Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Discussion of Local, State, and Federal issues regarding MV Legislation, MV use restrictions, MV registration refusals, etc. As these issues may ultimately affect other jurisdictions, information and education of all MV owners is crucial for the future ownership and use of our MVs.
This is not a board for Political discussion.
This is not a Q&A Forum on how to title or register a MV.
undysworld
G-Command Sergeant Major
G-Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:58 am
Location: Blue Mounds Wisconsin

Re: Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Post by undysworld » Fri Dec 04, 2009 11:12 am

Dave,
DOT would like nothing better than to divide people up. They veiw small groups as too small to challenge whatever DOT does. They can take actions, even if not entirely legal,and if it isn't successfully challenged, they can continue on. This creates a precedence, which then gives them legal authority to do what they are doing. ( Schoolways v. DMV 1975 Wis. Supreme Ct.) DOT wants us divided.

Mike,

What started it? I'm not sure. It's commonly believed that DOT is super-mad about Pinzgauers in general, and me in particular. I think it was somebody arbitrarily deciding that they had the power to get rid of those dam green trucks, and beginning to cancel registrations. But the law didn't support that. Then it became a matter of CYA.

Here's what I can recall, chronologically, if it helps.

On Dec. 19, 2006, DMV introduced BVS-06-10, a memo which states USA Military Market - Do not register and Military market for any other country than the USA - Do not register. (I first obtained this memo from DOT April 17, 2008 through an Open Records request.)

On May 8, 2007, DMV notified someone in Beaver Dam, WI about his HMMVVs (Hummers), cancelling the tites/registrations on 15 vehicles. The letter refers to Wis. Stat. 342.225(2)(3) 342.255: Cancellation of title or registration. The department shall cancel a title or registration whenever:(3) It is subsequently discovered that the issuance or possession of a title or registration is prohibited by law or that the odometer of a vehicle for which a certificate of title has been issued by the department has been subjected to tampering and return of the certificate of title to the department is considered necessary to make a notation of that information on the certificate.

There are handwritten notes which mention "refund" and "ok'd to inspect as homemade", but a lot is illegible. A second letter dated June 19, 2007 seems to indicate that DOT was going to refund his registration fees and the vehicles were denied title/registration. (Hummer notes from DOT-introduced evidence at my appeal hearing.)

In August, 2007, Steve B from Appleton was denied registration on his 1943 Willys Jeep. He wrote to Sen. Ellis, who contacted DOT sec. Frank Busalacchi to find out why. On Oct. 4, 2007 Busalacchi identifies the statute involved is Wis. Stat. 341.10(6), and replies: "...'s vehicle was manufactured for military use. It does not meet federal safety standards. Therefore it is not considered eligible for highway use. This has been a standard departemental practice since 1966. DMV also withdraws title registrations when it is discovered that a non-roadworthy vehicle was registered in error." 341.10 Grounds for refusing registration. The department shall refuse registration of a vehicle under any of the following circumstances: (6) The vehicle is originally designed and manufactured for off-highway operation unless the vehicle meets the provisions of s. 114 of the national traffic and motor vehicle safety act of 1966, as amended, except as otherwise authorized by the statutes. (I've spoken with Steve a few times about this.)

Sept. 25, 2007, DMV cancelled the titles and registration on 29 Steyr-Puch Pinzgauers with various owners, including my truck. The letter claims that a mistake was made because: in order to title a vehicle in Wis. you need a 'safety standards" label and because "Your vehicle was manufactured in Switzerland to be used as a military vehicle. Wisconsin does not issue title/registration on these types of vehicles." No statute is cited. They sent a replacement title marked "Non roadworthy vehicle" and "Not for highway use".

Oct. 31, 2007, DMV administrator Lynn Juddd wrote to DOT Atty. Robert Jambois asking for assistance in determining whether existing law allows DMV to register "historic military vehicles" for limited use. She wrote: "We believe the interest in preserving these vehicles and using them for parades and other hobbyist or ceremonial puroses is legitimate and should be allowed, without permitting routine on-road use for which their design may represent a safety hazard." (Again, memo obtained via Open Record request.)

