Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33

Thread: Thoughts on the onslaught of State Laws that Pull us of the road

  1. #1
    General Reworked LMTV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    416
    Thanks
    240
    Thanked 247 Times in 112 Posts

    Default Thoughts on the onslaught of State Laws that Pull us off the road

    I am trying to wrap my head around the best leverage to change legislation when these types of things occur. One repeating concept keeps coming to mind. Climate change. More floods, fire, tornadoes, etc, and rescues of families. It basically trumps everything. Including legislation with unintended or intended consequences. In other words, our trucks are the first on the seen. Not the National Guard. Your neighbors know who has the flood vehicle for sure : ) If their Plan B was no longer around because it was not practical to own, where is their back up plan? This concept could garner a lot of support, well beyond military vehicle owners.

    Hypothetical PSA: " Help us help you in times of tragedy. Our military vehicles that rescue families will no longer be an option if Senate Bill (pick a number) is not amended" "Support us, we are much more than just Parade Vehicle Owners, we save lives!" Thank you -Your Local Military Owners Association".

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ors/628235001/



    https://www.cnn.com/videos/weather/2...a-wolf-vpx.cnn

    https://abc13.com/society/donor-give...hicle/5182441/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcr35D1p9wc


    Open to your thoughts...
    Last edited by Reworked LMTV; 08-07-2019 at 10:59.
    Remember that tiny cut you forgot about? Brake cleaner remembers.....

  2. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Reworked LMTV For This Useful Post:

    98G (08-07-2019), ageregunner (08-08-2019), desmodromic (08-07-2019), dxhend2 (08-07-2019), firefox (08-07-2019), TGP (IL) (08-13-2019), USAFSS-ColdWarrior (08-07-2019), wheelspinner (08-07-2019), wiggall (08-07-2019)

  3. #2
    4 Star General wheelspinner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    North Carolina - FINALLY !
    Posts
    3,022
    Thanks
    1,574
    Thanked 2,807 Times in 1,090 Posts

    Default

    I like it! We have been working (loose term) on legislation here in NC to correct their idiocy. I will forward this to the staff that is reasonably friendly to our cause.
    MSgt, USAF (Ret)
    "Be a person you would be proud to know"

    1985 M1009 CUCV; 1991 Ford ME350A1; 1990 BMY M923A2; 1988 M1038 ; 1988 M998 (SOLD) ; 1994 M1078; 1995 M1088 (2 Parted Out); 1995 M1083; 1985 M35A2C-85K274 (SOLD)
    MEP803a; MEP802A; This space Reserved
    For best results, try not to do anything stupid.
    MVPA #29740

    CANCER SUCKS, and that's all I got to say about that.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to wheelspinner For This Useful Post:

    Reworked LMTV (08-07-2019), USAFSS-ColdWarrior (08-07-2019)

  5. #3
    4 Star General /Moderator doghead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NY
    MVPA
    8675309
    Posts
    25,967
    Thanks
    2,522
    Thanked 13,796 Times in 5,974 Posts

    Default

    If your intended use is not simply historic, You will need to insure it properly. That will eliminate most of the specialty companies. Obviously, legislation based on intended use, will need insurance for intended usege.
    Last edited by doghead; 08-07-2019 at 20:54.
    M817, M818, M819, M35A2 w/w, M35A2, M109, M105, M116A2, M101A2, Pioneer tool trailer, MEP-002, MEP-017A, 5ton winch shear pins, Oral-B toothbrush

    Ah Beefco Industries Northeast marketing associate

    Don't judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=12&v=T6BTcEwtmZo


  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to doghead For This Useful Post:

    frank8003 (08-08-2019), NormB (08-09-2019), TGP (IL) (08-13-2019), USAFSS-ColdWarrior (08-07-2019)

  7. #4
    Potato Peeler Sgt Jiggins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Lynchburg, VA
    MVPA
    24241L
    Posts
    165
    Thanks
    429
    Thanked 120 Times in 68 Posts

    Default

    I am by no means a qualified expert on this subject, but my gut tells me:

    1)this is part of a larger pattern given how widespread it is - multiple states (in the US anyhow) are going/have gone down this road. this is quite likely being tied to federal funding/grants.
    2)this isn't going to end any time soon
    3)the best way to effect what we would see as positive change is likely to align with bodies that have lobbyists and play the "dc" game.

    Who these bodies are, how to engage them, and ultimately how to fund them is beyond me. But one thing I am fairly certain of is that grousing on niche/esoteric forums isn't the solution.

    Regards,
    SJ

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Sgt Jiggins For This Useful Post:

    cwc (08-08-2019), SCSG-G4 (08-07-2019), USAFSS-ColdWarrior (08-07-2019)

  9. #5
    Sergeant dxhend2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Escondido, CA
    Posts
    78
    Thanks
    110
    Thanked 96 Times in 33 Posts

    Default

    I agree with SJ's points. Definitely seeing multiple US states changing their positions on this. Question for everyone here - has anyone captured/documented any of their rationale for doing this? Is it a highway safety issue? Environmental issues? Or, just because they can? Usually regulations are designed to mitigate some specific risk for the public good. So...what is the problem that they think they're solving?

    I think we may have a better chance of success by trying to directly address the risk or concern. Many times these get presented in a one-sided argument (oh, this might happen...so we should regulate away the risk...).

    Anyone have any "on the record" notes about the risks/concerns? Any thoughts on this approach?
    2007 M1083A1

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to dxhend2 For This Useful Post:

    cwc (08-08-2019), SCSG-G4 (08-07-2019), USAFSS-ColdWarrior (08-07-2019)

  11. #6
    General Reworked LMTV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    416
    Thanks
    240
    Thanked 247 Times in 112 Posts

    Default

    On the record:

    miltary vehicle prohib Maryland.jpg

    I borrowed this from another member named "Hometown" post. Apparently, it has no basis in actual law, but it is interesting to see how it was spun. I will add a link to this member's posts.
    Last edited by Reworked LMTV; 08-07-2019 at 21:12.
    Remember that tiny cut you forgot about? Brake cleaner remembers.....

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Reworked LMTV For This Useful Post:

    dxhend2 (08-07-2019), Sgt Jiggins (08-07-2019), USAFSS-ColdWarrior (08-07-2019)

  13. #7
    General
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Crystal City Mo
    Posts
    556
    Thanks
    1,455
    Thanked 466 Times in 246 Posts

    Default

    One of the problems is they see green or camouflage and the freakout begins. If you paint it pretty rainbow colors or it looks like construction equipment, which people hate but not as bad then it is ok.

    I still believe that we live in a free country, a Republic. Precedent should apply as the use of surplus equipment has been used since the beginning of the Republic.
    Belt Fed Multi Barrel Motor Motivated

    Help From Above

    GAU 8 See You Next Time

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to cucvmule For This Useful Post:

    USAFSS-ColdWarrior (08-07-2019)

  15. #8
    Sergeant dxhend2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Escondido, CA
    Posts
    78
    Thanks
    110
    Thanked 96 Times in 33 Posts

    Default

    Thanks for the find from MD, Reworked. Interesting literary gymnastics they're doing:
    "A study conducted on general public use of special purpose military vehicles...has identified that these special purpose military vehicles are not constructed to meet 49 CFR 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, as stated in 517.1(c)."
    But that's not what 517.1(c) says:
    571.7 Applicability.
    (c)Military vehicles. No standard applies to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.


    But, if your local police department (or fire department, etc.) acquires one of these vehicles to drive on public highways, that's ok...?
    2007 M1083A1

  16. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to dxhend2 For This Useful Post:

    ageregunner (08-08-2019), cucvmule (08-08-2019), cwc (08-08-2019), NormB (08-09-2019), USAFSS-ColdWarrior (08-08-2019), Valor (08-08-2019)

  17. #9
    3 Star General TacticalTruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Va Piedmont
    Posts
    914
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 141 Times in 84 Posts

    Default

    Ever since HMMWVs started coming out again and people were getting all sorts of red flags thrown for trying to get around "off road use only" things have been steadily getting worse.

  18. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to TacticalTruck For This Useful Post:

    av8or (08-08-2019), BKubu (08-08-2019), frank8003 (08-08-2019), L1A1 (08-10-2019), SCSG-G4 (08-09-2019), tennmogger (08-08-2019), USAFSS-ColdWarrior (08-08-2019), waayfast (08-09-2019)

  19. #10
    4 Star General wheelspinner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    North Carolina - FINALLY !
    Posts
    3,022
    Thanks
    1,574
    Thanked 2,807 Times in 1,090 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reworked LMTV View Post
    On the record:

    miltary vehicle prohib Maryland.jpg

    I borrowed this from another member named "Hometown" post. Apparently, it has no basis in actual law, but it is interesting to see how it was spun. I will add a link to this member's posts.
    Every single statement is false. With the MVPA basically turning their backs and no real lobbying group representative of the more modern vehicles this will continue to happen more and more.

    Unfortunately as we all sit here talking about it on Social Media/interwebs-we believe we are doing something. This interaction although informative is worthless in changing the tide Please get active in your local/state government; be vocal and annoying. Its the only way.
    MSgt, USAF (Ret)
    "Be a person you would be proud to know"

    1985 M1009 CUCV; 1991 Ford ME350A1; 1990 BMY M923A2; 1988 M1038 ; 1988 M998 (SOLD) ; 1994 M1078; 1995 M1088 (2 Parted Out); 1995 M1083; 1985 M35A2C-85K274 (SOLD)
    MEP803a; MEP802A; This space Reserved
    For best results, try not to do anything stupid.
    MVPA #29740

    CANCER SUCKS, and that's all I got to say about that.

  20. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to wheelspinner For This Useful Post:

    cwc (08-09-2019), Reworked LMTV (08-10-2019), SCSG-G4 (08-09-2019), USAFSS-ColdWarrior (08-08-2019)

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •