Wis DOT v. ex-military vehicles - AB-592

[Tanner]

Paul / Undy -

Appreciate the response... by coincidence, would these regs proposed in 392/404/et al. also cause issues for any civvy or commercial early trucks / road tractors that are currently registered & on the road more than just a few miles a year? Such as 40's-60's vintage FORD/GMC/Chevrolet COE's, or Macks, or similar trucks, that obviously have higher bumpers, steel dashboards, no safety nanny bits, etc...? Like early Chevy/Ford/GMC stakebed or grain trucks, etc...

Sounds like WisDOT is opening Pandora's Box for interpretation...

'Tanner'

 

[98hd]

I just wanted to say I wish I could help more with this issue. Unfortunately it's tax season, and I have no life until after April. Please make sure you let us know when there is a time to send a message to our representatives.

 

[stumps]

Fundamentally, it comes down to the fact that your State Representatives agree with the WI DOT's assertion that HMV's are more dangerous than other HV's. This is the issue you need to work on.

You need to prove that HMV's are no more dangerous to the population at large than other vehicles in the same weight class, and age. And you need to prove that vehicle manufacture date is irrelevant to vehicles that were built to the same government spec over a span of 40 years. The first date the vehicle model was made is the important date.

If your representatives believed that HMV's posed no significant additional risk to the population at large, they would then be pushing a bill that required HMV's to be treated as any other vehicle built on the date the first model of each given HMV was issued.

If you allow either of these bills to pass into law, you will have codified the WI DOT's belief that HMV's are inherently more dangerous than HV's of the same vintage, and you will never be able to fix the problem with ordinary use. When you come to them with your changes, the bill's sponsors will be upset with you for putting them through all this work and then wanting something different.

I know, I sound like a broken record on this.... It comes from living so close to that sausage factory called Washington, DC, and having so many friends that turn the cranks on those legislative sausage making machines.

-Chuck

 

[stumps]

1) WisDOT is relying on a statute meant to restrict registration of "mini-bikes, go-carts and all-terrain vehicles", and because milvehs lack a NHTSA label, they're illegal. It's a longer story than that, but that's how they tie the federal regs in to their case. Which is ironic, since it's the federal regs which have exempted both US and (legally imported!) foreign milvehs from FMVSS requirements. It's really a questionable interpretation of the state statute. The Senators rolled their eyes when I explained it in the hearing. It's nuts.

2) Well, accidents do happen. DOT claims the basis for their concern is the fact that a milveh could damage other drivers, in addition to the occupants. But show me the statistics, WisDOT! Maybe DOT just doesn't want to take in all those annual renewal fees, so that instead they can raise our registratin fees to cover the expense of fighting this prolonged battle over milvehs?

Well, that was the logic. It's sort of circular. So show us the numbers. And remember, the first milveh to be refused registration was Steve B's 1943 Jeep because it did not meet the safety standards that were enacted a quarter century after the vehicle was built.

So I guess that's proof that milvehs are dangerous. The ignorant designers weren't even able to meet standards that were set 25 years in the future. I guess the DOT must be right.

NOT​

Paul

This is the very thing the courts are for. Your senators should be able to help you to force WI DOT to follow competent legal reasoning. Talk to your state's attorney general.

-Chuck

 

[vtwinpilot]

The group needed for an example of how to deal with this issue is A.B.A.T.E A brotherhood against totalitarian enactment's. Listening to that obnoxious testimony it is obvious they think every one needs to be driving a imported sub-compact and anything that is not is threatening to the lil'import's. Were begging for mercy and yet did nothing wrong. Ideally we should have a lawsuit brewing.

 

[Tanner]

The basic premise here is that you are assuming that there is 'logic' being used by the WisDOT group -

1) A vehicle deemed safe enough to drive 'x' miles per annum is safe enough to be driven 'x+1' miles per annum - the mileage bears no relevance to the issue.

2) If the decree were made that the vehicles could be used in parades or displays, but had to be towed to the event due to their size, the vehicle doing the towing would have to be bigger than the vehicle being towed -

Can someone help me on the logic here?

'Tanner'

 

[stumps]

The basic premise here is that you are assuming that there is 'logic' being used by the WisDOT group -

1) A vehicle deemed safe enough to drive 'x' miles per annum is safe enough to be driven 'x+1' miles per annum - the mileage bears no relevance to the issue.

No, that is not true. The issue is statistics. If a particular vehicle has a 50:50 chance of being in an accident (for whatever reason) each time you take it out, the probability that you will have an accident grows as the number of times you take it out increases. You can calculate how many times you have to take it out before the probability of an accident approaches 100%.

WI DOT's "logic" is that if they can limit the number of HMV's on the road, and limit the number of trips made, by making them unattractive to use as daily drivers, they can reduce the population at large's exposure to accidents.

