Wis DOT v. ex-military vehicles - AB-592

[skinnedknuckles]

I think this one went pretty good for us. The senate panel asked some good direct questions to the DOT for their reasoning against mv's. Like JP said about the "chip on the dot's shoulder" against mv's in general, the chairman's first statement after the Dot made its presentation was to the effect of the DOT's grudge against mv's. Both Paul Underwood and Jeff Rowsam made good presentations for our cause. Hopefully this gets resolved in a timely manner.
Hey JP glad to have given you a ride in the little carhope you weren't too squished.
Paul in Janesville, Wi

 

[undysworld]

Poof,
It was a pleasure to meet up. Yeah, what you asked about insurance!!

To All,

I think the meeting went fairly well, on our side. I'll leave the reporting to others. Have at 'er. It's fun to read.

I expect that I will be kept somewhat informed by my Senator's office, as things progress. I'll try to post info as I get updates.

Here's my initial take on things:

During discussion on SB-404, both Sen. Hansen (the Senate sponsor of SB-404) and Rep. Zigmunt (author of SB-404) indicated a willingness to work with Sen. Erpenbach (the author of SB-392) on some solution which could satisfy both sides - collectors concerns and utility users. We'll see what comes up, but it's probably a good sign.

Assuming the Senate and Assembly arrive at a fair bill, which allows reasonable use of these vehicles, and they vote to pass it, we still need to convince Gov. Doyle to sign it. It won't become law unless he signs it.

Gov. Doyle is not planning to run for reelection. So he's not concerned about whether you vote for him next time around...

Stay tuned. When it comes time to urge your elected officials to vote our way, we'll need to SPEAK OUR MINDS.

Paul

 

[stumps]

DOT's actions looked so terribly like a grudge that it is wonderful that it got out in the open. It sounds like they haven't fooled your senators.

Thanks guys!

-Chuck

 

[Fishtail]

I've been following this topic, and thanks to those who spearhead this up and can follow up and attend the hearings, etc. A world of gratitude to you folks. Keep up the good work.

Scott

 

[CatMan]

Wis DOT MV Ban Hearing Update

Thanks to all of you in Wisconsin who have contacted your legislators. And to those who have followed our fight.

Both Paul Underwood and myself with many others have been working on the Wisconsin MV issue since 2007, Paul and his team for the Pinz owners and my team for the MVPA and Wisconsin HMV clubs and owners.

Our different views are shared by a common concern to change the current state law and create a statute change to allow former military vehicles. We are getting closered to a legislated solution.

It is now very important that ALL WISCONSIN MILITARY VEHICLE OWNERS GET INVOLVED. There are several bills in committee that will create the needed changes. We support both bills. And are working to amend both, to improve the language and to allow HMV's with the least restriction possible for all MV owners.

The bills, MVPA testimony and my report and comments from the hearings are at Wisconsin Historic Military Vehicle Bill Update. This was updated earlier today.
If you live in Wisconsin and own an MV, please read the blog and then contact your Wisconsin legislators by phone, fax, mail or E mail and ask them to support one of the bills. You choose but do it soon.

Like the old top kick told you "Off you butt's and mount up! We got a war to win!"

Good Luck

Cat Man aka Jeff Rowsam

 

[undysworld]

Jumpin' in here briefly. Jeff, I trust you'll add in again if you feel differently than I.

While Jeff's been coming at this primarily from a "Collector" standpoint, and I've been more concerned about the "utility use" standpoint, we are in agreement that the goals are to better protect the collector's interests and to secure the most unrestricted utility use possible. There seems to be support in the legislature to work such changes into one bill.

Both bills are likely to undergo some changes in the near future. It's probably better if you don't pick one or the other just yet. Let's see which one ends up being the best of the current two. THEN if you're ok with it, contact your Senator and your Assy. Rep. and ask them to support it.

But we also need our Governor to sign the bill, assuming it gets there. But again, we'll want to be sure of which bill to ask his support on.

If you want to do something now, I'd suggest writing to Gov. Doyle. Write a very nice, polite letter to tell him that you are paying attention to the ex-military vehicle registration bills, which are currently in the legislature. Tell him that the way WisDOT has dealt with the ex-military vehilce issue is unacceptable. They are tramping on poor folks again, taking away working-class people's rights. I'd suggest not naming one bill over the other for now, but let him know that you care about this issue.

If you're curious about the hearing, here is a link which allows you to view the video (so I'm told): WisconsinEye: Video Archive

It's worth watching if only to hear the DOT testimony and comments following it.

If you read Jeff's Update site, I have to plead guilty to being the bonehead who spoke for the weight-limit related clause. I was trying to figure a way to allow the smallest and most civilian-like vehicles to be used as a daily driver, if desired. It was a late add-on, and I was uncomfortable with it, and should have not tossed it out.

