From: Steve Grammont (islander@midmaine.com)
Date: Fri Aug 29 2003 - 00:03:53 PDT
Hi Doc,
Overall I think you make some fine points. However, this statement of
yours runs into a tiny problem...
>Military personnel are expected to put themselves in harms way. Deaths and
>injuries in training occur just as they do in a wartime scenario. Military
>hardware is made for a military environment where mission needs often come
>ahead of any other requirement such as crew comfort, operator safety, etc.
>When these vehicles (or aircraft, or any number of things the military uses)
>are used in a civilian, non wartime environment, special procedures are
>followed to minimize the danger to the crew and to the general population.
>The various government agencies in charge of such things then decide that
>once the device's useful life is through, because of these limitations to
>service, and dangers that the device posesses, the device is not fit to be
>released to civilian use. Law enforcement and fire services are not
>considered "civilian" in this sense.
I TOTALLY agree that there is a different safety standard for military,
fire/rescue, border patrol, law enforcement, vs. John Q Public. These
vehicles are also, in theory, given only to those who have been trained
to operate them. Therefore, a John Q driving around in an inherently
less safe vehicle (compared to a more current civilian vehicle) without
any more training than is required for a standard civi vehicle (this must
be assumed, but of course might not be true) does indeed paint a logical
and rational picture for why the DOT would nix the flooding of public
ways with this combo. BUT... closer examination finds this line of
government reasoning to be a double standard or inconsistant application
at the very least.
How many of you guys own vehicles that are even OLDER and/or less safe
than a MUTT or a Humvee? How many of you have them titled, insured, and
registered to drive on the roads of this fine nation? I am NOT just
talking about MVs, but anything from a Model T to a Yugo. How many of
you drive vehicles which have completely crappy vision (compared to a
MUTT or Humvee) which also happened to be a LOT heavier and therefore
more destructive in the event of an accident? And how many of you have
had training specifically for such a vehicle?
My point is that if the DOT says I can legally go down and register a
1950s M37 (or civilian version), perhaps without even a seatbelt
installed, why not a MUTT? I think I have seen more warnings about the
risks of driving M37s stock with loads, in hilly terrain, on wet/snowy
days (which is common up here) than I have about driving MUTTs. That
makes me think that the M37 is even less safe than a MUTT, so why the
heck can those be registered? Grandfather clause? Well... that too
doesn't stand up because...
If a vehicle is over 25 years old, it can be imported into this country,
registered, and put onto the road provided it has the minimum
requirements (wheels, lights, brakes, windshield wipers, horn, and
depending on the state some other things like emissions levels). Is my
1973 710M Pinzgauer as safe as a MUTT? Probably oerall, yes. Is it more
safe than a Humvee? Overall, probably no. Yet I can bring them in by
the containerload if I wanted to. No grandfather exemptions could apply
if the DOT decided to nix unsafe vehicles like this because since they
aren't already here they can't be exempt.
That leaves us with two other possibilities:
1. The manufacturer and Gov't made a backroom deal to protect them from
economic harm
2. The manufacturer doesn't feel the potential income from used parts is
enough to compensate for the lawsuit risk the vehicles on the whole pose.
You'd have to sell a lot of muffler clamps and carb repair kits to pay
back a multimillion dollar judgement from ONE accident!
I suppose a third possibility exists -> the right hand of government
doesn't even know there is a left hand, not to mention what it is doing.
I don't know which of these, or combo of these, is at work here.
However, I wouldn't doubt that all of these things are in play. I do
doubt there was a secret "golf course" deal made, however, so if someone
produces the contract and there is NO SIGN of a destruction mandate, I
think #1 can be rulled out. However, it is likely that if AM General was
really worried about #2 they would have a destruction claus inserted to
make sure the vehicles never hit the road. That is the best way to avoid
a lawsuit.
Just more food for thought.
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:23:38 PDT