*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
jonathon <jemery@execpc.com> wrote:
> >Seems to me the position is quite simple:
> >
> >-Vehicles manufactures after a given date must be fitted with this, that
> >and the other to be street legal.
> >
> >-The vehicles in question were manufactured AFTER the cut-off date, and are
> >NOT fitted with the necessary whatsits.
>
> The proper solution is that the vehicle was manufactured with whatever it
> had at that time and that is all that is required now, period.
It seems to me that there's a lot of conjecture floating around about
what is REALLY required by law, and what isn't. As I learned when I
looked into CA's CDL requirement for deuces, opinion and reality often
fail to agree with each other, vehicle codes vary widely between
states, and the only safe solution is to go straight to the law-books
and see what the law REALLY says.
What is the exact scope of the DOT regulations which the HMMWV
supposedly violates? Do they limit what can be operated on US roads,
what manufacturers can sell directly to general consumers, or simply
set standards which, if met, will protect manufacturers from
liability? There are big differences between those! Are these
standards which AMG quotes for passenger cars (which the HMMWV isn't),
or light trucks (which the HMMWV is)? I'm aware that standards have
been quite different for cars and trucks in the past (for example, I
remember seeing plenty of brand new compact pickups in the past with
two 1"x2" clumps of rubber on the sheet metal instead of a rear
bumper), though I don't know what the specific requirements were in
1985, 1986 or 1987, when I believe most of the trucks in this batch of
surplus HMMWVs were made.
This issue has not yet touched me personally (i.e., I have not yet
received any notification that I will not receive my plates, or that
my registration will be revoked), but I'd like to be ready to react if
it does.
Can anybody out there quote any actual laws, either federal or state,
which pertain to this issue? I.e., does anybody out there happen to
know of any federal or state laws which give state DMVs a basis to
attempt to revoke a registration, like in the event which touched off
this thread? There has been enough conjecture on this subject already
(and some of it was mine), in my opinion. At this point, I'd like to
know of any actual federal or state laws which pertain. I'll probably
start digging through the CA Vehicle Code, but I don't have high hopes
for either finding such laws or convincing myself that they're NOT
there! :-)
I don't think it's clear yet whether this situation is "real" or just
a "stupid test". I wouldn't be surprised if that varied from state to
state, either.
Obviously, I'm personally most interested in what CA has to say about
the issue, but I hope any folks with hard facts about other states
will speak up, too.
Futilely crossing my fingers that the first incident was isolated, and
that other states (especially mine!) won't cave in to AMG... :-)
P.S.: CA state laws, including the Vehicle Code, can be viewed and
searched at the following URL:
-- Mark J. Blair, KE6MYK <mblair1@home.net> PGP 2.6.2 public key available from http://pgp.ai.mit.edu/ Web page: http://www.qsl.net/ke6myk/ DO NOT SEND ANY UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL EMAIL TO THIS SITE
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 04 2000 - 21:57:19 PDT