Wisconsin banning military vehicles?

[tfscobie]

Here we go again Paul. Keep in touch.

[JAB]

http://wihmvbill.blogspot.com


viewtopic.php?f=66&t=152216&start=0

I thought I'd post this here to spread the word a little more.

[undysworld]

OK, here's the proposed bill being put forth by Senator Erpenbach: http://www.wisconsin-pinzgauers.org/sit ... -35621.pdf

I think this is a far superior bill to that of Rep. Zigmunt. What do you think?

Thanks,
Paul

[Dave K.]

Looks good to me--so what are the chances of it passing? From what I received from the MMVA they seem to indicate that this doesn't have a chance of passing and that the Zigmunt bill is the only way to go. What is anyone hearing about the Erpenbach bill and it's chances? As I said in the other thread the Zigmunt is just too restrictive at the end of the day.

Are foreign MVs going to hang the rest of us up? If so we really need to do a reality check and adjust the bill accordingly in over to win over the DOT. I'm not anti-Pinz, just pro the majority of us who will suffer if this is the case. Perhaps a separate bill if we go down this road.

Good luck Paul.

Thanks, Dave.

[Kevin Lockwood]

Just a few things come to mind.
Are the MV owners soliciting help from the antique car clubs?
Many Senators and Reps are antique/classic car nuts.
Are the MV owners becoming divided by DOT?
In the Kansas statute we were careful to exclude only fully tracked vehicles thus allowing the continued use of US halftracks on the roads.
I am surprised that the Zigmunt bill gained any favor at all.
I have read that the Transportation Chair is in favor of the Erpanbach bill. If so he is the man we need to look to for advice on attaching this bill to a DOT or DMV funding bill. If they want funds than they need to back off a insignificant number of motor vehicles which will accumulate a negligible amount a miles driven in a year.
Kevin Lockwood

[Cat Man]

Yes we are working with the Old Car Clubs coalition here in Wisconsin.

Rep Ted Zigmunt is Vice Chair of the transportation committee and sponsor of the bill.

We lost the argument to keep half track vehicles in.

The Zigmunt bill incudes NO RESTRICTION on year of manufacture for US built MV's. That is a big deal since GL is now listing vehicles with Manufacture date "unknown". ANY HMV manufactured in the US would be allowed regardless of year. Makes it much easier to register a recently purchased HMV.

The Pinz guys are behind the Erpenbach bill because they are arguing for UNRESTRICTED use. Our legislative contacts and DOT contacts and Governors office contacts assure us that the Erpenbach bill will not pass because of the NO Restrictions on use. We started our efforts two years ago at the same place the Erpinbach bill is now and we have walked a minefield of legal issues to get to a draft that will protect and allow PRESERVATION and CONSERVATION of HISTORIC MILITARY VEHICLES.

While the Zigmunt bill restricts use to special events, parades and public displays, it includes allowance for normal maintenece, travel and storage, which means you can still use your MV to take a drive on Sunday afternoon. They just don't want them used as daily drivers. Remember is all vehicles including wheeled armor.

By creating a seperate licence plate for Historic Military Vehicles, we will also begin to build a statistical data base that we expect to use in the future to suport a better argument for expaned use based on a demonstrated safety record. Currenty there are no statistics for HMV's in WI. Keeping the HMV's in the collector catagory does not seperate the safety record from other collector vehicles.

The public hearing will be in Mid December. I would encourage everyone to voice you individual concerns at the hearing.

We are trying to pick a fight we can win
Jeff Rowsam

[undysworld]

Hi Jeff,

Sorry to differ with you, but from what I've experienced, there are a lot of HMV owners who cannot afford to own one of these vehicles merely for show. By far the majority of people I've spoken with would want to at least use their vehicle to haul the occasional PERSONAL loads. Like lumber home from Menards, or a load of corn to town, or a load of firewood home to the farm. Zigmunt's bill won't allow those things. It will allow you to own a lawn ornament. Perhaps that's all that you want.

Senator Erpenbach's bill has restrictions, just as ALL collector licensed vehicles have restrictions already. Do you really want the collector car group p/o'd because green trucks get less restrictions than they do? And why are you so anxious to sign away any rights? And why should you be so willing to toss any foreign-market HMV under the wheels?

I've also got a '64 AM General duece, and I can assure you that my foreign Pinzgauer has more safety features than the duece. If this isn't really about safety, then what's it about?

Isn't the whole purpose of the U.S. military (including these vehicles) to defend the country's, and the citizens', rights and liberties? Here's a quote that seems applicable: "It would indeed be ironic, if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of those liberties which make the defense of the nation worthwhile.". Chief Justice Earl Warren - 1967

I don't know. Perhaps I've gotten it all wrong. Maybe it's time for me to simply scrap all this, sell the trucks, and leave things to be as they will be. The weather's always seemed nice in Canada. I seem to be the only guy here who disagrees with the DOT's agenda.

