>He went on... "NHTSA cannot approve a proposal which has the potential to
>increase traffic accidents and associated fatalities and injuries. Our
>recommendation is that all surplus M151-series vehicles should be retired,
as
>stated in our letter of Sept.21, 1971".
Good! A breath of fact in a wind of conjecture. But this has to be placed
in context of the times. The early 1970's were the last time in the history
of this century that saw the Federal Government giving LARGE amounts of
equipment to communities as part of aid packages. This was part of the last
elements of the Fair Deal started by Harry Truman. The army, being on the
first part of a big downswing in optempo and a modest downsize, had lots of
equipment. The letter quoted from the Colonel was probably similar to
multiple letters of its type, urging the Government to dispose of its
surplus through these community aid programs. This would remove a big
burden of disposal from the DOD, with its associated man hours and expense.
NHTSA was in the middle of a great effort to expand its influence to the
local level with programs like mandatory auto safety and ambulance
standards, to respond to the national problem of Highway Deaths and Trauma,
which was the leading cause of death at the time for the age group 1-44.
Lastly, due to the military downsize, a large recession was predicted by the
government, and certain actions were taken to pre-empt this, especially in
the light of the mid and late 60's inflation issues, which were the next
most powerful issues of the 1972 election campaign after the Vietnam War.
Flooding an overstretched market with cheap vehicles would really hurt
places like Detroit.
Putting this all together in my feeble mind, axing the 151 in the name of
limiting DOD man hours, highway safety, and elimination of surplus
competition from the civilian 4WD market is justifiable to those who made
the decisions in light of the times. No great plot to deprive you of
tactical vehicles, just a culmination of events at the time.
My opinion- we paid for it, we should have a say in how it is disposed, to
include marketing and distributing. But we also elect people to do that for
us, by appointing those best(?) qualified to make these decisions.
Now as for HMMWV's, you have to face the facts. They are just as dangerous
as the MUTTS, though not for rollover reasons. There is NO side impact
engineering. They do not meet modern crash safety requirements, even for
Sport Utility Vehicles. I saw the autopsy photos of a FRIEND who was
killed in a 25 MPH side impact of a HMMWV- not pretty, and enough to
convince me ( in a country which is about to become filled with a very large
number of older drivers ) that I don't want myself or my family to be in one
on the highway, or in the streets of Baltimore. And I love driving the
things- great fun. I wish the facts were different. But they aren't. Add
this information to the "if you have a phone, you have a lawyer-" crowd, and
the risk of exposure and liability for putting these things out there in
great numbers is unquestionable. I predict that eventually, the vehicles
will have their day of judgement, and the government will wind up destroying
them, to minimize their risk. This risk is yours if you are a US citizen
because if somebody wins a suit against the GOVT, they win it against you.
You can say that you'll sign a waiver, releasing all parties
concerned...etc, etc. But there will be one jerk out there who will clean
house, because he can't read better than the 8th grade, and the waiver was
written in language for a 10th grader... you get the picture.
I hate saying this, because 12 years ago, I thought it was a waste to
destroy all the M151's. But it is all true, and the goverrnment has to
minimize its liability, because it is responsible for the safety of the
products it sells, even if it does sell them to idiots. Dollar for dollar,
the government got 10 years of use out of a HMMWV which it purchased for
$40,000 or so, or about $330 a month for the life of the vehicle. Not bad
for a car payment. Now they can release the vehicle for sales, and then
have to pick up the tab of marketing them, storing them, selling them, and
then paying for the liability when some idiot crashes theirs and gets hurt
and sues. What could that cost? Millions? Is it worth the 22K they get
back for the few which sell? I think if you look at it in the long run, it
is cheaper in present conditions to just junk the things. The recycler in
me says that is wrong, and a waste, a very bad waste. What a shame. But I
think we may see it working out this way.
===
To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 05 2000 - 22:42:06 PST