It is a sound argument. Where the reasoning falls apart is when it takes the premise that HMV's are more dangerous than HV's of the same vintage as the first example of a particular model HMV.

2) If the decree were made that the vehicles could be used in parades or displays, but had to be towed to the event due to their size, the vehicle doing the towing would have to be bigger than the vehicle being towed -

Can someone help me on the logic here?

'Tanner'

There is no logic to that argument. Towing a big heavy vehicle comes with its own, rather severe, set of risks. In my opinion, whenever you have an inexperienced operator tow anything you are taking a very big risk of bad outcome. I'd rather see Joe Sixpack driving a Sherman tank down the road, than see him attempting to tow one on a lowboy trailer.

-Chuck

 

[saddamsnightmare]

January 26th, 2010.

Undysworld:

I have asked R.Lee Ermey to look up this thread and contact you in regards to the Wisconsin DOT action. I remarked to him his WWII jeep would not be registerable under the proposed regulations, and that you folks could use his input. Let us know on here if you get contacted ASAP. I wish you the best of luck, and beyond the comments above, have stayed completely out of your battle, I'm just worried what other states will do if Wisconsin's DOT wins on this. I cannot believe that the Wisconisn Dells Duck operators have not done anything to assista as their vehicles would be in the sights also....

Good Luck, and hope R.Lee Ermey brings his pair to bear, so to speak.....

Cheers,

Kyle F. McGrogan

 

[vtwinpilot]

This state has been operating in a capacity of Redemption for some time, it's mostly apparent with the DNR "don't make waves" kind of like small town politic's on roid's. Now the DOT has shown that same capacity (showing an obvious grudge) where you could deal with them before. The bigger hobby group's do hold much influence if they are not infiltrated, which happens with sporting groups at times. A group like ABATE has a long history and dont disregard them as a bunch of bikers, they are excellent and influential lobbyist's. They may also take some interest in this as it is an attack on a particular type of transportation using slanted safety as leverage. The same argument's they are using against MV's are used in the opposite fashion against Cycle's as a "risky hobby". Bring on the Gunny, maybe this deserve's some national attention.

 

[Tanner]

Bring on the Gunny, maybe this deserve's some national attention.

I'd Second the motion towards National attention...

'Tanner'

 

[mckeeranger]

I'd Second the motion towards National attention...

'Tanner'

Be careful. The problem with national attention:

a. The WisDOT might get encouragement and support from other states.

b. Other states might get ideas from it.

c. Environmental groups with deep pockets might get involved.

d. Enough of the wrong pressure at the national level might result in MVs being sliced and diced by DRMO, instead of sold intact.

Just playing devil's advocate.

 

[USAFSS-ColdWarrior]

.........Just playing devil's advocate.

Your counterpoints to National Attention are well intended - this is NOT "playing" but REAL COMBAT on the Legislative Battlefield. EVERY aspect of the strategy MUST be well thought out and even more precisely executed.

 

[vtwinpilot]

Yea it could become a problem, if spun the wrong way. Anyone catch the irony that the DOT lawyer used the "Toyota Carolla" as the example that all vehcile's need to comply with so they don't damage them with their tall heavy bumpers. Today it's announced that so many Toyota's are recalled "including his fav the Carolla" it's so huge they have actually suspended production. And he want's to spout off about "safety" Also this would effect classic WWII HD WLA's and Indian's, I really think the idea of getting Veteran's group's as well as bike advocate's like ABATE involved is valid. The bill's for limited use may offer some solution but what I am pushing is the DOT need's to be forced to back off on this obvious un-substantiated discrimination. Bias and mis-leading testimony by someone on the tax payer's checkbook should be considered insubordination and a detriment to the good people of Wisconsin.

 

[DavidB]

. The bill's for limited use may offer some solution but what I am pushing is the DOT need's to be forced to back off on this obvious un-substantiated discrimination. Bias and mis-leading testimony by someone on the tax payer's checkbook should be considered insubordination and a detriment to the good people of Wisconsin.

This is how I have felt about this issue from the start. But being stuck in the back seat , I don't we will be able to drive this trip! Lets unite and work for our Hobby to have a chance to survive .
DavidB

 

[undysworld]

An update on the two bills' progress:

A meeting was held at the State Capitol today by the Senate Trans. Comm. Chair, Sen. Holperin.

The bottom line is that both bills will likely advance toward Sen. Trans. Comm. votes.

SB-404 (this is AB-592) appears to be likely unchanged. It is supported by the WisDOT. When I can do so, I will post a link to the actual final document. Here is the current version: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB-404.pdf

SB-392 will be amended so as to effect Pinzgauers only. It is not supported by the WisDOT. Again, I will post a link to the actual finall document. It will change.