Feb. 4, 2008, DOT atty. Paul Nilsen answered Lynn Judd, but rephrased her question: "You asked whether current law allows the registration of Pinzgauers". He wrote: "I believe current law would allow DMV to register Pinzgauers that were 25 or more years old when imported but Pinzgauers that are less than 25 years old must prove to meet U.S. national motor vehicle safety standards (NMVSS)." WisDOT Memo DT1175-97 (As a foreign-market import, Pinzgauers aren't allowed into the U.S. until they are 25 years old.) (Again, memo obtained via Open Record request.)

Feb. 8, 2008, DOT atty. Paul Nilsen met with people to craft HMV legislation, including Jeff Rowsam and Legislative aides. Nilsen told them that Pinzgauers were not legal to register and misquoted federal import requirements. Atty. Nilsen told them that all U.S. surplus HMVs lacked safety standards labels (they do lack them) and were illegal to operate, because of Wis. Stat. 341.10(6). Nilsen sold them the idea that DOT would help them find a way to keep their trucks registered, but it would be a limited-use registration. (Here I'm going off Jeff Rowsam's notes and discussion with Tanya Hein from Rep. Van Roy's office.)

Mar. 6, 2008, Jerry Deschane, Axley Brynelson (tp://www.axley.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) Govt. Affairs Liason, met with DOT atty. Nilsen and Chris Klein, WisDOT Executive Asst., to discuss the Pinzgauer registration issue. He reported that DOT wanted the authority to inspect all imported vehicles, and they were using the Pinzgauer circumstance as the opportunity to get that power. They reportedly had no problem with Pinzgauers, they were basically collateral damage. They told Jerry that the only way to get them to change their minds was to sue them. (This is from an email from, and discussions with, Jerry D.)

May 13, 2007, DOT prepares a Statement of Scope for the proposed Trans123. (I learned about this May 23, 2008 via an Open Records request.)

May 16, 2008, I wrote to the Dept. of Admin. Div. of Hearings and Appeals and requested help with a problem with DOT. That ultimately became DOA Case # TR-08-0027.

July 14, 2008, DOA Case # TR-08-0027 is heard before Judge Kaiser.

Sept. 3, 2008, I won my case. DOT is ordered to reissue registration to the Pinzgauers again.

June 30, 2009, Atty. Nilsen notifies me of DOT's planned public hearing on Trans123

July 30, 2009, DMV begins denials on 2 Pinzgauer registration applications, citing Wis. Stat. 341.10(6).

I notified Sen. Erpenbach that DMV was again refusing registration for Pinzgauers, which is what led him to introduce his bill. The DOT introduced their bill within days.

You want my take on it, if Wis. Stat. 341.10(6) were applied to Off-Road Vehicles instead of Motor Vehicles, none of this would have occurred. It's supposed to apply to "min-bikes, go-carts, and all-terrain vehicles" as per Wisconsin law.
1966 AM-General M35A-2
1973 DeTomaso Pantera
1976 Steyr-Puch Pinzgauer 712M
M-416 Trailer (behind Pinzgauer)
1980 AMC Jeep CJ-5

Info on Legislation at: http://www.alfaheaven.com/MilitarySecti ... Legis.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


StudebakerM275
G-Second Lieutenant
G-Second Lieutenant
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 9:31 am
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Contact:

Re: Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Post by StudebakerM275 » Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:22 pm

So if i'm applying for a collector plate they'll tag it no questions asked ? . . .

But if i was to plate it for a commercial use they wouldn't title or plate it ? . . .

EDIT:
Now for you guys still using them as farm truck and set out rigs and what not, If your still working it then your not worried about the collector value so much or it being original . . .So simply buy a junk Civvy Medium duty/Heavy duty truck and drop the newer Cab n hood onto your old 6x6 chassie n tag it !

If you really wanted to make it look kosher the 5ton axles are the same as the civvy truck's and 22.5 n 24.5 wheels n tires will mount right up. . .

Mike
Last edited by StudebakerM275 on Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
1953 Studebaker M275.
1962 GMC K4500.
1969 AMC-AMX.
1976 Arctic Cat Jag.
1977 Ford F350.
1982 AMC-Jeep J/20 Honcho.
1988 AMC-Jeep V8 Comanche .
1992 Trans Am GTA.
2007 Honda Rubicon.

undysworld
G-Command Sergeant Major
G-Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:58 am
Location: Blue Mounds Wisconsin

Re: Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Post by undysworld » Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:48 pm

That's the problem Mike, it's just not that simple. If you buy a Pinzgauer, they won't issue a title and they won't issue license plates, no matter how you would choose. Period.

