From: Steve Grammont (islander@midmaine.com)
Date: Fri Aug 29 2003 - 16:32:28 PDT
Hi Doc,
>The Mutts did not pass any standards like that other than US Army
>evaluations for acceptability into the service. Those standards are much
>different, as you might imagine. One set of standards does not equal
>another.
I agree, but this still runs smack solid into the example I keep bringing
up and (not yelling at you here) you keep ignoring... my Austrian built
ex Swiss Army 710M Pinzgauer also did not undergo any of these safety
tests, and could be just as bad as a Mutt. Yet the same government has
no problem with me importing, registering, insuring, and driving as many
of them as I like. There are dozens of foreign AND domestic ex-military
vehicles I can point to and say the same thing. So at BEST the gov't
treatment of the Mutt and Humvee is inconsistant when one looks at the
Big Picture. At best their concern for our safety is haphazardly
applied. (and thankfully so <g>).
Now, I am not saying the gov't has no reason to keep the Mutts off the
road. It might be the right thing to do. I think, however, the argument
for the Humvee being an equal offender has not been made so I can't just
lump the two together. And considering that there is a civilian modified
version of the Humvee the roads as we speak, it would be interesting to
see what the true difference is in terms of safety between these two
vehicles. I'm sure the civilian Hummer is "safer" than the military one,
but I think both are likely more safe than my Pinzgauer or most vehicles
made before 1970 of any make or model.
>Now, lets let this issue whither away on the vine..
You got it :-)
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:23:38 PDT