Michigan Military Vehicles News

[Surveyor]

Michigan military vehicles not even approved for parade use after licensing bill vetoed...

https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2019/01/0 ... ll-vetoed/

[rickf]

And that is a direct result of people circumnavigating the off road only title on the Hummers. I have said all along that that was going to bite us in the ass!

[Surveyor]

Yeah, they almost screwed us up here in La as well. Can still put them on the road but more hoops to jump through.

[rickf]

You can buy the 201 I think it is and later with the upgraded seats, belts and safety equipment and get a regular transferable title. BUT, You are going to pay $25,000 and up at auction. Now, even those guys that paid the big bucks to legally title their vehicles got screwed by those who figured they could get around the system. I didn't think it would include ALL vehicles but that is politics for you, all or nothing.

[acudanut]

What a Anti-American thing to do. What's next ? Old X-Military Planes and Helicopters. ??

[WC Matt]

Yup Virginia MV owners also got screwed as well with the new law that went into effect this month..... Been in this hobby since the 1980s, been an MV owner since the early 90's and now........

Matt

[WC Matt]

What a Anti-American thing to do. What's next ? Old X-Military Planes and Helicopters. ??

I believe that was already attempted a few years back but aircraft owners got crazy deep pockets & powerful friends so it never went anywhere....
Matt

[acudanut]

I Think the Hummers might be the blame. ? Just a guess, since they don't have anti-lock brakes or air bags. Either way, it's bullshit. States doing this, need to start getting signatures and start petitioning this.

[raymond]

I Think the Hummers might be the blame. ? Just a guess, since the don't have anti-lock brakes or air bags. Either way, it's bullshit. States doing this, need to start getting signatures and start petitioning this.

Sorry, but really NOT SORRY, but I think you, and by extension, Rickf, are WRONG. There is a federal law that says 25 year old vehicles are by and large, exempt from many if not most rules and regulations concerning licensing and registration.

I.E. if you throw the Hummer owners under the bus, you are in effect throwing us under the bus.

[raymond]

To quote Benjamin Franklin:

We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.

[WC Matt]

In the "Politics related to the Military Vehicle Hobby" forum over on steel soldiers there are some very interesting threads pertaining to this very issue. One theory is that it is the automotive industry itself that has been pushing for these bans. and yes, another is that it is push back from various DMVs towards all of the MVs (HMMWVs) that were titled through questionable means. Not throwing the HMMWV owners under the bus here, I was hoping to join their ranks but as of right now, that's not going to happen in Va.......

Matt

[rickf]

All I am saying with the Hummers is that you have two classes of them for sale, the ones that are sold with the sf97 and agree legal for the road and the ones with the OFF ROAD USE ONLY title. You have to sign a document agreeing to never attempt to register the vehicle for use on the road. This is where people are skirting the rules and this is where the poilitcos are getting the fuel for their fires. Remember, these are the very same vehicles that used to go to the crusher, lock stock and barrel. You could not buy any part off of them, it was all crushed. They said, OK, We will sell the vehicles at auction on ONE condition, OFF ROAD USE ONLY.

As far as what someone said about our troops driving unsafe vehicle on the road, the Hummers from 2003-2004 were upgraded with better seating and safety systems and they are also the ones you can buy from the government WITH SF-97's for on road use. Now, THOSE are the hummer guys that are really getting screwed because they paid 25 grand and up for their hummers for the privilege of having them legal.

As far as There is a federal law that says 25 year old vehicles are by and large, exempt from many if not most rules and regulations concerning licensing and registration. That is fine for standard manufactured vehicles that were made fore use on the road. These are tactical military vehicles and do not fall under that umbrella. The CUCV line of vehicles certainly does.

And the last thing to consider is this, the military, through the government, decides what vehicles to release through auction and what conditions to put on the use of those vehicles. That is their prerogative. They do not have to release any vehicles at all which is pretty much what you are seeing from the FMTV truck forward. I don't think you will see any more military vehicles released.

So before saying I am wrong read completely what I said before and again here. It is not the LEGALLY purchased and titled vehicles that I am talking about. It is the ones that people are skirting the law on.

[raymond]

All I am saying is laws were most certainly skirted and stretched concerning the titling and registration of most, if not all, M151s.

[rickf]

Not mine! I have a copy of the original SF-97 somewhere from 1975. But you do have a good point which is why I always promote not making waves.

[m3a1]

I'll preface this comment with an honest statement of fact. In this matter, I don't know if I'm right OR wrong but I do have some suspicions, based upon what I DO know.

I think we can all agree that this particular discussion has been kicked about for some time now with little to show for the effort. It has been kicked around so much so that it has grown into something of a legend and legend isn't always based strictly upon facts. Facts are what we are seeking here so, again, full disclosure, what follows is mere suspicion.

