*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
-----Original Message-----
From: Patricia Gibbons <wa6ube@ix.netcom.com>
To: Military Vehicles List <mil-veh@uller.skylee.com>
Date: 30 December 1999 17:58
Subject: [MV] legal case in Sacramento re camo-painted vehicles
>
>The woman's attorney, raised the definition of camouflage at the
>proceeding
>and claimed in court that because the military vehicle had a camouflage
>paint pattern, his client could not easily see the approaching vehicle.
>
>Her attorney further emphasized the point that the <entire reason> that
><anything> would be painted with a camouflage paint pattern is
><expressly>
>for the purpose of rendering the item as invisible as possible and
>to blend the item into the background.
>
>The woman driver prevailed in this case . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
A great shame and injustice but not entirely unexpected in an apparently
litigation-mad country, over here the mil are never seen on the road, even in a
solitary Land Rover, without headlights on.
I, and many others choose to do the same for the very reason of negating any
claims of being "invisible" should the worst happen. Observers tell me that
even my 20' 10" x 8' 7" and 8' 6" high truck becomes indistinct with NATO
camouflage against our greenery as the intended design effect of the pattern
blurs the outline.
Richard
(Southampton UK)
A Happy and Safe Y2K to you all.
===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@uller.skylee.com>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@uller.skylee.com>
Send administrative queries to <mil-veh-request@uller.skylee.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 05 2000 - 22:42:39 PST