didn't know this

[xFullThrottlex]

I didn't know that WI was planning on banning homebuilt cars until I read this ad.

http://milwaukee.craigslist.org/pts/1292435714.html

Discuss

[lordairgtar]

That's what I was trying to discuss with my Trans 123 thread in Political forum. You might think this proposal only will deal with old military vehicles, but it is an open door for these anti car hobby Nazis to create more trouble. Take time to read the ch. Trans 123 proposal. Wednesday we are going to Madison to go to the meeting about this.

[Yooformula]

that ban isnt just on homebuilt cars. It has an opening for ANY car older than 1968 and is up to the discretion of the state of wisconsin. They are pushing trying to push this through under the guise of military vehicle registrations but have too much open wording left. There is a meeting about this in Madison this coming wed and a bunch of people are trying to get more people to head down there to help with the cause. The implications of this bill could stretch quite far and affect alot more people/cars down the road. Ex. "non standard" vehicles aka modded could be denied registration hence you not being able to get plates.

[95 TA - The Beast]

It is NOT a ban on homemade vehicles, but a stringent adherence to federal law that states that any vehicle manufactured after 1968 needs to have a Manufacturers Certificate that states it confroms to FMVSS. This is clarified in that it applies to 'off-road' vehicles.

It even mentions that vehicles prior to 1968 (ie, 1967 and older) are exempt, as well as 1968 and newer vehicles already built and registered.

It also mentions that Section 347 and statute 341.268 will apply for homebuilt and replica vehicles. So, YES you can still build a car from scratch at home and as long as it passes a Section 347 adherence inspection, as well as conforming to statute 341.268 you can still title and register it.

About the only thing this precludes is someone taking a something like a farm vehicle (or more directly a military vehicle) manufactured in 1968 or newer (ie, something that would never have a manufacturers certificate saying it conforms to FMVSS), that wouldn't come with a FMVSS certificate from the manufacturer, and modifying it to be driven on the street.

You can still build older 'hot rods', as well as kit cars and anything else that would qualify as homebuilt or replica, or that was originally manufactured before 1968.

Now, the reason the state is trying to put out a blanket ability to 'refuse title/registration' is because this Paul Underwood dipshit bought and Austrian military truck manufactured in 1976, registered and titled it, drove it for a few years and then Wisconsin revoked the title/registration. Probably because he was an asshole that bugged the piss out of his neighbors by driving a big-ass diesel like it was a daily driver.

He sued the state and won, they reveresed the decision and gave him his title/registration back.

At this point they are trying to 'shore-up' that open loophole by requiring a FMVSS certificate. Now, the new statute says it won't offer up a registration/title for anything originally intended for 'off-road' that doesn't have it. It does state that anything prior to 1968 *MAY* be subject to the 347/341.268 requirements if they should apply.

Again, this is all primarily worded for 'off-road' vehicles. Homebuilt street-cars and replicas primarily intended for on-highway useage would not be considered 'off-road' in nature and intent.

Now, does this mean it opens up a legal means for the state to fuck over someone, sure. It does not, however, change any statutes or sections as they apply to vehicle requirements, safety or classifications of homebuilt or replica vehicles. That key point is more than enough to allow for a solid case in court if such restrictions were acted upon such vehicles.

I have no doubt the guy that posted that ad may just be this Paul Underwood fucktard. Honestly, anyone that is retarded enough to title an ex-military vehicle has to expect some BS. Hell, I would expect it if I even converted an ex-military Hummer for civilian usage, regardless of how many civilian versons there are. It is just common sense.

[95 TA - The Beast]

that ban isnt just on homebuilt cars. It has an opening for ANY car older than 1968 and is up to the discretion of the state of wisconsin. They are pushing trying to push this through under the guise of military vehicle registrations but have too much open wording left. There is a meeting about this in Madison this coming wed and a bunch of people are trying to get more people to head down there to help with the cause. The implications of this bill could stretch quite far and affect alot more people/cars down the road. Ex. "non standard" vehicles aka modded could be denied registration hence you not being able to get plates.

Actually, that is already covered under 341.268, as a modified street vehicle.

All they could really do is require anyone modifying a vehicle to get hobbyist plates, and to not drive them in January unless you re-register them as a 'regular vehicle for that month (where-ever the fuck that stupidity came from, as it is just 'out there')...

"341.268(2)(e)3.
3. Except as provided in s. 341.09 (7), no reconstructed, replica, street modified or homemade vehicle may be operated upon any highway of this state during the month of January unless the owner of the vehicle reregisters the vehicle under s. 341.25 and replaces the distinctive registration plates issued under par. (c) with regular registration plates or transfers regular registration plates to the vehicle."

So, basically, anyone that drove thier cars with those plates to World of Wheels in January was actually breaking the law... LOL

But, it is already clearly outlined and 123 does not change that at all... This is solely for vehicles that don't have a FVMSS certificate from the manufacturer and has been made after 1967.

[Yooformula]

they could eliminate the hobbyist plates as there is open verbage in this proposal. you are right, you can still build them but could end up as being used ONLY as an off-road vehicle not legal for public roadways.

[95 TA - The Beast]

they could eliminate the hobbyist plates as there is open verbage in this proposal.

They can only do that by removing the other statutes and such... there is nothing in the verbage about hobbyist plates.

I actually have the whole proposal open in a different window... Nothing about hobbyist anything, or about removing any other statutes or sections.

[Yooformula]

We met with a guy tonight that spearheaded 2 previous movements against proposals similar to this and went into details. I know I am not getting it all out there the same way he did but people need to look it up..

more info here.

http://www.brewcitymuscle.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40093

http://www.wisconsinhotrodradio.com/NewsDOT1.html

[95 TA - The Beast]

more info here.

http://www.brewcitymuscle.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40093

And that posting there is just as bad as any politically charged argument. Jumping to conclusions on things that are not even stated or brought up in the proposal.

The proposal states NOTHING about hobbyist vehicles in general, it only talks about "off-road" vehicles. Nothing about homebuilt or replica outside of stating those requirements MAY apply to a pre-1968 vehicle that is to be registered.

Again, this applies to 'off-road' vehicles that were never built nor intended to be driven on highways. It does state that EXPLICITLY in the proposal.

[Yooformula]

not jumping to conclusions, just getting the word out there for people to get more info and not just let something pass through without people knowing about it. this would force certain vehicles to become off road use only.

[95 TA - The Beast]

Now, I do understand the concern here, don't get me wrong. But, personally, do I think ex-military vehicles should be used on public highways if they were never intended to be? Hell no. And, no, Hummers do not fall into the off-road only category...

[95 TA - The Beast]

not jumping to conclusions, just getting the word out there for people to get more info and not just let something pass through without people knowing about it. this would force certain vehicles to become off road use only.

Yes, it would make "off-road" vehicles to become off-road only. Again, I personally, don't see a problem with that. Only the active military should be able to use military vehicles on open-roads. Sorry, valid viewpoint.

It all comes down to one choad that ends up ruining it for everyone else. He got salty because his ex-military big-ass truck couldn't be operated. Sued, and this is the enforcement of that action.

I feel sorry for the people that had to deal with this dickwad on public highways in that thing. Like I mentioned, I would FULLY believe a neighbor or two being totally pissed at that thing coming and going like a daily driver.

[Yooformula]

a "non-standard" vehicle ie: MODIFIED FROM STOCK vehicle could be interpreted as Non-standard and this blanket ruling could make that vehicle illegal to operate on the road since you would NOT be able to get it registered. Its not about simply the ex military Hummer, that is the open door to pressure cars like ours(worst case scenario) but moreso the 1968 and older/25+ year old vehicles that are restored.

[95 TA - The Beast]

a "non-standard" vehicle ie: MODIFIED FROM STOCK vehicle could be interpreted as Non-standard and this blanket ruling could make that vehicle illegal to operate on the road since you would NOT be able to get it registered.

It does NOT state that anywhere in the proposal. It actually cites section 321.248 which covers "modified street vehicle" which would be what you are talking about.

Any car built and sold in the USA from 1968 on has a FMVSS certification from the manufacturer. That is thier 'litmus test' for fed s.114 conformance.

[95 TA - The Beast]

Its not about simply the ex military Hummer, that is the open door to pressure cars like ours(worst case scenario) but moreso the 1968 and older/25+ year old vehicles that are restored.

Huh???

The proposal STATES:

"The proposed rule states that the Department shall register any vehicle that was manufactured before 1968. The vehicle may be subject to equipment requirements under Ch. 347, Stats., and registration requirements under s. 341.268, Stats., regarding homemade and replica vehicles."

How is that not registering vehicles older than 1968??? :confused

Hell, it opens a GAPING door to allow in all OLDER military vehicles that were made before 1968.

Just anything newer would be fooked... Again, so even verterans and parades should be fine... Just vehicles form newer wars (Desert Storm, Iraq, etc) would be shut out as well as imported vehicles...

Again, they are doing this to revoke the title/registration from that Paul Underwood retard.

[Yooformula]

this is a part that could be an issue for some people

"DESCRIPTION OF THE OBJECTIVE OF THE RULE:

This rule making, interpreting s. 341.10(6), Stats., will create ch. Trans 123, relating to
grounds for refusing registration. The rule will:

• Clarify that Department of Transportation registration or refusal of
registration of vehicles conforms to National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) regulations and policy memoranda implementing
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).

• Distinguish between on-road vehicles and off–road vehicles, according to
NHTSA interpretations. The rule distinguishes among vehicles
manufactured: (1) before 1968 (when FMVSS became effective); (2) since
a “rolling” date 25 years prior to the current date (when NHTSA regulations
regarding FMVSS for imported vehicles apply); and (3) between 1968 and
the rolling date of 25 years prior to the current date.

•Clarify that DMV will refuse to register all off-road vehicles that are not
manufacturer-certified as meeting on-road standards and any on-road
vehicles manufactured after 1968 unless they:
- Are manufacturer-certified as meeting FMVSS;
- Are imported by NHTSA-registered importer and determined to meet
FMVSS for year of manufacture (may require retrofitting);
- Are exempt from FMVSS at time of importation but are certified by
NHTSA-registered importer as meeting FMVSS for year of
manufacture; or
- Are listed by NHTSA as 'substantially similar' to FMVSS-conforming
US model."

nowhere does it /\ specify ex-military vehicle. it states manufacturer-certified. this could rule out kit cars and homebuilts vehicles as it it too broad.

[SSDude]

Huh???

The proposal STATES:

"The proposed rule states that the Department shall register any vehicle that was manufactured before 1968. The vehicle may be subject to equipment requirements under Ch. 347, Stats., and registration requirements under s. 341.268, Stats., regarding homemade and replica vehicles."

How is that not registering vehicles older than 1968??? :confused

Hell, it opens a GAPING door to allow in all OLDER military vehicles that were made before 1968.

Just anything newer would be fooked... Again, so even verterans and parades should be fine... Just vehicles form newer wars (Desert Storm, Iraq, etc) would be shut out as well as imported vehicles...

Again, they are doing this to revoke the title/registration from that Paul Underwood retard.

Where is the info from that this proposal was the result of said Mr. Paul Underwood?
Inquiring minds want to know why this has become an issue at all.

The last military vehicle i saw being operated on the highway was back around the 4th of July. I understand what your saying if the guy is being a jag and using heavy equipment as his daily driver. The real answer to that would be to have a "parade and event vehicle plate" thus eliminating the daily driver problem.

Until this is resolved I'll err on the side of caution and stand up for all military owners until reasonable rule are applied.

[95 TA - The Beast]

Where is the info from that this proposal was the result of said Mr. Paul Underwood?
Inquiring minds want to know why this has become an issue at all.

The last military vehicle i saw being operated on the highway was back around the 4th of July. I understand what your saying if the guy is being a jag and using heavy equipment as his daily driver. The real answer to that would be to have a "parade and event vehicle plate" thus eliminating the daily driver problem.

Until this is resolved I'll err on the side of caution and stand up for all military owners until reasonable rule are applied.

Huh?

I guess people can get all up in arms without doing some simple reading. Oh, that is right, it is easier to bitch and moan and jump to conclusions instead of actually doing your HOMEWORK!

Go read the proposal, they outline the case with Paul Underwood. Go look up the case file and read all statements, findings, etc. Then go look up Paul Underwoods postings on various forums in regards to his 'vehicle'. I have done all of this. Actually I have everything up in another browser window. Not too hard, google is your friend.

It is blatently obvious what this is about. The state made it clear in the proposal why they are doing this.

Reasonable rule is that military vehicles have no business on public roads. Sure, some will argue it is that persons 'hobby' and 'passion' and no different than ours, but the key is they OBVIOUSLY have issues with safety in regards to said vehicle. Something that is as big as a tank and meant to take the abuse of military usage is going to do unbelievable damage even at slow speeds in an accident. That is the *real* interpretation of why they are doing this. Sure, it is a 'summation' but, IMHO, fairly accurate.

Oh, and for 'research' purposes, links to most of what I mentioned above:

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/library/research/law/docs/trans-123.pdf
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/Statutes/Stat0347.pdf
http://dha.state.wi.us/home/Decisions/DOT/2008/tr080027.pdf

One of the discussion threads with Paul Underwood (he chimes in on page 2):
http://www.steelsoldiers.com/politics-related-mv-hobby/14417-wisconsin-allegedly-cancelling-military-vehicle-titles.html

Even pics of the vehicle they are talking about:
http://www.buypinzgauer.com/sale_6wheel.htm

[jbiscuit]

the fact that the state will be the one interpreting how a vehicle should be used is the scary gray area. The proposal has some gaps written in that scare a lot of people with hot rods etc. Cuz what happens to a guy that built his own hot rod in his garage? Its fiberglass so not a "real" 32 Ford etc....there just are a lot of unknowns with this proposal and I sure hope these douchecanoes don't try and foul things up for us.

[jbiscuit]

Go read the proposal, they outline the case with Paul Underwood. Go look up the case file and read all statements, findings, etc. Then go look up Paul Underwoods postings on various forums in regards to his 'vehicle'. I have done all of this. Actually I have everything up in another browser window. Not too hard, google is your friend.

So you are confident the state has our best interest in mind when they wrote this legislation proposal? News flash: they aren't car guys. They could give a shit about how eliminating registration affects people. I would agree that a HUGE military vehicle doesn't belong on a public highway with Corollas and motorcycles. It would create ridiculous damage to a Suburban even. SO that should be limited use only.

[Yooformula]

Huh?

I guess people can get all up in arms without doing some simple reading. Oh, that is right, it is easier to bitch and moan and jump to conclusions instead of actually doing your HOMEWORK!


so I guess people can just sit back and allow politicians to do/say what they want and people shouldnt question it? Paul Underwood aside, they are proposing bills that could still impact hobbyists. Forget about what started it and focus on what it COULD impact if the wording isnt more specific. At this point nobody cares about Paul.

The meeting is this wednesday. You dont want to go because you are all knowing...fine, dont go. But there are people that may want to LISTEN to the actual words from the legislators and ask them directly which is what is going on on Wednesday. Again its not just the military vehicles, it could end up being vehicles they classify as non conforming to the 1968 vehicle safety act.

[Yooformula]

So you are confident the state has our best interest in mind when they wrote this legislation proposal? News flash: they aren't car guys. They could give a shit about how eliminating registration affects people. I would agree that a HUGE military vehicle doesn't belong on a public highway with Corollas and motorcycles. It would create ridiculous damage to a Suburban even. SO that should be limited use only.

Right J, but just as it isnt specific in "limiting" the use of those vehicles, it is also not specific in ruling out customs and modified pre-68's.

[CannotPost]

Nobody has mentioned the Ducks:
http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/TRB3088.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1415/1065569697_b15852b1ed_o.jpg

Seems like these would be targeted.

[xFullThrottlex]

I will be unable to go to the meeting this Wednesday, but please please please whore this thread with any/all information that you guys get from it. I feel a few calls to our reps are in order and I would love to hear the actual words our politicians use.

[95 TA - The Beast]

So you are confident the state has our best interest in mind when they wrote this legislation proposal? News flash: they aren't car guys. They could give a shit about how eliminating registration affects people. I would agree that a HUGE military vehicle doesn't belong on a public highway with Corollas and motorcycles. It would create ridiculous damage to a Suburban even. SO that should be limited use only.

I do agree, in regards to some of the 'grey area' aspects. And we both agree with the military vehicle aspect of things...

This Paul Underwood douche is the one that is pushing it this far. The state *HAS* to do something in the legislature to stomp a mudhole in his dumb-ass. This is thier way.

And, like I mentioned, I agree it has some 'looming issues' in regards to some retard getting into office that would use this as a potential blanket rape of anything but vehicles made in volume. But, honestly, I would rather see this go through and get military vehicles off the road and deal with the consequences of them 'attempting' to pull all kit-cars/homebuilt/etc off the road.

I just see some whiney bitch "I want my Pinzgauer in case we go to WAR" redneck retarded 'military-geeks' as the heart of this bitching and moaning. They are trying to stir the pot to get everyone else up in arms.

It would be a stretch to try to claim ALL homebuilt and replica vehicles as 'off-road' and there is the 'intent and purpose' of the proposal that I have no issue with. Section 341 includes all homebuilt and replica vehicles in it's specifications for title/registration and there is no indication that would change.

About the only thing this would affect are those that want to build huge-ass rockcrawlers from scratch with no doner frame and try to title them for use on the highway. Again, I personally feel those things shouldn't be allowed either. Granted a 'race specific' vehicle (such as a stock car with a tube-chassis) could get roped into this as well, but should something like that (without proper bumpers, lights, etc) be allowed on ther highway either? Most definitely not.

Hell, having been 'into' kit cars since the 80s, I would say there is a number of kit cars that shouldn't be allowed on the road either due to a lack of bumpers/safety equipment. Sure the driver of that car would be safe in a crash, but when the impact area of that vehicle end up becoming spears that would impale another car that is a concern for everyone else on the road.

[95 TA - The Beast]

Nobody has mentioned the Ducks:
[Seems like these would be targeted.

I believe those are pre-1968, thus they would not.

[Rocket Power]

So what if the guy wants to drive a Pinzgauer all the time? There are all kinds of large vehicles on the road all the time. Who hasn't a seen a medium duty truck that was a POS and most likely less safe than an ex military vehicle that a guy cares about? I am pretty sure I'd be less annoyed by this guy driving his big diesel truck than the aholes that come home from the bar at 2-3 am on their straight piped harleys revving the shit out of them. And I know it would be less irritating than the dude with his lifted up diesel pickup with the giant stack that was smoking a out the whole northbound side of Hwy 100 a few weeks back while trying to drive home on a friday night.

The same arguments and others, made for not allowing that guy to have the vehicle he wants could be made for any number of vehicles on the road now.

This proposal is stupid and for the state to waste their time going after one guy and a tiny problem in the grand scheme of things, is yet another waste of money from state gov't who can't seem to do anything right lately.

[Feature Pony]

So what if the guy wants to drive a Pinzgauer all the time? There are all kinds of large vehicles on the road all the time. Who hasn't a seen a medium duty truck that was a POS and most likely less safe than an ex military vehicle that a guy cares about? I am pretty sure I'd be less annoyed by this guy driving his big diesel truck than the aholes that come home from the bar at 2-3 am on their straight piped harleys revving the shit out of them. And I know it would be less irritating than the dude with his lifted up diesel pickup with the giant stack that was smoking a out the whole northbound side of Hwy 100 a few weeks back while trying to drive home on a friday night.

The same arguments and others, made for not allowing that guy to have the vehicle he wants could be made for any number of vehicles on the road now.

This proposal is stupid and for the state to waste their time going after one guy and a tiny problem in the grand scheme of things, is yet another waste of money from state gov't who can't seem to do anything right lately.


I agree, it is my right to drive what I want. The government shouldn't be telling my what I can do and can't do in my life. My problem is they are trying to do this under the table. Where is my rights as a tax payer?? Once they ban military vehicles believe me the tree hugging state of WI will be right on board to ban our cars as well. Mark my words the government can give 2 shits abouts us, its all about the $$$$$$, and last time I checked the green people gave a shitload of cash to Doyle for his campaign.

[Yooformula]

This proposal is stupid and for the state to waste their time going after one guy and a tiny problem in the grand scheme of things

CORRECT! Unless they are looking for something down the road and with legislation like this they can lay the foundation for it at a later date.

[SSDude]

We have until the end of the day tomorrow 7/31/09 to comment on this crap proposal
Email the message below to Paul Nilsen and copy it to your state reps as well.

Paul.Nilsen@dot.wi.gov


Mr. Nilsen
I am opposed to Trans123. The vehicles in this proposal are not "defined" and could easily be misconstrued into many categories other than the targeted vehicles in question.

The bill is unclear of direction of what is defined as "Off Road" and "Motor Vehicle" as well as what is required by the "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards of 1967"!
Respectfully
(Your name/address here)

[Yooformula]

done and done.

[xFullThrottlex]

done!

[lordairgtar]

I was at that meeting and I met Paul Underwood. He's a farmer so I guess neighbors around him would be used to diesel powered vehicles. He also had his Pinz at the meeting and I can tell you that that thing is smaller than the Hummer H1 it was parked next to. It certainly isn't as wide as the Hummer. It also was not noisy as I followed it for quite some time down a street in Madison. He uses it not as a daily driver but as an interesting way to have some fun crawling the same courses that the Jeep guys use. As with the jeeps, he also needs to drive it on public highways to get to wherever that course is. He definately is no fucktard as you so succinctly put it, TA. The company that imports those vehicles is in Colorado and are legal to operate on US highways. About the Ducks, the guy who owns the Ducks in the Dells was also there and stated he had problems registering them. The ones that he had problems with were the ones they use to shuttle people to the Duck Ride itself from the various hotels and water parks in the area.

[xFullThrottlex]

What I said...

Mr. Nilsen
I am opposed to Trans123. The vehicles in this proposal are not "defined" and could easily be misconstrued into many categories other than the targeted vehicles in question.

The bill is unclear of direction of what is defined as "Off Road" and "Motor Vehicle" as well as what is required by the "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards of 1967"!

Mr. Nilsen's response...

"As I posted on the HAMB website, please let me know which words or phrases you do not understand, or think would benefit from a definition. The federal safety standards are found at 23 CFR 571, as written in the rule. Other words are defined in s. 340.01, statutes, as stated in the rule."