-
Steel Soldiers now has a few new forums, read more about it at: New Munitions Forums!
taboo to talk
- Thread starter Sintorion
- Start date
springbok
New member
- 320
- 16
- 0
- Location
- Wilmington Delaware
I want a tank.
- 737
- 14
- 18
- Location
- Bothell, WA
FMVSS when? When the contract was awarded? When the exact HMMWV in question rolled off the line? Today?
I suspect the standards have changed during a production run that spanned 30 years. Same for the engine meeting EPA standards or needing a waiver. The government keeps buying the same item, the market and rules move separately.
ryanruck
Active member
- 427
- 46
- 28
- Location
- Cincinnati, OH
Just like every other MV, they don't need to be. That's been the position of the NHTSA: https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/gm/94/nht94-1.78.html
By way of background, I would like to discuss how military vehicles manufactured in the United States are treated under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the authority for the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). The first question to be answered is whether any particular vehicle is a "motor vehicle" as defined by the Safety Act, that is to say, whether it is a vehicle that has been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. If we conclude that a vehicle is manufac tured primarily for on road use, it is a "motor vehicle," notwithstanding the fact that it may be sold "on the basis they would only be used for off road purposes." We see no way in which a seller can bind a purchaser to such use, and, certainly, such a restriction would not be binding on subsequent owners of the vehicle. As for individual vehicle types, to state the obvious, a tracked motor vehicle such as a tank intended for cross-country off-road terrains is not a "motor vehicle." If a vehicle, such as a military bus, has been manufactured primarily for on- road use, it is a "motor vehicle." However, NHTSA excuses vehicles from compliance with the FMVSS if they have been manufactured in accordance with contractual specifications of the armed forc es of the United States (49 CFR 571.7(a)). Furthermore, because the Safety Act does not regulate sales of vehicles to owners subsequent to the original one, the U.S. armed forces may sell military vehicles to the public at the end of their useful milita ry life without having to bring them into conformity with the FMVSS (however, because of safety policy considerations they have not done so with respect to M-151 jeeps and HMMV vehicles).
There's some interesting things going on here that are certainly applicable to the HMMWV.
Now, it does state that the HMMWV is not sold for "safety policy considerations" but, there is no specificity anywhere (except perhaps the original opinion of AMG) of what safety issues there are with the HMMWV and what precluded them from sales.
Clearly those "safety policy considerations" were revised since they are now being sold and, even if they are being sold as restricted to off road use, in the eyes of the NHTSA, the end purchaser cannot be bound by that. Nor, would subsequent other buyers. And since it was "manufactured in accordance with contractual specifications of the armed forces of the United States (49 CFR 571.7(a)" it is exempt from FMVSS.
CUCVs have the FMVSS sticker only because they were built using existing, certified commercial vehicles.
Last edited:
NormB
Well-known member
- 1,220
- 72
- 48
- Location
- Cloverly,MD
That's what Maryland MVA did for me. ROAD title was issued in Montana.
Truck's 25 years old, no inspection, registered historic, about $56 a year IIRC, plates in 3 days through an agency, no problem. I'm not driving it daily anyway.
YMMV.
So what happens when you take a vehicle specified for off road use only, and you agree in the end user agreement it is for off road use only, and you find a way to get an on road title...and then you get in an accident? Will your insurance company cover you when they discover you did exactly what you agreed not to do by buying a vehicle declared to be not road worthy and for off road use only? Could you not be at risk of a huge lawsuit if someone got hurt?
First, if you are the second buyer from someone who owned it and has a legit title how would you ever know if it had an "Off road use only" stamp on it? Not all hmmwvs have this restriction.
Second, if the state approved it I would say my lawyer would shift the burdon to the state.
Third, how would the insurance company ever find out if your truck even had that restriction placed upon it. You think the DMV or the original sellers keep all the papers organized. My guess is as soon as that sf97 gets turned in for a title it goes in the trash. Also, we all know how hard it is to get any information from the govt, good luck for that insurance company to connect the dots.
Second, if the state approved it I would say my lawyer would shift the burdon to the state.
Third, how would the insurance company ever find out if your truck even had that restriction placed upon it. You think the DMV or the original sellers keep all the papers organized. My guess is as soon as that sf97 gets turned in for a title it goes in the trash. Also, we all know how hard it is to get any information from the govt, good luck for that insurance company to connect the dots.
