Making a good FMV law....

[Ma Duce]

Since this bug has bitten pretty hard, I've been checking into insurance with my agent, bid on ovwr a dozen trucks at GL-- got zero.

And have been penciling mods and ideas.

The Texas FMV law thread caught my eye along with some stuff about titlig the trucks. So I called the Secretary of State's office here in Illinois to get the infor i need on title, and plates. So like most any truck, it has to be plated by weight class.

But it got me to thinking about creating a MV/FMVtype platefor trucks and trailers.

I have a couple ideas of. My own about what to put in the bill as to uses and or restrictions.

Im think about $100 flat plate fee for trucks, and exempting them from the plate By weight issue. Maybe $50 for trailers.

Any other ideas or suggestions about issues that come up or would be nice to have?

To head one issue off at thepass Illinois requires two plates on passenger vehicles, just running door numbers is not going to be an option. But i think i can get us around the AV restrctions and get a better deal with some more "liberal" usage.

 

[ARYankee]

Look into the Texas laws and Florida. That is what I plan on doing. I have made acquaintance with one of our legislatures and he thinks they need to do something better in our state for hobbyists. Another contact would be the MVPA, they could hook you up with the guy that dealt with Wisconsin, now take that with a grain of salt because I think that the Wisconsin folks got the shaft.

A couple of things to consider when tackling this is:
1. How will it affect the hobby...intentions are always good but sometimes the outcome is not so good.
2. Are current laws and regulations adequate enough.
3. It is going to take alot of research and effort... make sure all your "i"s are dotted and "t"s are crossed.

I commend you for taking this on. I, for one, am attempting the same.

 

[emmado22]

What about the trucking company "A" that buys M915's and M871 trailers, uses them commercially, and pays $150 per combo. Trucking company "B" has commerical trucks/trailers, and pays the "going rate" which is going to be alot more for fees. Is that fair?



For hobbyist usage, it's pretty easy to figure all this out. When you step over the line to commerical usage, thats a tricky one.

How would "air braked" trucks (800/900/915 series) trucks be handled? No CDL needed? So any Joe Blow can go drive a semi combo with no training, as long as he plunks down his $150? Lots of thought needed for issues like this.

 

[Ma Duce]

thought of that, the restriction will be for "personal use" and not commercial. Have the same issue with farm plates and we can copy that language. Use it for "other thatn person use" i.e. commercial venture, or agriculture as a way of getting aorund the tags, your out of classification.

hauling a load of mulch home is different than running a landscape business with duece.

 

[kaziboku]

Look into the Texas laws and Florida. That is what I plan on doing. I have made acquaintance with one of our legislatures and he thinks they need to do something better in our state for hobbyists. Another contact would be the MVPA, they could hook you up with the guy that dealt with Wisconsin, now take that with a grain of salt because I think that the Wisconsin folks got the shaft.

A couple of things to consider when tackling this is:
1. How will it affect the hobby...intentions are always good but sometimes the outcome is not so good.
2. Are current laws and regulations adequate enough.
3. It is going to take alot of research and effort... make sure all your "i"s are dotted and "t"s are crossed.

I commend you for taking this on. I, for one, am attempting the same.

Wisconsin has a Historical Vehicle license that is relatively easy to acquire but the regulators let that pass so they could 'regulate' all military vehicles as well as any non-conforming vehicle, (kit car), off the roads. If your only desire is to drive your vehicle as a 'float' in a local parade then the available HMV license is a good model. Wisconsin code is not a good model to choose if you wish to actually utilize a truck to transport materials, collect, or drive.

 

[Ma Duce]

Look into the Texas laws and Florida. That is what I plan on doing. I have made acquaintance with one of our legislatures and he thinks they need to do something better in our state for hobbyists. Another contact would be the MVPA, they could hook you up with the guy that dealt with Wisconsin, now take that with a grain of salt because I think that the Wisconsin folks got the shaft.

A couple of things to consider when tackling this is:
1. How will it affect the hobby...intentions are always good but sometimes the outcome is not so good.

It won't happen if it doesn't help, or make it better. My goal is to not have MV trucks pay commercial rates for plates when they don't do commercial work.

2. Are current laws and regulations adequate enough.

Not by my review.

3. It is going to take alot of research and effort... make sure all your "i"s are dotted and "t"s are crossed.

This is what I do for a living. I'll do this just for fun and personal interest.

I commend you for taking this on. I, for one, am attempting the same.

I'll start drafting the bill next week.

 

[ARYankee]

Keep us posted. I know i would like to see what you have when you get something together.

As far as the larger MVs..... federal regulations trump state unless state regulations are more strict. With that being said, you would have to have a CDL for anything with a GVWR of 26,001 lbs or greater. I also think the law should only pertain to private use since commercial and agricultural are different areas. You are headed in a good direction Ma Duce.

 

[jpinst]

What about the trucking company "A" that buys M915's and M871 trailers, uses them commercially, and pays $150 per combo. Trucking company "B" has commerical trucks/trailers, and pays the "going rate" which is going to be alot more for fees. Is that fair?



For hobbyist usage, it's pretty easy to figure all this out. When you step over the line to commerical usage, thats a tricky one.

How would "air braked" trucks (800/900/915 series) trucks be handled? No CDL needed? So any Joe Blow can go drive a semi combo with no training, as long as he plunks down his $150? Lots of thought needed for issues like this.

