• Steel Soldiers now has a few new forums, read more about it at: New Munitions Forums!

  • Microsoft MSN, Live, Hotmail, Outlook email users may not be receiving emails. We are working to resolve this issue. Please add support@steelsoldiers.com to your trusted contacts.

Safety standards....MIL STD 1180B...

JEB

Active member
130
144
43
Location
Colbert, WA
The state legislature in Washington will soon consider a bill that would include HMMWVs (30 year old) under the state's Collector vehicle category.

I've been told that the Dept of Licencing and the State Patrol will advise legislators on the appropriateness of the proposed legislation.

In a conversation with the legislative aide at the State Patrol, she kept saying that with a GMVW of 7700, she thinks HMMWVs are too heavy for the road.
She also said that she's been told their handling and brakes are unsafe for the highway. "I would not want one going 80 on the freeway" she said seemingly thinking they are a menace in the road and will crush whatever is in its path.
She also complained about their environmental impact of the trucj, I told her it used the same GM engine found in common heavy duty pickups, she sounded like she didn't want to hear that.

I tried to tell her that gearing prevents HMMWVs from going anywhere near that speed, and I also said that although they don't meet passenger car safety standards, they do meet DoD requirements, after all, I told her, the Army doesn't want to see its people injured.
She sounded like she doesn't care about common sense or logic, simply that since they don't have the required paperwork, they should be banned from the road. Period.

Can some provide a link that I could send her that goes into detail about the Mil Spec Standards they DO meet?

I'd like to have something objective and hopefully bureau enough for her to put aside her (irrational, prejudicial) preconceptions.

BTW: I've contacted SEMA and they are interested in the bill.
I haven't had much luck in getting the MVPA intetested, repeated emails to the State chapter have gone unanswered.
 
Last edited:

JEB

Active member
130
144
43
Location
Colbert, WA
I've read most of that thread and am reasonably conversant in the issue.
What I'm looking for is a unimpeachable DoD document I can give to the State Patrol that will allay her fears.

I'm probably tilting at windmills by assuming the bureaucrats will listen to reason (or park their prejudice against any motor vehicle that's not a hybrid...and military vehicle at that)...I'm trying to avoid what happened in Michigan and Ohio.
 

EasternEmpire

Member
43
80
18
Location
Idaho Falls, Idaho
JEB,

I don't think you're going to have any luck finding that unimpeachable document, particularly for Humvees. Last year about this time when Idaho was struggling with this same issue, I ended up in email exchanges with the Logistics Division Head at TACOM LCMC and the Director of Safety at TACOM in Detroit. MIL-STD-1180 is all that they were able to provide. The 20 September 1986 version is still the most recent version and even they didn't have a very clean/clear electronic copy of it.

In the end, the Idaho legislature passed a statute last year that directed Idaho DMV to title all former military vehicles when presented with a valid SF-97. In addition, it directed DMV to issue a provisional title when an SF-97 was not available.

Good luck.
 

JEB

Active member
130
144
43
Location
Colbert, WA
Eastern Empire..
Being ex military (I spent time at Air Force Material Command HQ), I knew the Army must have a unit like TACOM that does R&D & procurement, and your reply saved me a lot of work.
Thanks.
Here in Washington, we'll be lucky to get the vehicles approved as occasional use collector cars, let alone anything as sweeping as Idaho.I

Is there a good reference to 1180B online at least it's something I can pass on?
 

Retiredwarhorses

Well-known member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
4,414
4,209
113
Location
Brentwood, Calif
I've read most of that thread and am reasonably conversant in the issue.
What I'm looking for is a unimpeachable DoD document I can give to the State Patrol that will allay her fears.

I'm probably tilting at windmills by assuming the bureaucrats will listen to reason (or park their prejudice against any motor vehicle that's not a hybrid...and military vehicle at that)...I'm trying to avoid what happened in Michigan and Ohio.

This is literally the same crap I’ve run into here in California when talking with my reps.
MVPA and MVCC is utterly useless....if it’s not a Jeep or CCKW, they don’t really care.
i reached out to both groups some time ago and got no where quick, heck....MVPA even lied on
other public forum that I had even engaged with them about the issue and I had PM’s
showing otherwise. Really too bad....
 

JEB

Active member
130
144
43
Location
Colbert, WA
I'm really disappointed in the MVPA and its state chapter, you'd think they be all over this. But you're right, if guys own M37s or Jeeps, they don't seem to care...a short sighted view, in my opinion, given the pressure the hobby will likely face in the future from environmentalists, bureaucrats, and anti-military types.
They don't seem to realize a larger MV community is stronger than a smaller one.

However, SEMA has been very interrsted. Good for them!
 

cwc

Active member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
307
153
43
Location
Sweeden, KY
There was a case in Wisconsin in which a court found that the MIL STD is effectively equivalent to the FMVSS. As has been noted in this forum, it is hard to find on the internet, but here it is:

View attachment Wisconsin Case TR-11-0016 Acceptance of MIL Std 1180B.pdf

Also HMMWVs were exempt from the FMVSS but were not exempt from other provisions of the FMVSA. There is a nice discussion by sandman02ds in Thread: GP Hmmwv's sold with On Road Titles, post #35:

https://www.steelsoldiers.com/showthread.php?157531-GP-Hmmwv-s-sold-with-On-Road-Titles/page4
 

papakb

Well-known member
2,285
1,188
113
Location
San Jose, Ca
OK gentlemen, 1) I live here in California, 2) Over the past 35 years I have driven my M37, M151, M980, and M997 thousands of miles throughout the state. 3) I care about the DMV regulations affecting us as much as anyone else and as past MVCC President I cared then too but the MVCC is the local car club, plain and simple. We have never made the promises that the MVPA has about hiring lawyers to fight legislation that could affect us all. They are the ones who claim to represent the military vehicle owner when it comes to legal matters, not us. Naturally all of us are concerned but like everything else in the world of MVs, unless someone takes the bull by the horns and steadily drives the effort it will wither and die.
 

Retiredwarhorses

Well-known member
Steel Soldiers Supporter
4,414
4,209
113
Location
Brentwood, Calif
OK gentlemen, 1) I live here in California, 2) Over the past 35 years I have driven my M37, M151, M980, and M997 thousands of miles throughout the state. 3) I care about the DMV regulations affecting us as much as anyone else and as past MVCC President I cared then too but the MVCC is the local car club, plain and simple. We have never made the promises that the MVPA has about hiring lawyers to fight legislation that could affect us all. They are the ones who claim to represent the military vehicle owner when it comes to legal matters, not us. Naturally all of us are concerned but like everything else in the world of MVs, unless someone takes the bull by the horns and steadily drives the effort it will wither and die.

The MVPA refers you to your Local chapter....from there it just ping pongs back and forth with a “he said, she said”
This will only get addressed in California when your HMMWV registration gets revoked and they go after all HMV’s
 
Top
AdBlock Detected

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!

I've Disabled AdBlock
No Thanks