taboo to talk

[Videris]

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.

Yeah what he said doghead

 

[Videris]

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.

yeah they're definitely safer off road instead of on road. Makes since to me and Uncle Sam. JC!

 

[hndrsonj]

Here is some reading from an old DRMS manual. I couldn't find the older version which basically said that HMMWV's could be sold if they were upgraded to meet FMSS standards. So basically even though legally this shouldn't be an issue, safety standards are what's been listed as the reason for no sales for years.


When transferring HMMWVs to Federal Civil Agencies or donating to SASPs provide approved documentation (SF 122/123) containing the following certification.
The agency accepts the transfer/donation of vehicle(s) "AS IS" with no warranty of any kind including any implied warranties, such as fitness for any purpose. Since the vehicles do not comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and is designed for use under conditions unique to the DOD, extra operator competence and caution should be exercised in the operation and use of this vehicle outside the design specification. In accepting the transfer/donation the agency acknowledges that there may be hazards associated with the use of the vehicles. The agency warrants that it will provide necessary operators training and hold the DOD harmless against all suits, actions, demands, or claims involving the operation of HMMWVs in its custody. The agency also agrees to maintain, at its expense, adequate liability and property damage insurance and workman’s compensation insurance to cover such claims. The agency agrees when vehicles are no longer needed they will be mutilated at the agency’s expense to an extent it cannot be used for its original intended purpose. Additionally, if the vehicles have DEMIL requirements, the agency agrees to perform the DEMIL at its expense in accordance with DOD 4160.28-M."


Sales:
Do not offer HMMWVs for sale to the general public as usable items.

DLA Disposition Services does not have the expertise to validate whether restored HMMWVs meet federal safety standards. Edited May 2012
Vehicles not released through R/T/D must be mutilated in a manner that prevents reassembly as a usable vehicle. The mutilation may be performed as a condition of sale or performed by Government personnel. However, title to the scrap material will not pass until the mutilation is performed to the satisfaction of the Government.

A SF Form 97 (Certificate To Obtain Title To a Vehicle) will NOT be issued for the mutilated scrap.

 

[86m1028]

In the early 80's there were very few safety items in ANY vehicles & even then most 1 tons were exempt from them. I drove a 1 TON dually in high school to get around the bs seatbelt law.

Am general had an agreement for the guberment to not sell to the public PERIOD !!!
In all honesty it had nothing to do with emissions or safety features it was MONEY.
Am general was still selling the H1 hummers & didn't want to have to compete with the military selling them off at a fraction of what the civilian H1's were selling for.

Cant wait to hear the arguments about that !

 

[porkysplace]

The Michigan memo says quote "
The principal reason the federal government limits ex-military Humvees for off-road use only is because they are not street legal due to not being manufactured to U.S. EPA emissions standards and U.S. DOT standards for on-road use in the United States. "
End quote.

Wouldn't it be easy enough to address both these issues. Get the truck Emission tested (and passes) then go through a DOT full inspection (and passes). At that point Michigan should no longer have any objection to this trucks and a Michigan resident will be doing his civic duties by addressing and complying with his/hers states laws. If there are any kind of letters of denial or rejections must be accompanied by a valid reason for the denial. A responsible owner will do what is necessary to address the valid reason or site why the reason is not valid.

Florida quit titling all MV's at one point and still won't even issue a OFF ROAD ONLY title and from what has been posted by a Florida member since that change you cannot paint your truck a differentt color or scheme than it was released with or they will pull plates and title . So it is not just Michigan , Florida started it.

 

[ryanruck]

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.

This is certainly the crux of the matter.

My opinion, supported by documentation with opinion straight from the NHTSA (which essentially carries the weight of law, like the ATF with their firearms opinion letters), shows that the whole off road only mandate is completely hollow from the get-go. From the previously linked:

If we conclude that a vehicle is manufactured primarily for on road use, it is a "motor vehicle," notwithstanding the fact that it may be sold "on the basis they would only be used for off road purposes." We see no way in which a seller can bind a purchaser to such use, and, certainly, such a restriction would not be binding on subsequent owners of the vehicle.
​

First, we've already established earlier in this thread, that DLA sells the trucks to IP/GP who in turn sells them to us. This is evidenced by the purchase documentation you receive from IP/GP. If you've bought a truck direct from auction, you're already the third owner of the truck.