Both bills must also gain Assembly passage to advance.

They then must also get Gov. Doyle's signature to become law.

More comments to come I'm sure. Dad duties required for now.

Paul

 

[stumps]

Groan!

If the bills have truly reached the point you say, then you need to vigorously fight against both of them.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

The WI law as it is now written gives you all the power you need. It is time to lock and load, and fight WI DOT's incorrect interpretation.

It's State's Attorney time.

-Chuck

 

[Tanner]

Be careful. The problem with national attention:

a. The WisDOT might get encouragement and support from other states.

b. Other states might get ideas from it.

c. Environmental groups with deep pockets might get involved.

d. Enough of the wrong pressure at the national level might result in MVs being sliced and diced by DRMO, instead of sold intact.

Just playing devil's advocate.

And the Devil is in the details... that thought crossed my mind as I hit 'Post Message', but unless there is a unified, cohesive front with multiple effective, highly supportive & visible players involved, this could be an Alamo... I'm out on this issue -

My 0.0142801 Euro...

'Tanner'

 

[CatMan]

Wisconsin HMV Bill Proposal

OK, I gotta push back here.

After spending the last two and half years working on this issue, day and night. I'd like to wish that each and everyone of you big talkers someday have the same oppertunity. Posting on the internet is easy. Pounding the halls of the state capitol and lobbying for a change in state law is not.

You'll find out just how the whole thing works. And we'll see if you're still talking so big then. Did I see you at the public hearings?

By the way. The last time I looked, MVPA stands for Military Vehicle PRESERVATION Association. Not the association of military daily drivers and not the association of commercial military truck operators.

It seems lost on people here, that we are not giving up anything. We are working to gain legal protection by changing state law. No easy task.

The key is the fact that in Wisconsin there has been a LAW on the books for many years that can and is now being used to prevent military vehicles from being registered. We have been lucky for many years. The dumb ass people who build a motorized bar stool, drive it down the street - drunk and crash into a light post caused the DOT to start cracking down on all vehicles.

We have more work to do. Yes the Assembly bills AB592 and SB404 are not perfect and do have restriction. The legislature is giving use two years under the bills (if passed) to demonstrate that the vehicles are safe. We will have to show them and then lobby for less restriction in the future.

I was asked by the MVPA and MV Magazine and the MV clubs in WI to spearhead the effort. I'm committed to that cause.

For the members from Wisconsin, not supporting the current bills means do nothing and supports the DOT banning MV's. If the bills are not passed by March , they die and it will be two years until the committee will hear new legislation. In that time your registration could be canceled. So which side are you really on?

Cat Man

 

[englishmauser]

Jeff, I would like to thank you and Paul both for your time and effort in our struggle with the WI DOT.

 

[saddamsnightmare]

January 28th, 2010.

Catman:

I am quite certain that MVPA stands for Military Vehicle Preservation Association, but it's elitist attitudes to those of us who work our vehicles or use them daily as part of our "Preservation" ethos, so far see nothing in that organization's charter that makes us want to support it. You may feel put upon, but may I say that the MVPA is acting in Wisconsin much like Neville Chamberlain did with Der Fuehrer at Munich...... let everyone's ox get gored before he can get to ours. Appeasement does not work, and apparently the MVPA has not done much to build public consiousness about the matter either. Because you folks are not willing to challenge the DOT to the hilt, only the "Hanger and Trailer Queens" will be tolerated in Wisconsin..........
The problem for the rest of us, is that if your DOT is successful, some other fool administrator in some other state is gonna jump on that band wagon and gore our oxes too. If you don't appreciate the tone of the discussion, fine. BUT your state is gonna screw it up for the rest of us. PUT YOUR toys in the garage and or on a plinth, preservation is more then just parades and maintenance rides, boys, a vehicle that sits that much will deterioate faster, just ask all the members on here how much they've had to replace and repair on vehicles that sat too much. MY insurance company, Nationwide Mutual in Canton, Ohio, could easily furnish to you the accident statistics for MV's registed by their military type numbers, and they are almost untrackabvle the numbers are so small compared to civillian type vehicles.
Your last chance is to get national support from the veterans groups, and dare I say, R.Lee Ermey and the Mail Bag folks, otherwise you are gonna get chewed up and spit out by DOT. There is NO way a law can be made to affect vehiciles retroactively 25 years after the design is locked in and built, and except for the M35A3's, our vehicles of the M series are all 1940-1950 designs......
I wish you luck, but I fear that your toeing the "Party Line" of the MVPA is gonna get the rest of us burnt with your fire.... Personally, I see a "Federal" Taking Clause case growing out of this, and I hope Wisconsin DOT gets bankrupted by that decision, because you are letting some adminsitrator "Take" your property with out due process and payment.....

Cheers,

Kyle F. McGrogan