of civilians get to run around in humvees. It's a win win for everyone. Am general and GM don't sell civilian humvees anymore so a flood of gov trucks won't affect them. You as the buyer are purchasing the vehicle from GP, a private company. GP makes you sign a private agreement accepting that it's an off road vehicle. If you don't like the offroad stamp on the title or sf97 that GP offers, then don't order them.