Anyway, between Jeff and myself, I'm sure you'll hear of the changes that get made to the bill/s. When we get a good one, be ready to make those calls!!

Paul

 

[stumps]

I just finished watching the video of the hearing, and I'd like to say that you guys did a great job. You were all well focused, made clear and well reasoned arguments. As to the DOT lawyer, well what can I say. I don't think he won any points with his first testimony. He had a lot to say about how dangerous HMV's are, but nothing to back it up. I like it when the opposition is incompetent.

Again my thanks go to all of you at the meeting.

-Chuck

 

[USAFSS-ColdWarrior]

I've jsut finished watching the suggested Wisconsin Committee videos.... VERY enlightening It appears to be moving in a somewhat positive direction. However, I've not see much mentioned aobut those former MV's that are being used commercially as in logging, power distribution support, etc. Any thoughts Have their papers been revoked also

Here in west Texas, there is a Wind Energy related electical cable contractor that's using M818's to deliver cable spools on commercial flatbed trailers to the remote wind farms. They may move a bit slower on the highway, but the rough ranch terrain for the last few miles isn't an obstacle for their delivery drivers. You've probably got some similar operations in other industries on your Wisconsin highways and then off-road work sites.

 

[stumps]

I've jsut finished watching the suggested Wisconsin Committee videos.... VERY enlightening It appears to be moving in a somewhat positive direction. However, I've not see much mentioned aobut those former MV's that are being used commercially as in logging, power distribution support, etc. Any thoughts Have their papers been revoked also

They will be.

Quite honestly, they need to be told about the problem, and they need to start showing up at the hearings. If they don't, they are going to be in for a big expensive surprise.

Neither of the proposed bills supports commercial, or even regular use of HMV's.

If any of you Wisconsin guys know of commercial entities, or farms, that are using HMV's in their businesses, please tell them what is going on!

-Chuck

 

[98hd]

I watched the video also.

One thing that struck me is when Paul was addressing the room.

It seemed as though trucks over 5 tons were being left out of the mix. I don't remember exactly what was said as I listened last night. Would like to know what the rational is behind that if I heard correctly.

I think you both did a good job though.

 

[undysworld]

98HD,

I'm pretty sure you're refering to my (nearly) last comment. FWIW, I regret having included it. Here's the background:

Going into the meeting, it was unclear who would speak in what order. I was not anticipating speaking first, but my Sen.'s office requested it. My comments had been prepared in order to respond to two possible situations: If the general thrust of the meeting was towards the DOT's bill (AB592/SB404), then I was going to suggest a general exception from the "parade-only" wording which would apply to the smallest (most civilian-like) vehicles. (The reason I chose the cutoff of 15,000 was to at least try and include the deuces in the "small" group. I had to choose some limit.) But if the general direction was towards Erpenbach's bill, then it seemed a moot point.

Since I spoke first, I didn't know where it would eventually end up. In my confusion, I ended up reading the paragraph. It seems to have muddied things up. But, I believe that in the end, it will not be either the direction the legislation goes, nor desireable to keep in.

One thing I've learned over the past 2 1/2 years, is that the perspective changes as time goes by. What seemed like a good idea one day, seems less viable 6 months later. And as other folks' concerns are brought to the front, you realize just how difficult it is to write the actual statute.

So, in short, I screwed up, but hopefully not for too long, nor too deeply.

Thanks a lot for your input.

Paul

 

[undysworld]

USAFSS & Stumps,

You guys are correct, and that's something I've been concerned about since day 1.

I've got a Farm plate on my deuce, and yeah, those are all threatened. You'd think I was the only guy in Wisconsin who doesn't have a Collector plate on my truck.

I tried to raise awareness up at Oshkosh Corp. but they don't care. I contacted Oshkosh Equip. Sales, and had a good talk with one of the head honchos, but the owner never called me back even. I spoke with the Wisconsin Ducks company, but they don't seem interested in following up.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not tossing in the towel. But I can't save the world. Especially if the world doesn't care. If you can get their attention, super.

Of the two bills, Erpenbach's seems less restrictive, to borrow Catman's expression. Although we'd be forced to register as a Collector, under that bill, we at least are exempted from the Payload restriction of 500#. So you could use a collector HMV to haul stuff.

You're right, neither one supports commercial use or unrestricted registration, and I wish they did. Unfortunately, DOT has some huge issue with HMVs, and seem dead-set against anything but parade use. Whatever we can get passed by our legislature still needs our Gov.'s signature, and he seems to take DOT's word for things.

 

[mckeeranger]

I watched the video also.

One thing that struck me is when Paul was addressing the room.

It seemed as though trucks over 5 tons were being left out of the mix. I don't remember exactly what was said as I listened last night. Would like to know what the rational is behind that if I heard correctly.

I think you both did a good job though.

There was also much talk about leaving them in their original configuration. That means bobbed or other modified deuces would be out. OPCOM's new monster with the singled out wheels, added box and lift gate would also be illegal.

I understand where the MVPA guys are coming from. I'm a collector in another area and we like to keep everything unmodified for preservation of history. That's OK. I'm not trying to reopen the "original vs modified" debate, I'm just pointing out that the guys who own modified trucks seem to be left out on this.

 

[98hd]

98HD,

I'm pretty sure you're refering to my (nearly) last comment. FWIW, I regret having included it. Here's the background:

Going into the meeting, it was unclear who would speak in what order. I was not anticipating speaking first, but my Sen.'s office requested it. My comments had been prepared in order to respond to two possible situations: If the general thrust of the meeting was towards the DOT's bill (AB592/SB404), then I was going to suggest a general exception from the "parade-only" wording which would apply to the smallest (most civilian-like) vehicles. (The reason I chose the cutoff of 15,000 was to at least try and include the deuces in the "small" group. I had to choose some limit.) But if the general direction was towards Erpenbach's bill, then it seemed a moot point.

Since I spoke first, I didn't know where it would eventually end up. In my confusion, I ended up reading the paragraph. It seems to have muddied things up. But, I believe that in the end, it will not be either the direction the legislation goes, nor desireable to keep in.

One thing I've learned over the past 2 1/2 years, is that the perspective changes as time goes by. What seemed like a good idea one day, seems less viable 6 months later. And as other folks' concerns are brought to the front, you realize just how difficult it is to write the actual statute.

So, in short, I screwed up, but hopefully not for too long, nor too deeply.

Thanks a lot for your input.

Paul

Thanks for the explanation. It was a bit confusing and I didn't want to throw my support behind a bill that left the 5 ton group out of the picture.

Thankfully I can still register in MI, but I'd like to see a good solution worked out here. This also brings up a point I didn't see mentioned. Out of state vehicles will still be able to drive here.

 

[98hd]

There was also much talk about leaving them in their original configuration. That means bobbed or other modified deuces would be out. OPCOM's new monster with the singled out wheels, added box and lift gate would also be illegal.

I understand where the MVPA guys are coming from. I'm a collector in another area and we like to keep everything unmodified for preservation of history. That's OK. I'm not trying to reopen the "original vs modified" debate, I'm just pointing out that the guys who own modified trucks seem to be left out on this.

I believe it was Jeff speaking on this. I like that the language was discussed. I think it needs to be written to state something more along the lines of "Military style or configuration" or something of that sort.

The bobber guys can always go find the paperwork I've seen posted on the mil prototype and say they are making a replica if the language was revised to be a little less restrictive.

 

[saddamsnightmare]

January 25th, 2010.

Watching from the side lines way down here in Texas..... I still say that while you guys in Wisconsin seem to be moving towards some solution to the HMV issue, I would say because it does not allow for those of us who use our vehicles as working trucks daily, and doesn't cover the 5 and 10 tons, and even the HEMTT's, something unfortunate is going to be hatched here, and other liberal minded states are gonna pick it up sooner or later.
The Senators showed some sense in their response to the DMV vendetta, but I still say you folks have to get ballsy and push the issue harder.... either you're gonna get the whole shebang left as here in Texas, or you're gonna have tame MV's in a zoo and nowhere else.
This is why I won't join the MVPA because it is too parochial in it's views, even the Model "T" Ford clubs have more guts when push comes to shove..... Perhaps we need to involve the Veteran's organizations on our side,as they are vocal, have money, and are politically respected. By enlisting them, we can make it politically expensive and guarantee a media bloodbath to the politicians supporting the DMV position.....
Other state legislatures and DMV's are watching you, be sure your best bill goes forward and wins one for the working vehicles, otherwise, go hide in a shed because you will have allowed exappropriation without reimbursement if you fail.....

Good Luck, get R. Lee Ermey in there if you must....use his video on the History Channel Mailbag on the deuce....

Cheers,

Kyle F. McGrogan

 

[englishmauser]

There was also much talk about leaving them in their original configuration. That means bobbed or other modified deuces would be out. OPCOM's new monster with the singled out wheels, added box and lift gate would also be illegal.

I understand where the MVPA guys are coming from. I'm a collector in another area and we like to keep everything unmodified for preservation of history. That's OK. I'm not trying to reopen the "original vs modified" debate, I'm just pointing out that the guys who own modified trucks seem to be left out on this.

If The Zigmunt Bill becomes law in its present form, The Wisconsin Dells Ducks would only be able to operate off road. They are not in their original configuration and they operate as a business, not for recreation or parade use. Can we use this to help our cause for expanding our privileges? Can you imagine the DOT shutting them down?

 

[98hd]

If The Zigmunt Bill becomes law in its present form, The Wisconsin Dells Ducks would only be able to operate off road. They are not in their original configuration and they operate as a business, not for recreation or parade use. Can we use this to help our cause for expanding our privileges? Can you imagine the DOT shutting them down?

Don't forget the dells army ducks also. I'm just down the road from the dells.

The thing I think both of those organizations have going from them is that they operate within the city and township. And like in Baraboo, you can drive small electric golf carts in the city, but there are certain boundaries. I imagine they could get exempted easily.

 

[Tanner]

Watching - with interest

I, too, am watching this play out from North Carolina & have some questions -

1) How does WisDOT have the ability to overrule the NHTSA/Federal DOT standards or interpret them as they choose, when the other 49 non-Socialist States appear to allow the trucks in question to be titled & used on highway?

2) As long as the state is generating taxable revenues on said trucks, and said trucks are legally operated on the road, why should WisDOT care? A door sticker doesn't stop a modern vehicle from being operated any more or less safely than a MV. And why, suddenly, is a Pinz (or any Deuce or smaller truck) more dangerous in 2009-10 than it was before the registrations were revoked?
Where is the logic? WisDOT needs to provide substance to support their argument, not speculation, heresay, or kneejerk reaction to the sight of a large MV on the highway.

If the WisDOT concern is over metal dashes, lack of airbags, drum brakes, lack of modern crash protection, etc., then they sound as though they want ALL cars & trucks built prior to '67 off the road? I for one dislike the concept of the vehicles being limited to a mere few hundred miles per year of use.

Mileage usage per year has no bearing on safe vehicle operation; why the limit the mileage?

Keep up the good fight Gentlemen!

'Tanner'

 

[undysworld]

I'll try this again. I lost my reply once.

Mckeeranger,

Yes, modified vehicles are not included in this. From my knowledge of Wis law, such a vehicle would be considered a "street modified" vehicle, and should be covered by existing statutes. Such a vehicle is required to be so registered.

In my opinion, these vehicles should be included in the legislation. However, what is probably more important now is getting a law passed which insures the private operation of un-modified milvehs, at a minimum. Legislation or rulemaking to possibly allow modified trucks to register could be done another time.

But yeah, you're right.


98hd,

Thanks for asking. The whole idea of the U.S. state's reciprocity laws is predicated on the concept of there being some relatively uniform DOT policies from state to state. Wisconsin trying to set some unique standards is just wrong.

I suggest "substantially represent it's military design". Better get goin' on finding the paperwork on that prototype! As I wrote above, the modified battle may be better fought another day.


Saddams...

Thanks for your comments. It is important to remember that our officials are generally not responsive to out-of-state input. Too much input like that can hurt.

But for any national organizations to get involved and reach out to their members in Wisconsin would be a great thing. So yeah, any help like that would be great...

And if any of you guys know R. Lee, please send him my way. (My son would love that!) Seriously, I & we are doing whatever we can. If he can help, terrific.


Englishmauser,

From previous conversations, IIRC, the Ducks could be allowed by a town ordinance. I believe they came to the July 29, 2009 DMV hearing. But I've heard nothing else from them. Let's face it, DOT does not survive on popularity ratings!


98hd,

Yup.


Tanner,

GOOD questions.

1) WisDOT is relying on a statute meant to restrict registration of "mini-bikes, go-carts and all-terrain vehicles", and because milvehs lack a NHTSA label, they're illegal. It's a longer story than that, but that's how they tie the federal regs in to their case. Which is ironic, since it's the federal regs which have exempted both US and (legally imported!) foreign milvehs from FMVSS requirements. It's really a questionable interpretation of the state statute. The Senators rolled their eyes when I explained it in the hearing. It's nuts.

2) Well, accidents do happen. DOT claims the basis for their concern is the fact that a milveh could damage other drivers, in addition to the occupants. But show me the statistics, WisDOT! Maybe DOT just doesn't want to take in all those annual renewal fees, so that instead they can raise our registratin fees to cover the expense of fighting this prolonged battle over milvehs?

Well, that was the logic. It's sort of circular. So show us the numbers. And remember, the first milveh to be refused registration was Steve B's 1943 Jeep because it did not meet the safety standards that were enacted a quarter century after the vehicle was built.

So I guess that's proof that milvehs are dangerous. The ignorant designers weren't even able to meet standards that were set 25 years in the future. I guess the DOT must be right.

NOT​

Paul