I think that we can also agree that in the matter of what is safe, or unsafe for road use, tarring ALL these vehicles with the same brush makes very little sense. There is NO evidence of it, in the negative or affirmative because these vehicles weren't tested by NHTSA. But one might argue that the Model T wasn't tested either, and arguably, that car was produced before improved roadways! So, using our dear M151 as an example, I don't think the argument that - any vehicle whose first home is dirt cannot possibly be safe on the highway is, well, let's just say that argument just doesn't hold any water at all. And yet that very supposition has been postulated on this forum without any empirical evidence. On this point, I'm a man from Missouri. So if you think you have evidence of it, show me.

But, I'm already drifting off topic. Why, then, is this happening NOW? Hemmings produced a nice article but it says very little about the motivating factors.

In a word - MAHINDRA

Automobile manufacturers have a powerful lobby and NHTSA appears to have overarching control over what is deemed safe and what is not based upon a strict set of rules regarding required equipment and crash tests. They referee this whole business of what is safe and what is not under very strict guidelines agreed upon by who? The auto manufacturers! Which is EXACTLY the point. Auto manufacturers, who depend upon having a level playing field when competing with one another, are extremely intolerant of any competition outside of that structure. Thus, in any circumstance where their referee (NHTSA) cannot call a halt to the competition's production, their solution then is strict legislation.

While the author of the Hemmings article argued that modern FMVs were built to meet the NHTSA standard I doubt those vehicles were ever actually submitted for testing. I've been unable to find any evidence of it. Mahindra makes a Hail Mary attempt to market their vehicles here with a half-baked claim their vehicles are not for highway use, KNOWING some buyers are going to buy one for just that purpose and it doesn't matter one smidge whether the vehicle is patently unsafe for highway use, or not. The goal? Get it to market and bank the money.

Ergo, it is quite likely they (meaning, the auto industry) are the driving force behind this legislative shift...not some vague, shadowy group who just wants to spoil our fun. Mahindra is a fine example of direct competition that is NOT on a level playing field and that is the problem automobile manufacturers would be trying to quash with legislation such as this. Again, I am merely voicing my suspicions....but it makes sense to me. Imagine if Cuba suddenly stated reproducing 55 Chevrolets and marketing them here under a loophole created by Mahindra's marketing of the Roxor. So, there's an elephant in the room and Detroit wants him dead. We are simply collateral damage.

As for Mahindra, yes, they SAY theirs is an off-road use vehicle only and yet, they are producing a vehicle that is quite obviously road-able. It just wasn't able to come to the U.S. market with such a vehicle (even if it was tested and approved) because Jeep/Fiat simply wouldn't permit it and would keep them tied up in court for eternity....probably for violating their license agreement. (I'd love to see the language in the agreement so if you find it, please share.)

So, auto manufacturers are squashing this bug with a steam roller and unfortunately, our hobby just happens to be in the path of destruction. I have my doubts that we are the actual target of this legislation as we pose no threat, if any, to the automobile industry and their ability to sell cars and trucks.

Since it is an extremely large industry and many jobs are always at stake, they will address this problem with their biggest hammer and in order for niche hobbies like our own to successfully weather this it will be necessary for us to pursue some new exemptions, just as we always have and just as we always will do.

We need to define the problem and to do that, we have to figure out exactly what was the intent of the legislation. One of the first questions that needs to be answered is, how much of what this legislation was meant to accomplish is based upon the exact definition of "designed for road (or highway) use" and, next, to whom does that phraseology apply?

I'll be the first one to admit, I don't know but I DO have a lot of experience with state and federal legalese and as convoluted as it is, it is often misinterpreted and/or misapplied and guess what....exemptions and exceptions are often found elsewhere in the code. So, if you are in a hurry to post some scholarly dissertation on this new legislation, please, have your facts in order and seek out any exemptions or exceptions. I'm not even sure that I've seen an actual copy of the new legislation yet. Anyone?

Link to proposed SB1040 (you'll have to copy and paste complete URL) - http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(m2qanwepkbgmukkrd3t0a0zj))/mileg.aspx?page=BillStatus&objectname=2018-SB-1040

Link to veto explanation - https://content.govdelivery.com/attachm ... 201040.pdf

So, it looks like our friends in Michigan have their work cut out for them. After having read the bill I thought the addition of the HMMWV was a rather obvious attempt to gain leverage against the dictates of the end use documents. Government hates it when you push back and Detroit hates it when you want to go out and buy a HMMWV rather than their $50K truck (not that there's really any competition there...but why risk it, eh?). Happily, Rick Snyder is out. Perhaps they'll have more luck with Gov. Gretchen Whitmer but it would be a very good bet that Detroit auto-makers are already wining and dining her.

Cheers,
TJ