From: jonathon (jemery@execpc.com)
Date: Sun Sep 08 2002 - 16:58:11 PDT
>The answer is pretty simple. Rights are not absloute. We each give up
>rights in exchange for (hopefully) the common good. For example, we give up
>the right to drive on the left side of the road in exchange for the peace of
>mind of proceeding without worry in the right lane. We give up the right to
>go through red lights so we can go through green lights without stopping.
>It's pretty clear that this exchange of rights benefits us all and that it
>breaks down severely when someone insists on absolute rights.
I fail to see what this has to do with property rights????
>Even less obvious things like seatbelt laws follow the same logic. Think
>you have right to ride around unbelted because it's your life? Think again.
>Your rights end at my front bumper. If you hit a bump and can't remain
>seated and lose control of your vehicle if could guarantee you will kill
>only yourself you may have a point but if you losing control makes you hit
>me, well that's a violation of my right to proceed umimpeded.
ah ha
>As far as titling a rebuilt M151, fact is M151s were never DOT'ed, meaning
>that unlike MBs and GPWs which predate the requirement and HMMWVs which were
>DOT'ed as Hummers, they were never evaluated by the DOT for roadworthiness.
>It is against Federal law to drive a non-DOT compliant vehicle on public
>roads. Same for non-DOT tires like agricultural tires. They have no DOT
>stamps so they are not for on-road use.
>No matter how you got your M151, beg, borrow, steal, or weld, unless you
>have it certified by the DOT for crashworthiness-- front impact, rollover,
>side impact, short term emissions, long term emissions and a host of other
>tests it's not legal to drive on-road.
>From my study of my states vehicles codes, there is no such thing as DOT
compliance for a home built vehicle, only a basic list of required items.
And as to EPA, the emission requirement for a home built vehicle goes by the
year of the engine, not the vehicle. The new, more friendly, logic in this
state anway regarding emission tesing is that they are now looking for
certian peices of equipment to be present and that you pass the test, not
getting into the anal exam that they were know for in the past. A welcome
change I might add.
> The fact that folks have been able
>to register them is a stroke of luck. But if you get in the wrong guy's
>face-- one who knows this-- you may end up with an M151 shaped planter on
>your front lawn.
I ask a question... what is the job function of any particular states motor
vehicle department? Is it to enforce some person or groups idea of what
should or should not be allowed on the road, or is it to collect taxes on
licenses and titles for vehicles that meet basic requirements? In the case
of titling, they have only the obligation to ensure that your particular
vehicle is actually yours and not already titled to someone else. This is
what has basically been told to me by people withing the DMV here. Their big
concern, and the reason why they run some people with "questionable
paperwork" thru the wringer, is that they, the state, can me sued if they
issue title to an already titled vehicle, this is thier focus and motivation
for making sure you actually own it, not that you should be allowed or not
allowed to drive it on the road.
I percieve a rather large divide of ideologies here, one of those things
were a middle ground will never be reached.
later,
je
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 13:21:19 PDT