For a US ex-military vehicle, NOW, they would likely issue title and plate of your choice, like they ought to do. If Rep. Zigmunt's bill goes through as written, you would be able to get a title, but only license it as a 'historic military' vehicle (or something like that). You could ONLY use it for parades and for maintenance drives. You could not get a standard license plate for it, nor a farm plate, nor a RV, etc...

I just don't think that's acceptable. I think you ought to be able to license it for the purpose you intend to use the truck, just as long as it meets state laws.

That's what Sen. Erpenbach thinks too. Rep. Zigmunt's bill still has to clear the Senate. We'll see. Sen. Erpenbach sounds willing to work on details, and that's more than I've heard from the DOT, ever. I'm hoping to talk to Rep. Zigmunt about his bill.
1966 AM-General M35A-2
1973 DeTomaso Pantera
1976 Steyr-Puch Pinzgauer 712M
M-416 Trailer (behind Pinzgauer)
1980 AMC Jeep CJ-5

Info on Legislation at: http://www.alfaheaven.com/MilitarySecti ... Legis.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

StudebakerM275
G-Second Lieutenant
G-Second Lieutenant
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 9:31 am
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Contact:

Re: Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Post by StudebakerM275 » Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:03 pm

Now for you guys still using 2.5T n 5T as farm truck and set out rigs and what not, If your still working it then your not worried about the collector value so much or it being original . . .So simply buy a junk Civvy Medium duty/Heavy duty truck and drop the newer Cab n hood onto your old 6x6 chassie n tag it !

If you really wanted to make it look kosher the 5ton axles are the same as the civvy truck's and 22.5 n 24.5 wheels n tires will mount right up. . .

Just an idea. . .

Now i asked the DMV about the collector plates they said yes it can be collector plated, so they'll revoke the collector plates if this passes ?

whats this "Pinzgauer" ? i'm talking about 6x6 truck's . . .

Mike
Last edited by StudebakerM275 on Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
1953 Studebaker M275.
1962 GMC K4500.
1969 AMC-AMX.
1976 Arctic Cat Jag.
1977 Ford F350.
1982 AMC-Jeep J/20 Honcho.
1988 AMC-Jeep V8 Comanche .
1992 Trans Am GTA.
2007 Honda Rubicon.

Joe Gopan
Jeep Heaven
Posts: 49841
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:37 pm
Location: Proving Ground

Re: Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Post by Joe Gopan » Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:05 pm

I noticed that the registration on some HMMVV's were pulled in 2007. Is it possible that the state is on the alert now because of those who wished to circumvent the law on MV's such as HUMMVV's that were sold with the provision that clearly stated that they were for off use only?
2011 MVPA PIONEER AWARD - MVPA #1064
HONOR GRAD-WHEELED VEHICLE MECHANIC SCHOOL 1960 - US ARMY ORDNANCE SCHOOL(MACHINIST) ABERDEEN PG 1962 - O-1 BIRD DOG CREWCHIEF - 300,000+TROUBLE FREE M-38A1 MILES
LIFE MEMBER AM LEGION-40/8-DAV
7 MIL SPEC MAINTAINED MV'S
COL. BRUNO BROOKS (ARMY MOTORS) IS MY HERO

User avatar
gerrykan
G-General
G-General
Posts: 9303
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Ozark Mountains, USA

Re: Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Post by gerrykan » Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:00 pm

StudebakerM275 wrote:Now for you guys still using 2.5T n 5T as farm truck and set out rigs and what not, If your still working it then your not worried about the collector value so much or it being original . . .So simply buy a junk Civvy Medium duty/Heavy duty truck and drop the newer Cab n hood onto your old 6x6 chassie n tag it !

If you really wanted to make it look kosher the 5ton axles are the same as the civvy truck's and 22.5 n 24.5 wheels n tires will mount right up. . .

Just an idea. . .

Now i asked the DMV about the collector plates they said yes it can be collector plated, so they'll revoke the collector plates if this passes ?

whats this "Pinzgauer" ? i'm talking about 6x6 truck's . . .

Mike
Mike,
While you may not care about what happens to the collectors of foreign military vehicles. When they send you a letter of title revocation it will all come home.
Yeah you can put some late model POS civvy cab on it, and probably get away with it. But, what do you have, a 1990-something Chevy truck body cobbled to 6X6 chassis, not a cool looking army truck.

This is no different than the gun rights battles. The anti-gun crowd always tries to divide the pro-gun group by tactics such as "we're not going to take your duck hunting shotgun, just assault rifles".

Pinzgauer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinzgauer_ ... in_Vehicle" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Roy

undysworld
G-Command Sergeant Major
G-Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:58 am
Location: Blue Mounds Wisconsin

Re: Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Post by undysworld » Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:18 pm

Ben,

Your question made me go back and reread the notes on the Hummer cancellation. If I read it correctly, I'm seeing: "... he bought Humvees as bulk purchase-or-pallets of scrap metal and rebuilt each vehicle to new." Maybe they were cut up and sold for scrap?

If that guy didn't get the proper document from G/L, an SF-97, he shouldn't have been able to get titles, period. At least that's my understanding.

Maybe. But that doesn't give DOT any extra authority, statutorily.

Paul

Gerrykan,

You're right, unfortunately. Defend your rights, or lose 'em.

Paul
1966 AM-General M35A-2
1973 DeTomaso Pantera
1976 Steyr-Puch Pinzgauer 712M
M-416 Trailer (behind Pinzgauer)
1980 AMC Jeep CJ-5

Info on Legislation at: http://www.alfaheaven.com/MilitarySecti ... Legis.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

StudebakerM275
G-Second Lieutenant
G-Second Lieutenant
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 9:31 am
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Contact:

Re: Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Post by StudebakerM275 » Fri Dec 04, 2009 7:56 pm

Whoa don't be jumping on me I was simply offering a solution to the guys who needed a 6x6 truck cheap...

Me I'm not concerned as were n how I run my trucks I don't need plates...

I'm sorry I tried to offer a way around the problem...

As for cobbled up I have yet to see a farm truck that's nothing more then rusty rotten rolling scrap iron . . .

buying a 5ton and dropping a ford Chevy ect cab on is still by far cheaper then buying a new 6x6 or used civvy 6x6 . . .


I still would like to know what these imported vehicles are that pissed them off ?

I asked a few times what they were n seem to be getting ignored !

Altimately if you wanna treat me like crap for offering help then I rightly don't give a rip about you vehicle or vehicles then !

Don't jump me cause your pissed !

I been running mine for a few years with no plates at all I don't need them . . .
Mike
1953 Studebaker M275.
1962 GMC K4500.
1969 AMC-AMX.
1976 Arctic Cat Jag.
1977 Ford F350.
1982 AMC-Jeep J/20 Honcho.
1988 AMC-Jeep V8 Comanche .
1992 Trans Am GTA.
2007 Honda Rubicon.

undysworld
G-Command Sergeant Major
G-Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:58 am
Location: Blue Mounds Wisconsin

Re: Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Post by undysworld » Sat Dec 05, 2009 4:53 am

Mike,

Sorry if you were feeling ignored. It was unintentional. Here is a Pinzgauer from our website: http://www.wisconsin-pinzgauers.org/?q=node/2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This one looks just like mine: http://cars.uk.msn.com/features/photos. ... 89&page=14" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You could also try an internet search. They are readily available.

As far as rebodied trucks go, Wis. Stat. 341.268(1)(d) would require that truck to be classified, inspected, and registered as a "Reconstructed Vehicle": 341.268(1)(d)
(d) "Reconstructed vehicle" means a motor vehicle of any age which has been substantially altered or modified from original manufacturers specifications to such an extent that it no longer resembles the original manufactured vehicle.

It isn't that it just wouldn't "look cool". But don't worry, the rebody thought has occurred.

You may well be able to get by with unlicensed trucks. But for many of us, owning a truck which cannot be driven when needed, where needed, is out of the question. I can't afford another lawn ornament, and if I wanted a piece of art, I'd buy a painting. But if your concerns are already met, that's cool.

Legal Wisconsin highway operation is what the current federal and state laws permit. I'll just keep trying until I can get as close to that as possible. For guys who want to use their trucks for parades only, well, that ought to be even easier to secure. We'll see....
1966 AM-General M35A-2
1973 DeTomaso Pantera
1976 Steyr-Puch Pinzgauer 712M
M-416 Trailer (behind Pinzgauer)
1980 AMC Jeep CJ-5

Info on Legislation at: http://www.alfaheaven.com/MilitarySecti ... Legis.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dave K.
G-Colonel
G-Colonel
Posts: 1404
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2003 6:15 am
Location:

Re: Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Post by Dave K. » Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:42 am

Foreign-made (prior to certain years) vehicles has always been a sticking point with the DMV. In my opinion foreign and US vehicles should have been separate issues with the MVs and I'm not sure why this wasn't done. Once again, the majority of the MV owners in WI are US-made vehicle owners and not foreign-made and they demand the priority. It's not one-for-all and all for one if the chance of us ALL losing our rights because of a specialty vehicle is imminent. Fighting for the rights of historic US vehicles would have been far easier to argue and would have been more understandable to those in Mad-town. There are undercurrents here that are playing against the cause in my opinion and that of a friend of in the Madison govt.

I'm not here to get into a pi$$ing match about who should have rights and who shouldn't but at the end of the day IF the issue started primarily with foreign made vehicles like the Pinz then perhaps we should have stepped back and decided to include a separate bill dealing with foreign vehicles. As I understand it the DOT didn't like losing to the PInz lobby and this has exacerbated the problem. Wouldn't it be a shame if we all lose because of what happened with the Pinz-specific lobby and the rift with the DOT caused by this fight.

undysworld
G-Command Sergeant Major
G-Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:58 am
Location: Blue Mounds Wisconsin

Re: Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Post by undysworld » Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:51 am

Dave,

Excellent opinion. But the problem DID NOT START WITH PINZGAUERS. I can supply you with the documents to prove it.

If you review the timeline of events, the Hummers and the US army Jeep preceded the Pinzgauers cancellation. Interestingly enough, although there is one NHTSA Letter of Interpretaion which allows US military vehicles to be manufactured and sold to the public without FMVSS compliance, there is even stronger reason for Pinzgauers to be legal on the roads.

Pinzgauer importation (over 25 years old only) is supported by the US Code, US DOT/NHTSA regs, and US DOT/NHTSA Letters of Interpretation. Again, I can supply you with specifics if wanted.

I'm sorry if the DOT is touchy about losing in the appeal case, but that doesn't change the laws. If they were in the right, they would have prevailed in court. They are expected to administer existing laws. Period. Hurt feelings don't count.

I won my appeal based on state and federal law. It's time that DOT sit down to the table, acknowledge the existing laws and the order of that judge, and find a fair solution. This has gone on too far. I've been asking to work with the DOT since October 2007 to find a reasonable solution.

Stand up for your laws people. Owning the very vehicles which fought for your rights, you guys should understand this best of all.

Dave, is there any chance that you and/or your friend in Madison govt. would be willing to discuss this? Besides the DOT, I have yet to fail to convince anybody of our position. I'd love to talk it over.

Paul
1966 AM-General M35A-2
1973 DeTomaso Pantera
1976 Steyr-Puch Pinzgauer 712M
M-416 Trailer (behind Pinzgauer)
1980 AMC Jeep CJ-5

Info on Legislation at: http://www.alfaheaven.com/MilitarySecti ... Legis.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

StudebakerM275
G-Second Lieutenant
G-Second Lieutenant
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 9:31 am
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Contact:

Re: Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Post by StudebakerM275 » Sat Dec 05, 2009 6:44 pm

Wow i just viewed the links and learned myself some thing about the imported units, I don't see those as being unsafe, there prolly more safe they have solid 1 pieced wheel's. . .

Just because my truck's don't have to be tagged don't mean i would to stay that way . . . In fact most are Collector tagged or dual purpose farm plated but for the normally routine use that i normally use my 6x6's for they don't not require Plates just liability coverage and a slow moving triangle and the local law is perfectly happy.