In most states that have such laws or historical vehicle type laws, you cannot use the vehicle for commercial purposes, so you are not making sense. As for CDL, well if you are not using it for commercial purposes then now Commercial Driver's License Required. Most trucks like the deuce are air over assist and not pure air brakes and anyway, that is more about maintenance than knowing some special technique to use the brakes.

 

[Ma Duce]

What about the trucking company "A" that buys M915's and M871 trailers, uses them commercially, and pays $150 per combo. Trucking company "B" has commerical trucks/trailers, and pays the "going rate" which is going to be alot more for fees. Is that fair?



For hobbyist usage, it's pretty easy to figure all this out. When you step over the line to commerical usage, thats a tricky one.

How would "air braked" trucks (800/900/915 series) trucks be handled? No CDL needed? So any Joe Blow can go drive a semi combo with no training, as long as he plunks down his $150? Lots of thought needed for issues like this.

Emanndo -- your are confusing plating/registration with drivers licensing.

The registration deals with the plating of the vehicles and those fees. the operational asspects of driving a truck are different.

If you drive a 900 series you would have to get a class B endorsement. My D class DL only covers up to 26,000 GVW. A duece falls under that, as a matter of fact so does an empty 923 (21,600 empty less driver and fuel) but you could only haul 4,500 pounds in it). My understanding from our state police is that you can get a class B or A and not have a CDL. Or you can get a CDL with the same endorsements. Those requirements still apply.

the issue is if you try to use a antique vehicle plate you are restricted to when and where you can drive.

Most MV people don't seem to be using their trucks in a commerical or agriculture setting. Go to home depot and pick up a load of lumber for a shed or drywall for the basement. Help a friend out with removing a fallen tree.

Not running a business in construction or cartage. It would seem easy if you don't have to file the IRS heavy haul tax, less than 5k miles a month, you are deffinately not in the commercial world. If they arenot registered to a corporation, you're not doin gcommercial work.

It's easy to work out in the definitions. And getting caught out of your catagory of plates is expensive.

I was just looking for a way to help out the MV guys so in enjoying the hobby, so they don't get raped for plate fees. and can enjoy driving their toys.

I would also add that sa you got a 5 ton tractor, your own drop deck trailer and an APC. And all you want to do is haul your APC to a rally or parade or VFW on the 4th of July.

Under Illinis law, you would have to get and pay:
about $2000 for truck plates for S plates up to 59,000 #
Since a 113 APC comes in at around 11 tons, that 22,000#s, your trailer tag is gonna nee to be for aboput 36,000 so there is another $1100.

So just to have those to items in tag fees is gonn run you over $3000 before you turn the key.

that is part of what I would like to address.

 

[Ma Duce]

Talked with the secretary ofnstates office today, will have a meeting with their legislative people either tommorow or friday.

They are interested in the topic.

We'll see what they say.

 

[jpinst]

Well you have to add o the fact that such registration will be used for Veterans benefits, such as parades, hosting at VFW posts, etc, and also will allow for easier transportation of vehicles to be used in the film industry, thus potentially attracting productions to the state. It also could ad jobs and tax revenues as parts suppliers, and repair shops and shops that cater to the MV enthusiast will get support. Think long-term....this could bring a lot to the state, but please emphasize that these are not daily drivers and get used at most 100 miles a year. For them, the big worry will be emissions, but its not more than a leaf blower if its used 5 days a year.....

 

[donkren]

I'd like to resurrect this tread to update the community on recent developments...

Before this bill was passed, there was an amendment that added subsection (d):

"(d) A vehicle may not be registered under this Section unless a title for the vehicle has been issued by the Secretary and the vehicle is eligible for registration without regard to its status as a military vehicle."

The SOS is now interpreting this subsection to mean that a vehicle must be certified by the manufacturer as FMVSS compliant to be eligible for registration. (Any registration, not just FMV plates.) By their reasoning, no vehicle may exempted from FMVSS (as it is by federal law) or held to another federal safety standard (such as MIL-STD-1180B) because those options are not available "without regard to its status as a military vehicle."

This interpretation is clearly counter to the intent of the law, as it prohibits registering almost any US Military Vehicle. Vehicles produced for and sold directly to the US military have been exempt from FMVSS since the implementation of these standards in 1968. So almost none have a manufacturer's sticker applied to certify compliance. I believe only a few "civilian type" vehicles produced for the military might have this certification- like a pickup or van purchased by the military - probably not what comes to mind when anyone thinks of Military Vehicles.

I have been arguing with the DMV here in IL regarding their refusal to register HMMWVs for road use. In the latest round, they have branded the title to my (Clean SF-97) M1097A2 as "not eligible for registration". This is the rationale the SOS attorney advanced at the formal hearing I requested to review this decision. I think I did a fair job of pointing out the obvious contradiction in his interpretation, but I am no lawyer. The final ruling has not been issued as yet.

By the way, I read this subsection to mean a vehicle is not eligible for FMV plates, unless it is eligible for regular plates. I think it is an attempt to prevent the registration of tracked vehicles, and armored vehicles not intended to be operated on public highways.

Any info on the original intent of this amendment would be greatly appreciated, and possibly very helpful if I end up having to appeal.

If this interpretation is unchallenged, I don't foresee many FMV plates being issued. And insisting on FMVSS certification would affect far more than just HMMWVs.

Don