- 34,012
- 1,810
- 113
- Location
- GA Mountains
Hmm, can't say that I recall one. When ari indicated that he knew of no MVs with the FMVSS sticker, I simply advised that mine had them. There was no mention of "other than CUCVs" and that is all I own now!
porkysplace
Well-known member
- 9,604
- 1,494
- 113
- Location
- mid- michigan
The paper trail is there and will stay there , buyers of EUC item are suppose to inform anyone they sell it to about the terms of the sale and keep records of who they sold it to . The insurance company can't take the stance that the majority of the HWWMV's are sold with the OFF ROAD ONLY clause and make you prove it did not have it when released .
- 307
- 153
- 43
- Location
- Sweeden, KY
Thanks ryanruck for bringing this information into the conversation. The attached list has links to certain sections of the Federal Motor vehicle safety act that are relevant to it scope and application, some additional NHTSA letters, also some state-level information that may be of interest, and also some references for how the EPA ban was resolved.
View attachment Reference information.pdf
Videris
New member
- 148
- 0
- 0
- Location
- San Diego CA
hahahahahahahaha. This forum is waaaay too funny for me. Keep it going though, it's very entertaining.
ryanruck
Active member
- 427
- 46
- 28
- Location
- Cincinnati, OH
A couple points were already addressed by Behr.
First, if I have a legally issued state license plate, has my vehicle not been deemed by the issuing state to ostensibly be safe enough to operate on public roads equal to any other plated vehicle?
Also as mentioned, how would the suing lawyer prove in court that my M998A1 is somehow inherently more dangerous than the nearly identical M1123s or USMC M998s that never had any such restrictions? What would happen if one of them got into an accident?
My insurance policy through State Farm was personally reviewed by one of their underwriters who saw my state issued, unrestricted title and vehicle data plate (which quite clearly identifies it as a military HMMWV
) so I don't see why there would be any issues should I need to take advantage of my coverage.That is a great resource! Thanks for sharing it cwc! I find that link to the MIL-STD-1180B document especially interesting and will be reading through that, and the rest, for sure.
I will make sure to spread that PDF as far and wide as I can.
(PS: I passed through Carrollton earlier today headed to and from a service call in Madison. Howdy!
)
Last edited:
Csm Davis
Well-known member
- 4,166
- 393
- 83
- Location
- Hattiesburg, Mississippi
Okay one thing that needs to be cleared up around here is the EUC, it is used to prevent sales to enemies of the USA. It doesn't say you can't sell out of the country but you have to tell if you are going to. It is giving the federal government a paper trail to hang you with if you sell a military vehicle to ISIS. There are many sent overseas every week, back when 939's still required a EUC I sent many to Germany, you just have to tell the state department what you are doing. The EUC has nothing to do with whether the vehicle is used on or off road.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
springbok
New member
- 320
- 16
- 0
- Location
- Wilmington Delaware
I still want a tank
That is why we want to legally get these on the road. We know that what we are buying isn't street legal. The idea is to find out what we need to do to make it such. Be that a louder horn, adding a 3rd brake light, DOT approved seatbelts, etc. No one is advocating finding ways to skirt the laws just to get it on the road. If you have it legally on the road properly insured and have an accident, there is no issue. Now if you pull some grey market title and registration and have an accident, your insurance could deny coverage then you are at risk of a huge lawsuit. Individually you have no worries over a huge lawsuit. You don't have big money. The lawyers that bring these big suits only go after deep pockets. That is part of the reason you have IP and DLA stating that these are not road worthy. Those lawyers would go after them in a heart beat if they could tie them to an accident.
so do I probably be easier to get it street legal rather than street "legal" lol.
- 2,186
- 86
- 48
- Location
- Zimmerman MN
Don't know about your insurance company, mine requires photos from all sides, They know what they are insuring when I apply for coverage on all my vehicles.
86m1028
Active member
- 1,687
- 17
- 38
- Location
- Murphy TEXAS
I don't see how it would be any different than all these golf carts, side by sides etc getting tagged.
Like 1 Partiot-of-many stated my insurance company requires pics & they KNOW what they are insuring.
Like 1 Partiot-of-many stated my insurance company requires pics & they KNOW what they are insuring.
- 3,752
- 1,529
- 113
- Location
- North Carolina - FINALLY !
its important to note the tense of the verbage. "the Humvee (sic) is not roadworthy, and the Humvee (sic) is for off highway use only" This is a current tense, and not a future tense. It relates to the current state of the vehicle not a future state. These lawyers knew exactly what they were crafting.