From: Jeff (jcerniglia@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Sun Apr 02 2006 - 10:56:59 PDT
Thank you Patrick, all I was doing was stating a fact,
I never recomended that anyone go out there un
registered and uninsured. And yes, if and when I wear
BDU's they do not have any insignia or name tapes.
Geez man, guess I'll learn to not post anything in the
future, didn't know I would get jumped on by so many.
I think this is a good reason why so many just read
the posts and not contribute.
--- Patrick Jankowiak <recycler@swbell.net> wrote:
> If you like to wear BDUs, make sure you got no
> 'army' name tapes on them.
> then you are not impersonating.
>
> Arthur Bloom wrote:
>
> > Yesterday was April 1st. I think your advice would
> have been appropriate
> > then.
> >
> > Today, it seems to be the worst possible advice I
> have seen on this list in
> > several years. If a person were to follow your
> advice, and get into an
> > accident, the sh*t storm that would follow would
> be of Biblical proportions.
> >
> > Can you say "Leavenworth"? Can you say "20 years
> of hard labor"? Can you say
> > "All assets (house, land, bank accounts, business
> interests) forfeited"?
> >
> > ..."Local and state police have no jurisdiction
> over the National Guard..."
> > is what you think? They DO have jurisdiction over
> criminal impersonation in
> > the first degree, which in NY is a Class D felony.
> They DO have jurisdiction
> > over persons driving without a license,
> registration, insurance, inspection,
> > or other documentation.
> >
> > Please tell us your were April Fool-ing.
> >
> > APB
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jeff" <jcerniglia@sbcglobal.net>
> > To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List"
> <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 9:16 AM
> > Subject: Re: [MV] Unimog insurance problems
> (Maine)
> >
> >
> > |
> > | Or you can do like a lot of guys do and just
> make sure
> > | it has good realistic National guard markings
> and
> > | camo, always wear BDU's while driving it and
> just
> > | drive it just so with no reg. I know some guys
> who
> > | have done this for years and have never ever
> been
> > | stopped. Local and state police have no
> Jurisdiction
> > | over the National guard and usually do not mess
> with
> > | their vehicles. Kind of the radical approach but
> it is
> > | done.
> > |
> > |
> > |
> > | --- Sonny Heath <sonny@defuniak.com> wrote:
> > |
> > | > Steve,
> > | >
> > | > I think I know how to get around it. Slide
> yourself
> > | > a cabover camper on the
> > | > bed and attach it with bolts and register it
> as a
> > | > recreational vehicle.
> > | > Your insurance will drop to about $300.00 a
> year for
> > | > full coverage. Thats
> > | > what I did in Florida. My liability insurance
> alone
> > | > and tag was about
> > | > $5000.00 a year and now the same vehicle only
> > | > heavier is about $350.00 a
> > | > year for full coverage and a tag.
> > | >
> > | > Sonny
> > | > ----- Original Message -----
> > | > From: "Glenn Shaw" <milspectruck@verizon.net>
> > | > To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List"
> > | > <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
> > | > Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 5:51 PM
> > | > Subject: Re: [MV] Unimog insurance problems
> (Maine)
> > | >
> > | >
> > | > > The CDL also requires a Road Te$t. Renewing
> my
> > | > CDL is 170.00 each time it
> > | > > comes up. I would avoid it if you can.
> > | > >
> > | > > Glenn
> > | > >
> > | > > -----Original Message-----
> > | > > From: Military Vehicles Mailing List
> > | > [mailto:mil-veh@mil-veh.org] On
> > | > > Behalf
> > | > > Of Stephen Grammont
> > | > > Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 10:02 AM
> > | > > To: Military Vehicles Mailing List
> > | > > Subject: Re: [MV] Unimog insurance problems
> > | > (Maine)
> > | > >
> > | > >
> > | > > Hello Arthur,
> > | > >
> > | > >> Are you talking about full coverage?
> Liability
> > | > only? Fire & theft?
> > | > >> Collision? What level of liability?
> $100/$300K?
> > | > That would be the
> > | > >> minumim I would have,
> > | > >
> > | > > I didn't even ask what the coverage amount
> was
> > | > because I was in shock.
> > | > > It was for liability and collision. The
> point is,
> > | > that was my single
> > | > > "take it or leave it" option, which just
> doesn't
> > | > sit well with me.
> > | > >
> > | > >> and $1300 doesn't seem out of line.
> > | > >
> > | > > As I said, I currently have THREE vehicles
> with
> > | > equal or greater
> > | > > coverage for just about the same amount of
> money.
> > | > In another state
> > | > > $1300 is probably a bargain, but up here
> everybody
> > | > I mentioned it to
> > | > > had their eyes pop out in surprise. So
> relative
> > | > to my other insurance,
> > | > > it's an incredibly large difference. I was
> > | > guessing around $600 due to
> > | > > the weight.
> > | > >
> > | > >> You can register it as an
> > | > >> historical vehicle, and pay about $350.
> That
> > | > would, however, limit
> > | > >> your use
> > | > >> of the truck.
> > | > >
> > | > > Limit it to the point of uselessness,
> > | > unfortunately, so that isn't an
> > | > > option. The insurance quoted was for either
> > | > commercial or agriculture
> > | > > (they won't do passenger due to the weight),
> so no
> > | > difference based on
> > | > > how I register it. I might save money on
> the
> > | > registration itself, and
> > | > > perhaps don't need a CDL (checking into that
> > | > Monday), but it apparently
> > | > > doesn't change my options vis a vis the
> insurance
> > | > company.
> > | > >
> > | > >> A CDL is not required to drive a vehicle
> with
> > | > air-ASSISTed brakes, any
> > | > >> more
> > | > >> than it would be required for
> vaccuum-assisted
> > | > brakes. The key word is
> > | > >> air-over-HYDRAULIC. That means that the
> brakes
> > | > still work
> > | > >> hydraulically even
> > | > >> if the air supply fails. Tell them that.
> > | > >
> > | > > Apparently this is not the case in Maine. I
> was
> > | > first tipped off by a
> > | > > friend who is a commercial tower and he said
> I'd
> > | > need one. Not
> > | > > believing him, I called down to the head
> office
> > | > and was told the same.
> > | > > But I'm not done since I still don't believe
> them.
>
=== message truncated ===
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 18 2006 - 21:43:32 PDT