Second, NHTSA has established the HMMWV as a "motor vehicle" way back in 1987 and 1988, because by AMG's own admittance, the HMMWV was designed to operate 60% on primary and secondary roadways.

Of course, all of this ignoring that the actual stamping may be a violation in altering the SF97 form in the first place as was mentioned earlier in this thread.

And even if we accept the premise that the stamping was valid/applicable, per the State of Ohio, this is the standard I must meet to be titled for on road use (from the Ohio BMV 3803 - Affidavit Change Of Motor Vehicle Title):



Doesn't say anything about FMVSS or EPA compliance. All I needed to add to comply with Ohio law was #12.

And before the naysayers jump in to point out #13, that is really only to make sure your vehicle isn't constructed of mud, masonry, sticks, or animal hide and will leave pieces of itself everywhere...



And furthermore, even if we accept the premise that you're violating the agreement in some manner by titling the truck for on road use, that is a civil/contract law matter and irrelevant to the matter at hand of the legality of registration.

An interesting point of order. One poster posted this much earlier today in another thread:

I called Gov Planet back and they said yes it would be. (Stamped off road, clarification mine) I said in the item description it does not say for off road use only, they said that is the way the title comes and its up to your local state to change the title over to an on road title.
​

So according to this poster, GP is acknowledging that it is state's prerogative to change the title. That would seemingly put to bed the theory that the agreement is eternally binding in IP's/GP's own view if that's what they're disclosing to customers.

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.

But what exactly is the "safety issue"? This isn't documented anywhere except AMG's say so. A say so that is non-specific. And, on top of that, where is all of AMG's benevolent concern for safety in regards to the sales of their 2.5 and 5 ton trucks they've manufactured? This leads me to believe the genesis of the issue is exactly as 86m1028 said, AMG didn't like competition with the H1.

No one can show what differences make the M1123s or '99 USMC M998s (ignoring all other MVs for the sake of this discussion) which were never restricted (except by the State of Michigan, which may be in conflict with Federal law) inherently more safe than these current M998s, M998A1, M1038s, and M1038A1s.

Here is some reading from an old DRMS manual. I couldn't find the older version which basically said that HMMWV's could be sold if they were upgraded to meet FMSS standards. So basically even though legally this shouldn't be an issue, safety standards are what's been listed as the reason for no sales for years.

(SNIPPED)

That's not really applicable to this situation because that is regarding disposal to another government agency or subdivision.

And even if that is taken at face value with these sales to the public, there's apparently a conflict between DLA/DRMS who thinks these trucks need to meet FMVSS and, NHTSA who says they and all military vehicles do not on disposal to the public. Color me surprised! The government's left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing?

Personally, I give the upper hand to the NHTSA, who governs safety standards on public roads. Plus, DLA they themselves state at the end, "DLA Disposition Services does not have the expertise to validate whether restored HMMWVs meet federal safety standards, " which would seem to abdicate that authority to the NHTSA.

 

[Csm Davis]

Okay let's play devil's advocate for a few minutes. H1 Hummer is a street legal version of the humvee so what are the actual differences? Padded dash and what else? And is there any reason (not saying that you should )that you can't bolt on these pieces and have a completely legal humvee? Get it registered and then take the parts off? Last I checked I can remove my dash and almost any other parts like bumpers I want and still drive my truck. So does anybody have a list? Also a lot of y'all don't remember but I do, originally the military could sell humvee's with no problems. Then Hummer got their lawyers and lobbyists together to stop the sales, then the Marines found a loophole and gave a stack of them away in exchange for some construction.
Someone I believe that it was Doghead compared this to the M151's so let's look at those. There is no debate about their safety, but originally they were sold whole and titled, then they were cut and sold, then they were crushed and sold. There was never a law saying you could not own and drive one, you still can beat one of the bodies back into shape and get it registered I have seen it done in the last 10 years.
So back to the humvee I have seen many that were crushed or cut get stitched back together and then titled, how is this different? You are not signing anything that says, I will not put this vehicle on the road ever. I can still make whatever I want and take it to the state inspection and they will give me a yes or no as to if I can drive it on the road and if yes then I can have a title and registration for it, humvee, h1, 151, golf cart or my favorite the dune buggy.
The biggest problem I see is the lady that wrote the letter for her state saying that nobody can have one is stepping outside of her legal abilities, that can only be done by her state legislature by making it a law. To many folks think that they can make regulations within a department of some state or local government and that it has to be followed regardless of the law. I have won this battle many times of late, I beg of you all to read you state laws, you will find many things to make you happy and a few to make you upset, but you will be better citizens because of it.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[doghead]

