Steel Soldiers now has an offical calendar available, read more about it at: Steel Soldiers 2021 calendar
Someone probably saw one, and said 'OMG, I can't believe they let these weapons of war on our streets for anyone to drive, THEY COULD KILL PEOPLE!'... and they either know someone in politics, or ARE in politics, and decided that they wanted it changed....Going back to the start of this thread, I can't figure out why this is a problem to begin with. Was this brought on by someone who was in a crash with a FMV? Was it Green Peace or the Audubon Society about pollution?
I can't ever imagine this happening in NY unless someone commits mass murder with a FMV or something.
One should probably devise an exit strategy, to flee the People's Republik of Marylandistan.
They haven't found anything that they didn't wanna control, or tax.
Doesn't help when you get pulled over for 'speeding' and have to explain to the officer what the difference is between a regulatory sign, and an advisory/cautionary sign...
Yellow speed limit signs are not regulatory. They're advisory/ cautionary. Like if you're going around a curve, or an off ramp.Speeding really? Is this from experience? PLEASE explain.
In Maryland, of the 23 counties, there are three liberal counties and one city that controls the state, due to it's population, when is comes to politics: Prince Georges County, Montgomery County, Baltimore County and Baltimore City. All the rest of use are overall conservative.
Even though we have a governor who states he is a republican, he is just a democrat in republican clothing.
Believe me, that the rest of use do not like the current situation either, but it is our home!
See the latest version of the Maryland Manual on Traffic Control Devise. I tried to attach the Federal Manual but the file was to big.
Yellow speed limit signs are not regulatory. They're advisory/ cautionary. Like if you're going around a curve, or an off ramp.
White speed limit signs are regulatory, and hold the force of law.
I passed a yellow advisory sign, didn't reduce my speed, and got pulled over for 'speeding', despite not actually speeding.
Once he realized he was wrong, as I cited the law, he then tried to tell me he was gonna cite me for 'speed too fast for conditions'.... I had to point out that wouldn't fly either, since it was clear, dry, unlimited visibility, and warm.
Had to have his supervisor come out, and even he admitted they were wrong, but still insisted on lecturing me on 'giving them a hard time' and 'having an attitude' when I was polite, and compliant, just merely pointed out the stop was unlawful, and corrected his false information with a copy of the law.
I have horror stories with Monkey County too... ran by a bunch of people that belong in a zoo.
I spent the first 25 years of my life there...Yep, your right. A yellow speed limit sign is a caution sign that displays the speed that is established by a traffic engineer for a maximum safe speed on a specific area of the roadway. The speed that is posted on these signs are directed towards the larger vehicles driving on the roadways, mainly tractor-trailer combination, to keep from rollovers or jackknifing during deceleration on a curve (cloverleafs come to mind).
If a law enforcement officer stopped you for the speeding on a cautions sign with no other factors involved, then he was incorrect, and shame on him/her for doing so. But is this a reason to dislike a state?
No matter what career it is, there is always a small percentage that make it look bad for everyone else. As the song goes, "one bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch (girl)".
Maryland has it's issues, not as bad as some and not as good others, but what state doesn't.
In reference to, "One should probably devise an exit strategy, to flee the People's Republik of Marylandistan. They haven't found anything that they didn't wanna control, or tax." In reference to control, past news stories says a lot about lack of control and taxing in some states!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not taking up for Maryland on the liberal issues, every state has them. But, at this time it is my home and I will doing everything I can to help myself and other MV owners with the issues in this state.
Take care and be safe!
This is exactly what I wanted to happen. How in the world did you convince them? I never called them directly because I was certain that they'd blow me off.I got MSP to revise the bulletin "partially". They removed the off-road only use as well as some of the other language. All that is left now is the FMVSS stuff. Chiseling away and working towards making a path towards compliance.
https://mdsp.maryland.gov/ASED/ASED Bulletins/Bulletin ASED-009 Military Vehicle Inspection (Revised 2-11-21).pdf
NHTSA makes it clear that Humvees are still governed by all other aspects of the Act, especially the notification and remedy provisions of the Act. For example, under this provision, “...the manufacturer itself [in this case, AM General] has a good faith obligation imposed by the Act to determine the existence of a safety related defect when the facts so indicate, and to effectuate notification and remedy…”“Although Congress expressed no intent that military vehicles be excluded from the coverage of the Act, the agency determined for reasons of policy that vehicles manufactured pursuant to military specifications should be exempted from conformance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued under the authority of the Act. Comments received at the end of 1966 in response to the proposals for the initial standards raised the possibility that compliance in some instances could affect the capability of equipment to fulfill its military mission, and therefore when the standards were adopted, military vehicles were exempted under 49 CFR 571.7(c), but the agency relinquished no other jurisdiction over them.”
To prove as such, the forward to MIL-STD-1180B reads as follows:“…the Department of Defense in apparent recognition that its vehicles are "motor vehicles" has attempted to ensure that they conform with the Federal safety standards to the extent practicable, as evidenced by MIL-STD-1180B…”
"Although vehicles and equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications are specifically exempted from the provisions of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), it is the established policy of the Army to comply with the intent of those standards as long as compliance does not degrade essential military characteristics. With the same limitation, compliance with applicable provisions of (Federal) Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (MCSR) is an Army requirement.
This military standard provides guidance to assure proper safety characteristics associated with FMVSS are designed into military vehicles in a consistent manner."
I gave the findings a quick reading, and it appears that it only applies to vehicles 10,000 pounds and lower (the vehicle in question happens to be an M1009). Is that accurate? If that is correct, this case law may not be useful to those owning larger vehicles. If this is correct, some of the later HMMWVs would not be covered, such as the M1123s, M1165s, and M1152s because their GVWR is higher than 10,000 pounds. I hope I read it wrong.There was a case in Wisconsin in which a court found that the MIL STD is effectively equivalent to the FMVSS.
View attachment Wisconsin Case TR-11-0016 Acceptance of MIL Std 1180B.pdf
Yes so get me any documentation you have on this so we can build a strong case. Instead of pushing that we are exempt we should be saying instead that we are compliant based on the MIl-STD-1108b document. That is what won that other court case on the subject...@TechnoWeenie Well, that just gives us another avenue of attack if the MSP balks at eliminating the rest of the memo.
We have an actual copy of MIL-STD-1108B. Can you provide a source for the text of the Federal exemption? The only reason @Jeff MD has made the progress he has, is because I was able to provide him with actual documentation. The MSP won't simply take our word for it that there's a Federal exemption for all military vehicles. We have to show them.
The MIL-STD-1108b applies to multiple classes of vehicles:I gave the findings a quick reading, and it appears that it only applies to vehicles 10,000 pounds and lower (the vehicle in question happens to be an M1009). Is that accurate? If that is correct, this case law may not be useful to those owning larger vehicles. If this is correct, some of the later HMMWVs would not be covered, such as the M1123s, M1165s, and M1152s because their GVWR is higher than 10,000 pounds. I hope I read it wrong.
We get it, advertisements are annoying!
Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website like our supporting vendors. Their ads help keep Steel Soldiers going. Please consider disabling your ad blockers for the site. Thanks!