Sorry if I'm sounding down. I just lost a good friend to cancer, and this whole fight just seems senseless.

Over.

[Kevin Lockwood]

Paul and Jeff,
I am sorry that you guys are bearing the brunt of this. I know that you are both spending valuable time and doing everything that seems possible. I hope that my comments have not seemed arrogant or questioning. I am after all not a resident of Wisconsin. I know the MVPA cannot run your show but hope that they are always at your back giving you any ammo available. Hiring a Lobbyist?? Where is MV magazine?? Are they not from Wisconsin??? Are the big collectors standing up for the daily use of MVS???
After meeting with many officials we indeed did triumph in Kansas. We were fortunate that the DOT actually came down in our favor. Our major opponent was the DMV. Your state may be different in its policy makers as I have seen little if any reference to how your states DMV is involved.
I want to itemize a few points that I feel were important in the Kansas fight. In the end we can drive ANY MV thats tagged on the Kansas roads (except those that are fully tracked) any time for any job. I just posted last week some photos of my M3 halftrack in use as a wedding carriage. We screamed around town horns and sirens blarring.
As I have said the DMV was our ogre they decided that they would no longer title or tag any former MV and had begun to send letters asking for titles to be surrendered. Tim whose id here is topkick is a veteran 1SgT and a NE Kansas deputy. He was asked to surrender title for his Scout Car. He refused.
DMVs claims of frightening the general public were enhanced by claiming we were a homeland security threat. We countered this with uniformed soldiers from Military Intell. as well as Many area Sheriffs signing letters stating they had citizens in there counties who had MVs and NO public fear or security threat had been felt.
Next the DMV brought up there concerns of risk to occupants of MVs because they are UNSAFE to the MV operators and passengers. WOW I love this unsafe discussion. Believe me there is NO documented facts showing MVs to be a safety risk, NONE. They called in the Kansas Highway Patrol to support there case but in the end the trooper admitted that a Ford Taurus has killed far more motorists than ALL the MVs in all the years. We pointed out in committte, (and this might be a good place to add that your reps and senators should be present at any meeting with the backstabbing political dept. heads) that Fort Riley, Ks. had begun selling tanks, trucks, etc to Kansas businessmen and farmers in the thirties and the State Highway Patrol could not provide one documented case of a fatality accident.
Next the DMV scheduled a meet with DOT because they now claimed there were serious concerns that MVs were damaging the roads. We met. The Chairman of the Transportation committee presiding. I took along a letter from my DOT area supervisor stating that my vehicles had never caused a concern on the area highways. In fact they were called upon to take EMTs to a snowed in home of a heart attack victim after all county response vehicles had failed to clear the snow drifted road. A common sense Representative from my neighboring district added that there was more damage done to his districts highways in one summer of harvest with trucks hauling to the elevator than some forty or fifty MVs could do in the next twenty years.
It was at this point we knew for sure that the DMV cared nothing at all about safety, it was a mission to exclude MVs from the road regardless of the facts. I met with a lobbyist who generously gave me pointers for free. I was very fortunate to have my state representative as a friend. We met with the Chairman of the Transportation Committee and decided to amend a existing statute for antique vehicles to specifically include MVs. The trick here was that we never planned to sell the amendment to the Kansas legislature on its own. A committee chair can attach this amendment to say a DOT funds project for there new computers or a bill involving praise for our troops. The State can through its motor vehicle law FORCE the DOT / DMV to play ball.
I honestly know that you guys are trying everything, I just hope that something in our experience will give you an option.You could also source antique auto insurance companies and see if they have documented the claims on injury accidents involving MVs they insure (including halftracks). On that note I am very proud that all the Kansas MV owners presented a Stonewall to the DMV we did not give up on halftracks, we did not sell out the armored car that started the whole issue. We stood together and prevailed. If there is anything I could do to assist you guys I would. I respect you for leading the charge and thank you for keeping us informed on the battle. I would sure love to see the Wisconsin MV magazine and more big boys bring this fight to a knew level.
Deo Vindice
Kevin Lockwood

[Thomas Jacobson]

Seems to me a fairly binary choice, either:
1)You are restoring an HMV to factory original condition. In that case you should be allowed to drive it on Sunday, to show in parades, etc.
2)You are going to use it, even occasionally, as a “working” vehicle to haul a load of lumber, or whatever. In that case you should have to license it as a regular truck, like everyone else, and you should be required to bring it up to appropriate safety codes (or get a different vehicle).
The one criticism of the DOT that I would make is that they seem to want a simplistic rule, and don't want to deal with people who might upgrade their HMV to meet safety standards. (Many older trucks would be almost impossible to upgrade, but that is the reality, you should not be driving a WC with a load of sheet rock on the back.... or a 195x power wagon for that matter.)