I feel that there is just too little fact being posted in this discussion and way too much opinion/personal interpretation/wag.

That's my stance on this topic.

 

[Sintorion]

I feel that there is just too little fact being posted in this discussion and way too much opinion/personal interpretation/wag.

That's my stance on this topic.

Street legal and probably not crash tested.

 

[porkysplace]

View attachment 662040

Street legal and probably not crash tested.

Not a MV so how is it related to this site ?

 

[Recovry4x4]

For arguments sake, lets say that all the lawyers on this site are right and that there is a way to overcome the stamp. All well and good but do you think for a second that DLA can't backtrack and say, "No more soup for you, and you, and you, and you"?

For whatever reason, an agreement has been made to get these trucks released. If folks go poking the bear, he might wake up. Of course, I know what the outcome would be from most folks; screw all the folks who would like to own one in the future, as long as mine gets titled. That is the normal mindset of folks today.

I don't think DLA would have and problem picking up the blower and chatting with NHSTA and getting guidance written excluding HMMWV operation on any highway except for Gov't services. I think if all the armchair lawyers want to "find a way" to use their HMMWV on the road, do it! I know this next sentence might cause a ruffle but look at the path of machine guns.

 

[Recovry4x4]

View attachment 662040

Street legal and probably not crash tested.

Not a MV so how is it related to this site ?

It's an example!

 

[cwc]

Florida quit titling all MV's at one point and still won't even issue a OFF ROAD ONLY title and from what has been posted by a Florida member since that change you cannot paint your truck a differentt color or scheme than it was released with or they will pull plates and title . So it is not just Michigan , Florida started it.

This is the latest I have seen from Florida. Please advise if there is newer information. These come up with a Google search: Florida Humvee technical bulletins

View attachment Florida Technical Advisory rstl16-022.pdfView attachment Florida Technical Advisory rstl16-026.pdf

 

[Sintorion]

For arguments sake, lets say that all the lawyers on this site are right and that there is a way to overcome the stamp. All well and good but do you think for a second that DLA can't backtrack and say, "No more soup for you, and you, and you, and you"?

For whatever reason, an agreement has been made to get these trucks released. If folks go poking the bear, he might wake up. Of course, I know what the outcome would be from most folks; screw all the folks who would like to own one in the future, as long as mine gets titled. That is the normal mindset of folks today.

I don't think DLA would have and problem picking up the blower and chatting with NHSTA and getting guidance written excluding HMMWV operation on any highway except for Gov't services. I think if all the armchair lawyers want to "find a way" to use their HMMWV on the road, do it! I know this next sentence might cause a ruffle but look at the path of machine guns.

In terms of anything is possible, sure, but we remember we are talking about money. These are tax payer dollars that we are putting back into their pockets. What we are paying for these is substantially more than the scrap value. By some rough calculations or 4000 sold so far at an estimated $8000 average price that has put about $25,000,000 back in the budget. Compare that to probably $10,000 they would have seen in scrap value and it would be hard to walk away.

You also have to remember we are talking about state govt vs federal govt. The federal govt isn't the one that is stopping anyone from registering them. That policy is set by the state govt. They just label them as off road and move on.

 

[cwc]

The Michigan memo says quote "
The principal reason the federal government limits ex-military Humvees for off-road use only is because they are not street legal due to not being manufactured to U.S. EPA emissions standards and U.S. DOT standards for on-road use in the United States. "
End quote.

Wouldn't it be easy enough to address both these issues. Get the truck Emission tested (and passes) then go through a DOT full inspection (and passes). At that point Michigan should no longer have any objection to this trucks and a Michigan resident will be doing his civic duties by addressing and complying with his/hers states laws. If there are any kind of letters of denial or rejections must be accompanied by a valid reason for the denial. A responsible owner will do what is necessary to address the valid reason or site why the reason is not valid.

The Michigan letter has some statements in it that are questionable. As has been noted, state DMVs are obligated to follow the relevant statutes, although often the administrative branch has discretion to make some interpretations and fill in the details of how to actually implement the law. The starting point would be to see what the law actually says. It is readily accessible; search "Act 300 of 1949". Here are a couple of sections that may be of interest:

View attachment Michigan Act 300 Section 257.216 Vehicles subject to registration.pdfView attachment Michigan Act 300 Section 257.219 Refusal of Registration.pdf

 

[cwc]

Should have noted also, Sections 257.216 and 257.219.

 

[Recovry4x4]

In terms of anything is possible, sure, but we remember we are talking about money. These are tax payer dollars that we are putting back into their pockets. What we are paying for these is substantially more than the scrap value. By some rough calculations or 4000 sold so far at an estimated $8000 average price that has put about $25,000,000 back in the budget. Compare that to probably $10,000 they would have seen in scrap value and it would be hard to walk away.

You also have to remember we are talking about state govt vs federal govt. The federal govt isn't the one that is stopping anyone from registering them. That policy is set by the state govt. They just label them as off road and move on.

I do not think they are terribly concerned about putting that money back in their pockets. These are the same folks that spend $900 on a hammer. I honestly think that if it weren't for public accountability, they would give all the surplus away to friends and donors.

I understand the state vs fed gov't deal. If DLA wished to act, they wouldn't go to bat with any number of states, they would just add guidance to NHTSA which the states must abide to or they can just pull the plug on sales. They may not even care and if they do nothing, that's when we will know. If they do something that is when we will painfully know.

If the sake of disclosure, I don't have a dog in this race, just looking at it from a practical and historical perspective.

 

[hndrsonj]

That's not really applicable to this situation because that is regarding disposal to another government agency or subdivision.

As I said in my statement, the older manual did say they could be sold if they were updated to meet FMSS standards, I just couldn't re-find it in a short amount of time.

 

[ODFever]

I have no plans of ever owning a HMMWV. The only way I'd even think of buying one is if it was running well steers and stops straight, no major dents in the body panels, no major components missing, the price was under $5,000, and it had a 100% free and clear legal on-road title. If my wife likes the truck and enjoys driving it, I'd consider buying it. I highly doubt of those conditions will ever be met, so I'll live without one.

I'm going to sit back in my chair, munch on my big bowl of opcorn: , and enjoy the show. I'm learning a lot here.

 

[Sintorion]

This is the latest I have seen from Florida. Please advise if there is newer information. These come up with a Google search: Florida Humvee technical bulletins

View attachment 662041View attachment 662042

Had several chats with individuals from motor services in FL DHSMV and came to the realization that they are clueless on the subject and will tell you something even without knowing anything about what they are talking about. The first person told me that the frames are different between the H1 and the M998. They said they measured them and the M998 was thinner and that was why they could not be registered. The most recent said that I could go the "Former Military Vehicle" route, but would have to tow it everywhere. That didn't make sense so I asked why I would need plates if it was going to sit on a trailer, with plates? I was then told that I shouldn't have bought it and if I got the plates that I would need it to be inspected first and that it would have to have all the original markings. I asked how that would be possible since some of the markings were covered as part of the demil process. Of course I was then answered with "those are the rules, if you don't follow them, we are not giving you the plates.

I then made the mistake of asking about going the "Custom Vehicle" route. That was met with an "absolutely not, you knew your were buying an off road vehicle" to which I responded "yes I am fully aware of what I bought. Because the seller has nothing to do with the State of Florida, I am asking you what I would need to do to get this vehicle in compliance with State law". Her response was "well you could take the body off the frame and put it on an f-150 frame or any other frame for that matter and I would be happy to register you".

Basically that is what I am up against. We should be terrified that someone who is making the decisions thinks slapping a body on just any frame will somehow be safer than what was constructed.