From: Steve Grammont (islander@midmaine.com)
Date: Fri Aug 29 2003 - 10:54:25 PDT
Hi Doc,
Long winded your email might be, but interesting it is :-)
>One thing I should have added in there is that over the years, as our
>society changes, so does our government.
Yup, as it should.
>I think at some point they decided that given the problems they had with
>Mutts in the hands of GI's, it could easily be foreseen that worse carnage
>would insue when these vehicles were released into civilian hands. I was in
>the Air Force in the mid seventies and recall all sorts of vehicle safety
>briefings that usually had the tag line, "Oh well the Army and Marine guys
>have it worse, you ought to see the junk they have to drive!"
I can totally buy into this. No problem. But, it still is very
inconsistantly applied...
>Now, let me return to the issue you raised of a double standard or
>inconsistent application of the law (or of the reasoning that spawned the
>law).
>
>Vehicles that us older folk drove in our youth with mechanical brakes, no
>turn signals, no seat belts and such were driven by a great many of the
>population.
This is akin to the argument that Mutts/Humvees can be driven by
ex-military guys, who have training, so there is no harm. This can not
be assumed in either the case of old civilian vehicles any more than with
the ex-military stuff. I know plenty of people who own cars from the
1960s who weren't even born when they were made, so the two cases are in
reality identical from a practical application of the same logic.
>A greater number than the number of military drivers of Mutts,
>Humvees, Deuce and a halfs, et cet. A vast knowledge base of the quirks and
>foibles of these older vehicles exists. But more importantly, is the still
>large number of people out there today who's driving experience included
>vehicles with out all the modern safety devices.
Absolute numbers are not relevant in this way. Ex-mil vehicles don't
appeal to as broad of a market as older civilian cars, so proportionally
speaking this probably makes them roughly equal in terms of "risk".
Especially considering that a fairly high proportion of MV owners are
ex-military, law enforcement, fire/rescue, or other such vocation.
In short, I don't think it can be argued, logically, that having old and
"unsafe" civilian vehicles on the road is any more safe than having
"unsafe" civlian ones. In fact, since the civilian ones are larger in
numbers, that increases the chance of a bafoon getting a hold of one and
causing an accident. That is what the laws of probability show without
any doubt.
>So, the Government decides a vehicle produced for battle conditions (in very
>small production numbers compared even to a Yugo) and driven by a specially
>trained group of operators will have a very high rate of accidents on the
>public highways if it is released from duty to anyone with the money who
>wants to own one. I for one can see the logic in that decision.
I can *only* on a vehicle by vehicle judgement. I would think that the
Suzuki Samauri posed a much greater danger to the public than the Mutt in
reality ever could. And that was a current production vehicle in large
quantities actively marketed vs. an older production vehicle in small
quantities with no marketing. They were able to judge the Samauri
seperate from other vehicles of the same class and vintage, so they could
in theory do this for any vehicle.
>
>The rules involving importation of vehicles produced outside the US is a bit
>tougher than you might imagine.
No, it isn't if the vehicle is 25 years or older :-) 25 years old or
older and there is no restriction I know of provied it doesn't run into
trouble with needing a Form 6. Now, individual states might make things
tougher to register (CA residence have to be careful of this in
particular), but inherently the government does not care one iota about
the vehicle's saftey performance or ease of operation by civi drivers
with very few minimal exceptions (outlined in my previous email).
So I restate my point... I can easily import a foreign vehicle of equal
or less saftey standards than a Mutt or Humvee without (hardly) any
government interference. Yet I can not purchase a few select
domestically made vehicle of the same or perhaps greater degree of safety
because the gov't has selectively singled such vehicles out as special
cases without any scientific or logical foundation.
>And a few years later, all of them read about a DUKW load of tourists
>sinking and they say in unision, "Damn, I am glad we prevented that kind of
>thing from happening with vehicles I am responsible for. It's a good thing
>the guy who let them into the public hands is dead, or he would wish he was
>today!"
Commerical/gov't bus and even train accidents kill and injure more people
every year than DUKWs, so if the DUKW was singled out for this terrible
tragedy... shows more double standards and lack of sound judgement. I
have the same feelings about the media going ON AND ON AND ON about SARS
and West Nile Virus when literally tens of thousands of people die in
alchohol related car accidents every single year. If they want to use
their power to inform the public about real dangers to them, start with
things that present real dangers. OTOH, if the real purpose of media is
to get a rise out of people in order to sell more ads... buy all means
keep "shocking" instead of informing.
>PS My first daily driver was a 36 Ford 3 Window Coupe with hydraulic
>brakes....It took nearly a whole zip code to stop from 50 MPH. But it sure
>was a hoot to drive.
Hehe... my first daily driver of my own ownership was a '67 Cadillac
Hearse. With the massive V-8 that sucker had, geting up to 50 was no
problemo. Stopping... well, let's just say I am glad nothing caused me
to slam on the brakes! The '78 Caprice Classic Stationwagon I also drove
at the time wasn't much better :-)
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:23:38 PDT