I wish the parade/maintenance use part of the bill would be clearer. It should be possible to drive an HMV to work a few times now and then without the fear of getting a ticket, or to take an afternoon drive to the grocery store at the cabin. It seems to be left the discretion of law enforcement at this point.

[undysworld]

OK, I'm back.

The two competing bills have been introduced to the Wisconsin Legislature.

With regards to CatMan's belief in the WisDOT, I have to ask: If they are to be believed now, why did Paul Nilsen, the DOT attorney, misrepresent things to you in that meeting on February 8, 2008? (That was the meeting where he told you that Pinzgauers were not legal to register, only FOUR DAYS after writing an opinion that they were legal to register.)

I'm sorry Jeff, but they're blowing smoke up somewhere.

I, and the other Pinzgauer guys, are behind the Erpenbach bill because it is the only one which will allow any use of ex-military vehicles (U.S. and foreign) besides parades and displays. Unrestricted use? No, just no more restrictions than any other vehicle is subjected to. But we don't want DOT to arbitrarily remove some particular make/model, like they did with our Pinzgauers, with no statutory authority to do so.

I know you started working on this 2 years ago, but they've been lying to you since then. They tell you they need a special license plate to gather statistics, but I find that unlikely. Most HMVs already wear "collector" plates, no? So why doesn't WisDOT use "collector" plate stats? Simple, because "collector" vehicles have a great accident record, so it doesn't support DOT's agenda. What's wrong with having the standard "collector" plate on your HMV and saving all the additional expenses of creating a new plate?? Aren't we all suffering through this same economy??

I've written up some criticisms about various aspects of Rep. Zigmunt's bill which I'll pass along. This one has to do with the proposed restrictions on HMV use.

Near-complete restriction on ex-military vehicle use is unreasonable.
This is probably the biggest problem for me directly. I bought my two ex-military trucks to use them. This restriction on the use of a privately-owned ex-military vehicle to only display, parade, and maintenance use will relegate these vehicles to no more than yard ornaments for most owners. Most ex-military vehicle owners rely on them for some level of general utility use, in addition to the occasional parade or car show.

Section 3 & 4 effectively allow the general utility use of ex-military vehicles by a county or municipality, but disallows such private use. (Please check with Dane Co. Dept. of Public Works at 608 266-4990 (Mike DeMaggio) for their experiences with ex-military trucks in their fleet.) How does a privately owned ex-military vehicle pose any more of a threat than a municipally-owned ex-military vehicle operating on a regular basis? It does not. Your average ex-military vehicle owner, like your average collector car owner, care a great deal about their "baby", and take extraordinarily good care of it. As an indication, please compare the cost for comprehensive insurance policies for collector cars as compared with similar coverage for your average daily driver. The collector car policies are drastically less expensive, and the reason is that they just aren't in many accidents.

The proposed 341.269(3) specifies that ex-military vehicles are to be used only for "special occasions such as display and parade purposes...". Given that many of these vehicles can easily satisfy Wisconsin Admin. Code Ch. Trans 305, which specifies Wisconsin's standards for vehicle equipment, there is no reason for all these vehicles to be limited to such uses.

It is reasonable that ex-military vehicles which cannot satisfy Trans 305 should be restricted to use for "special occasions...". However, ex-military vehicles, both foreign and domestic, which can satisfy Wis. Admin. Code Ch. Trans 305 should be allowed to register according to the owner's uses, ie. "light truck", "farm", etc., just like other vehicles.

[undysworld]

Not meaning to beat a dead horse, but... Your buddy Paul Nilsen seems to think he's the Lone Ranger when it comes to traffic, singlehandedly righting all the world's wrongs. Here's Mr. Nilsen asking fellow bikers to contact HIM if they want to report someone:

Note to all:

Please let me know about drivers and vehicles you encounter like this. DMV
retains reports of dangerous driving, and a couple of similar reports can
become a real headache for the driver. It is important to report stuff like
this.

Paul Nilsen
Assistant General Counsel
Wisconsin Department of Transportation



>From: "R. Kent Wenger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: David Kohli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: bikies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [brazen-dropouts] Mini-vans are harder than they look
>Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:23:10 -0500 (CDT)
>
>On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, David Kohli wrote:
>
> > I ran into an aggressively braking minvan (blue Ford Aerostar plate #PPL
> > MVR)on the way back from Paoli this morning. There were five of us
> > riding two abreast or less on Borchardt Road north bound about a quarter
> > ...
>
>I got intentionally run off the road a few years ago in that area by
>a guy in a minivan. As I recall, it was red, not blue, but maybe it's
>the same guy in a new van? At that time, I reported it to the Dane
>County Sheriffs (which was a mistake -- they were real jerks about it).
>
>Anyhow, you might ask the Fitchburg people if it makes any difference
>if the guy has a prior report of a similar incident. If so, I'll try
>to dig up enough info so that the Fitchburg people could find out whether
>it was the same person.
>
>Kent Wenger
>

http://www.mail-archive.com/bikies@dane ... 02121.html

Don't take my comments wrong. I'm not complaining about someone looking out for safety. But this fellow is relating this incident to an experience "a few years ago" and suspects it might be the same van. Shouldn't he call the police to investigate, not just the DMV to add something anonymous to some guy's file? Shouldn't the police also investigate the bikers for riding "two abreast or less"? I was always taught to ride bikes single-file. I guess Mr. Nilsen has no words of advice for a driver, just so long as they're driving a BIKE.

Sorry if I'm extremely suspicious about Mr. Nilsen's agenda. I've already suffered his do-good attitude, and that's what got our Pinzgauers tossed off the roads in '07. He refused to answer my question during the July 29, 2009 DOT public hearing when I asked him how many new title applications DMV gets annually for vehicles with noncompliant VINs. (He claims DMV is overwhelmed by the number. Maybe.) I'm still waiting for that answer...

How about if we all stand united, and demand that one of these bills gets amended so that:
Historically acurate HMVs get licensed as "collector" (or whatever special plate you guys like) for cheap, have use restrictions, and are maintained to "accurately" represent actual military vehicles.
HMVs also have the option of proving to meet Trans 305 (Wis. Equip. requirements) and then are elligible to license as the owner desires: Light Truck, Farm, etc. plates and then can be used as those plates allow, including hauling loads or plowing snow.
Foreign military vehicles, which must be over 25-yrs. old when imported in order to be FMVSS-exempt, are treated exactly as domestic HMVs.
Foreign military vehicles which are less than 25-yrs. old must be imported through a Registered Importer and have a label signifying FMVSS compliance.
The clause requiring HMVs to accurately represent their military markings is eliminated.
Any vehicles, including HMVs, which have been structurally altered must comply with Wisconsin's reconstructed vehicle requirements (as according to current law).
The documentation required for a new title/license application is specified, to avoid any DMV employee mistakes.

These bills can be amended during this process. Don't give up now and let DOT take away your operating rights!!

Contact your elected representatives and ask for these changes. If your elected official is on a transportation committee, ask them to vote as you indicate. If your elected official is not on that committee, ask them to speak to the committee members on your behalf. Remember, if you don't contact them, they can't help you.

Paul U

[Kevin Lockwood]

Paul, I support your determination. We all stood together in Kansas and won. I certainly hope that the folks in Wisconsin can do the same. Concession is not victory! As I understand it you guys have already won a court decision vs. WISDOT and I am certain they cannot prove any safety issues after seventy years of MVs sharing the roads. It angers me to see fellow MV owners stating that MVs are off-road vehicles. The MVPA just ran a convoy ON ROAD across this entire country.
Kevin Lockwood

[ida34]

>On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, David Kohli wrote:
>
> > I ran into an aggressively braking minvan (blue Ford Aerostar plate #PPL
> > MVR)on the way back from Paoli this morning. There were five of us
> > riding two abreast or less on Borchardt Road north bound about a quarter
> > ...
>
>I got intentionally run off the road a few years ago in that area by
>a guy in a minivan. As I recall, it was red, not blue, but maybe it's
>the same guy in a new van? At that time, I reported it to the Dane
>County Sheriffs (which was a mistake -- they were real jerks about it).
>
>Anyhow, you might ask the Fitchburg people if it makes any difference
>if the guy has a prior report of a similar incident. If so, I'll try
>to dig up enough info so that the Fitchburg people could find out whether
>it was the same person.
>
>Kent Wenger
>

BTW this statement is code for "we were following too close without a proper following distance when the drive unexpectedly put on the brakes". This why we have following distances and there are laws that regulate the distance. They are usually titled following too closely. This is probably the reason the Dane County Sheriff's office were jerks. They probably explained following too closely to the guy and told him he was the one at fault in the incident. He simply did not want to hear this. I am an LEO and even if you only take his side into account he is still wrong. The guy in front does not have to make sure you brake safely. That is totally on the guy in back.

I hope you guys get the stuff straight there in Wisconsin. I wish you guys all the best with this. Good luck.