I do enjoy having fun with them and driving them here n there, being restricted to a max speed of 35mph dose get boring . . .

I would like to have the option of collector plating them, tho towing is limited to 500Lb's, i still tow ans as far as the local law enforcement officer's are concerned: "if your loaded within the weight its tagged for then happy motoring" that quote is straight from them, is if my collector plates are for 15,000lbs and my 8,000lb is towing 4,00lb's keep on trucking, but if i'm grossing over the 15K then they right me up.

My 62' GMC is rated for 14K-LB's GVWR n 20K lbs GCWR so i tagged it for 20K-Lb's and its collector tagged i haven't had an issue in 13 years, so i feel the same will be true by Collector plating my 53' Stude M275er for 26K-lb's . . .

Edit:
Basically what i'm saying is they don't strongly police the collector plate rules unless your operating in the month of January, so fo you want to C-tag them and go about doing what you do they won't say a word . . .

or

I'm just a very lucky SOB and they allow me to do so . . .

Mike
1953 Studebaker M275.
1962 GMC K4500.
1969 AMC-AMX.
1976 Arctic Cat Jag.
1977 Ford F350.
1982 AMC-Jeep J/20 Honcho.
1988 AMC-Jeep V8 Comanche .
1992 Trans Am GTA.
2007 Honda Rubicon.

ida34
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:50 am
Location:

Re: Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Post by ida34 » Sat Dec 05, 2009 7:17 pm

Like already said, someone made a really bad interpretation of the law. The off-road only vehicle not being registered does indeed mean go-carts, golf carts, four wheelers and such. The fact is all of these military vehicles being discussed were primarily made for on road use with occasional off road use. When we advanced into Iraq during the first gulf war we had engineers with road graders making a road for use though the desert. This really needs to be a class action law suit to get them to stop but someone has to get it started. It would be fairly simple to prove the trucks were primarily designed for on road use. I hope you guys get organized to get it done. The administrator is making decisions on interpretations that should be made by a court and they are enacting policy that should be done by the lawmakers. If there is a law passed limiting the registration of HMV then you would have a harder time on a lawsuit. Has anyone at DOT or anywhere for that matter, actually presented any data to support the premise that they trucks are unsafe? If not then what problem are they trying to fix except to overly enforce a law improperly. Again, best of luck guys. I would invite you to Michigan but I like you guys too much.

StudebakerM275
G-Second Lieutenant
G-Second Lieutenant
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 9:31 am
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Contact:

Re: Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Post by StudebakerM275 » Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:43 pm

Do they not realize that for every commercial plate issued for a 2.5T 5T 10T ect truck is used on average for 15-25 years ?

That's on average 20 plate renewals !

That's 20 years of road taxes from burnt fuel !

That's that's 20 years of income taxes paid from the work done by said truck !

Dose any of this income get considered ?

Do they realize the imcome lost ?

If you all got collector plates its a 1 time fee !

They won't receive another dime...

I would think they would want as many plates that require a renewal they can get in circulation !

Mike
1953 Studebaker M275.
1962 GMC K4500.
1969 AMC-AMX.
1976 Arctic Cat Jag.
1977 Ford F350.
1982 AMC-Jeep J/20 Honcho.
1988 AMC-Jeep V8 Comanche .
1992 Trans Am GTA.
2007 Honda Rubicon.

User avatar
Cobra Doc
G-Lieutenant Colonel
G-Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 6:26 am
Location: Loveland, Colorado

Re: Wisconsin - public legislative hearing on HMVs 12/3/09

Post by Cobra Doc » Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:11 pm

StudebakerM275 wrote:Do they not realize that for every commercial plate issued for a 2.5T 5T 10T ect truck is used on average for 15-25 years ?

That's on average 20 plate renewals !

That's 20 years of road taxes from burnt fuel !

That's that's 20 years of income taxes paid from the work done by said truck !

Dose any of this income get considered ?

Do they realize the imcome lost ?

If you all got collector plates its a 1 time fee !

They won't receive another dime...

I would think they would want as many plates that require a renewal they can get in circulation !

Mike
Mike,
Are you an American? If so, you should know by now that what you are suggesting makes sense, and "politician" and "sense" can't occupy the same space.


Locked

Return to “Legislative Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests