I urge ALL OF YOU to read this Anti-historic vehicle legislation 

"Chuck 2(O=[][]=O)2" (pompei426) 03/23/2015 at 18:48 • Filed to: None

6

43

Maryland Bill to Increase Age Requirement for Historic Vehicle Registration Amended and Approved by Committee; Moves to Full House

Legislation (H.B. 811) to increase the age requirement for vehicles eligible for registration as "historic motor vehicles" in Maryland was amended and approved by the House Environment and Transportation Committee. Under the amended bill, the age requirement would be raised from 20 to at least 30 years old. Previously, the bill called for the age threshold to be raised to 25 years old and older. The bill will next be considered in a vote by the full House of Delegates.

H.B. 811 makes it more difficult to register legitimate historic vehicles, which are already limited to club activities, exhibitions, tours, parades and occasional pleasure driving.

H.B. 811 would deny vehicles 20-30 years old from certain benefits, including the special historic license plate, reduced registration fees and exemptions from equipment and emissions inspection requirements. The state is focused on collecting additional registration revenues at the expense of historic vehicle owners.

H.B. 811 seeks to address unsubstantiated claims of abuse without providing any real data. The MVA is already authorized by regulation to suspend the registration of any historic vehicle for use that is inconsistent with the registration requirements.

So, what's your opinion. To me, this is denying a freedom that many of us on this site take pride in. There are countless Jalops on here that own and work on historic vehicles. To me, the House is picking on the wrong people. There are more pressing issues.

Have a GT40 MkIV

WhereAreMyPants > Chuck 2(O=[][]=O)2 03/23/2015 at 18:52

3

Eh?

Of all the things our state representation is doing, this honestly doesn't bother me.

Twenty years used to be an OLD car. Imagine driving a '65 Mustang in 1985.

Now that cars aren't built to fall apart, it's just a high mileage used car.

Chuck 2(O=[][]=O)2 > WhereAreMyPants 03/23/2015 at 18:54

1

What bothers me more are the three bullet points. Primarily the fact that the motive behind this is that the state is out for more money.

Cherry_man1 > Chuck 2(O=[][]=O)2 03/23/2015 at 18:55

0

I don't register my Gran Torino as a Historic on the basis I will drive it every day I can even in the winter.

I also don't see fox body stangs or new edge stangs as historic.

I mean I don't get some of it but then again. Why register something as Historic when they won't let you drive it around town.

Bandit > Chuck 2(O=[][]=O)2 03/23/2015 at 18:56

1

I'm all for raising the minimum age requirement for a car to be considered a classic. This should not be a classic.

Sweet Trav > Chuck 2(O=[][]=O)2 03/23/2015 at 18:56

6

I'm glad I live in a free state.

In Michigan, no inspection, no emissions, no bullshit.

Bird > WhereAreMyPants 03/23/2015 at 18:59

1

You have a valid point about cars lasting longer, but I'm not sure that translates into more people still driving them.

20 years seems to short. 25 is totally reasonable, and an accepted norm in the car community. 25 would make it line up with federal importation laws as well.

Chuck 2(O=[][]=O)2 > Bandit 03/23/2015 at 18:59

0

LOL, that beautiful Olds does make a strong point.

WesBarton89 - The Way to Santa Fe > Chuck 2(O=[][]=O)2 03/23/2015 at 19:00

2

I think that's pretty ridiculous. I had a 1992 Ford Explorer that I had tagged historic in MD, in January of 2012, right as it hit 20 years old. (I had driven it on WV plates under my mom's address, with a dead inspection from September-December).

I doubt it would've passed any sort of MD state inspection. Currently, to have it tagged historic, you have to have a regularly registered, inspected vehicle, and the historic vehicle cannot be driven more than an arbitrary number of miles per year, but they really don't check on it. I drove it daily until the transmission went out, some months later.

If you have a cheap vehicle (in my case $100) 20+ years old, it's gonna be a headache to get it inspected and registered, and if they raise it to 25+ years, it's gonna be an even bigger headache. Cars 15-20 years old now use more electronics, computers, and expensive parts than they used to. Raising the limit is going to make it harder for those vehicles normally meeting the criteria harder to pass inspection than it already is. Just leave it at 20 years and leave well enough alone.

As a MD resident, this is stupid.

Bird > Chuck 2(O=[][]=O)2 03/23/2015 at 19:00

7

That sucks. 30 seems to old. 20 seems very generous. 25 seems to be the sweet spot that the car community as well as other states and the federal government (import laws) go with.

Grindintosecond > Chuck 2(O=[][]=O)2 03/23/2015 at 19:04

1

Where I'm at in Colorado, they won't raise the 1976 year as the qualifier of a historic vehicle. As cars get older and more historic, 1976 is the birth year limitation. So there is a "collector" plate....with it's own fun rules Actually fun.

Phyrxes once again has a wagon! > Chuck 2(O=[][]=O)2 03/23/2015 at 19:05

1

Interesting that is coming from a state that only requires passenger cars (trucks/suvs/whatever) to be inspected when sold (title transfer) and otherwise doesn't care about the condition said vehicle.

If they want revenue there are other ways to make it without making the the classic car groups lives miserable.

Why yes, I am a grumpy Virginia resident who plays the "that POS has to have Maryland plates" game way too often.

WhereAreMyPants > Bird 03/23/2015 at 19:07

0

That's totally fair.

I just can't get that worked up about a rule change that's primarily intended to make people with mid 90's Accords and 325s keep getting them emissions tested and fully insured.

Chuck 2(O=[][]=O)2 > WesBarton89 - The Way to Santa Fe 03/23/2015 at 19:11

1

Thanks for actually agreeing. I also have a 1997 Dodge Caravan that constantly has some bullshit check engine light on. And, don't go to emissions with that. Could be the stupidest thing in the world and you won't pass emissions. Last time I went, the gauges started intermittently working. So, I'm glad my gas gauge and speedo have something to do with emissions.

Now, I do drive my 2k2 for many purposes, not just shows and other bullshit. But who cares. Still only put on 3,000 miles a year. I have a license plate frame that covers the word 'historic' just to avoid shit. Have yet to *knock on wood* be pulled over for no front plate or driving a historic vehicle. Police have much better things to worry about.

Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast. > Grindintosecond 03/23/2015 at 19:14

0

Same in CA. I forget if it is '74 or '76, though.

stuttgartobsessed > Sweet Trav 03/23/2015 at 19:41

4

California sounds like North Korea compared to this. I had to give up my Alfa because of emissions testing here... :(

jkm7680 > Chuck 2(O=[][]=O)2 03/23/2015 at 19:42

2

Too many people are sticking vintage plates on shitty ass Crapolas and Accords around here. Kinda annoying since they're completely shitboxes and the owner obviously is just trying to avoid fees.

They should grandfather cars that already are registered and create a list of cars that are approved for vintage plates.

NotUnlessRoundIsFunny > Chuck 2(O=[][]=O)2 03/23/2015 at 19:43

1

Why, why, why is this at the top of their agenda? There aren't more important things to do, that might actually help someone?

Dsscats > Bird 03/23/2015 at 19:52

0

I think CA smog/import rules should be cut to 25 years old too

Bird > Dsscats 03/23/2015 at 19:55

0

You have the power to make it happen...ballot measure. Write the legislation yourself, there is even free help with that part. Create a class of registration that allows you to register a smog exempt 'historic' vehicle, and specifically include 'direct imports'. All you need is 200,000 signatures, and to convince the voting public it's in their best interest. Add a fee that goes towards upkeep of state park roadsides so that it's a net gain, and people will vote for it.

Bird > Dsscats 03/23/2015 at 19:55

0

I can't anymore...I'm a resident of Kentucky now...

Dsscats > Bird 03/23/2015 at 19:58

0

Sad, but congratulations! And who knows, maybe for a senior project...

Bird > Dsscats 03/23/2015 at 20:02

1

That would make a great senior project...

If you got it started, I know there are a lot of people that would help. There's enough car guys in the television industry that getting support for at a minimum a viral video with celebrities would be easy. Honestly, actual television time isn't that expensive. I know there are directors and production companies that would shoot a high end video to help out. If you did the hard work of getting it written, and starting the signature process, people would back you up.

Dsscats > Bird 03/23/2015 at 20:05

0

The hardest part would probably be writing it. There are enough SoCal car people who have it in their best interests to sign it that it wouldn't be insanely difficult to get it shared to 200,000

Bird > Dsscats 03/23/2015 at 20:09

1

That would be the hardest part. Corinne and I looked into it a little bit, but with trying to start a business, we couldn't devote enough time to get it done.

I'm serious about the celebrity video part...I know enough people that know people, that if it was already going, I could get the idea in front of multiple car guy celebrities.

Chuck 2(O=[][]=O)2 > NotUnlessRoundIsFunny 03/23/2015 at 20:28

1

My main point

Chuck 2(O=[][]=O)2 > Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast. 03/23/2015 at 20:29

0

76

Chuck 2(O=[][]=O)2 > Phyrxes once again has a wagon! 03/23/2015 at 20:31

0

More opinions welcome. At least you understand the game. Even better, St. Mary's County in MD, doesn't have emissions.

RacinBob > Chuck 2(O=[][]=O)2 03/23/2015 at 20:42

1

Ditto - Wisconsin has a similar "historic" plate, I bet there are 5 times as many "junk-mobiles" registered instead of classics.

JR1 > Sweet Trav 03/23/2015 at 21:19

0

Same in Ohio it is a wonderful thing.

ranwhenparked > NotUnlessRoundIsFunny 03/23/2015 at 21:43

0

In Maryland? The home state of Baltimore and Salisbury? Nah, all their other problems have clearly been taken care of, so they're down to the bottom of the checklist.

NotUnlessRoundIsFunny > ranwhenparked 03/24/2015 at 00:05

0

Good point. I mean, from what we saw in The Wire, it was like the Baltimore legal system was just looking for things to do...

DipodomysDeserti > Chuck 2(O=[][]=O)2 03/24/2015 at 00:45

0

They considered twenty year old cars to be historic? Jesus. Even at thirty years you shouldn't have problems passing an emissions test. I live in AZ which is probably the most conservative state in the country, and our cut off date for emissions exemption is 1967.

DipodomysDeserti > Grindintosecond 03/24/2015 at 00:49

0

In AZ the cutoff date is 1967.

gogmorgo - rowing gears in a Grand Cherokee > Chuck 2(O=[][]=O)2 03/24/2015 at 00:54

0

In my province, it's 30 years. Personally, I think 20 years is a bit too short. That would make this an historic car:

Even 25 years is a bit of a stretch, although I do think this is kinda starting to get there:

But 30 years? Yeah. Now we're talking historic.

My current province's 30-year-old "antique" classification stipulates that I (or my spouse) must have a primary-use non-antique vehicle. My last province's "collector" car rules were 25 years, but with the stipulation that it must maintain an appraised value of at least $5000.
I think putting in place some kind of filter to weed out the "it's mostly historic because it won't pass an inspection" crowd (like the $5000 appraisal) is better than a set age. While I understand that simply having the right price tag isn't going to make it road-worthy, the purpose of collector or historic status is not to allow people to just drive whatever unsafe junk they drag out from behind the barn.

Frankly, any of the above cars (with the possible exception of the Cavvy unless it's MINT) could be considered historical. This, however, isn't:

http://www.kijiji.ca/v-cars-trucks/…

Buick Mackane > Sweet Trav 03/24/2015 at 01:51

0

Yes, Michigan does not have SMOG testing or safety inspections but if you live anywhere near Detroit or the surrounding suburbs, car insurance is very, very expensive. Here in California I pay less than $500.00 per year for my car insurance, and it would cost me over double that amount in the Detroit area.

Sweet Trav > Buick Mackane 03/24/2015 at 10:44

1

I pay $2000 a year for a 2014 model year car with full coverage and $700 a year for an '86 with only Personal Liability. first, you couldn't pay me to live in the communist republic of California. Second Michigan has high insurance prices because of no-fault, which is a better way to insure. You insure your own vehicle against damage, fault doesn't matter except who gets the ticket. Insurance is hardly very very expensive.

yamahog > Sweet Trav 03/24/2015 at 12:55

1

*Free to be mowed down by things that have no business reaching highway speeds!

(Yes I know my jeep falls into this category)

yamahog > Sweet Trav 03/24/2015 at 12:56

0

The "communism" was the least of my problems in California...

Buick Mackane > stuttgartobsessed 03/25/2015 at 03:09

0

I know how you feel. I believe anything over than 1975 is exempt from emissions testing here in California. I have a 1980 Jaguar XJ6 sitting in the drive, I am pretty sure it will never pass a California SMOG test also. What year Alfa you have?

stuttgartobsessed > Buick Mackane 03/25/2015 at 10:33

0

It was a '76. One year older and I could've kept it. Funny thing is that when I first bought it I lived in WA where it was registered as a '75, which was technically wrong so I did the research and changed it to a '76 which was correct. If I'd have left it, it would have been fine in CA. :/

Buick Mackane > stuttgartobsessed 03/25/2015 at 18:53

0

That's too bad. When I moved from Michigan to Los Angeles, I had to bring my car to a California State Police inspection facility before I could register it. They would have probably found the correct year of manufacture of your Alfa GTV when they inspected the car.

stuttgartobsessed > Buick Mackane 03/26/2015 at 00:54

0

The build tag (it was a sticker) was no longer on the door which is why there was confusion in WA. I had all the original repair receipts and invoices dating back to 1978 and on the later ones it was a 76, but on some it said 75, and was not noted on others. I don't think they would have inspected it that hard if the WA title said 75.

Oh well, I'm young and have time for another so I'm not too worried about it, it just kinda sucks, ya know? Also, it was a spider.

Buick Mackane > stuttgartobsessed 03/26/2015 at 01:46

0

When I left Detroit and I arrived in LA, the CHP inspected my car before I could register it, the guy inspecting my car said to me "you had a new door put on this car, didn't you?" I did not know what he was talking about and he showed me that the build sticker was missing from the left front door. After getting home and asking my wife about this she told me that just after I bought the car she parked it out on the street in Detroit (after I repeatedly told her to park it in the driveway) and it got sideswiped by a hit and run driver, destroying the door. As I was out of town at the time, she got it repaired and the new door was installed (without a build sticker) before I got back and she thought she got away with it without telling me. It was funny how she got busted after 10 years when the CHP told me what really happened and I confronted my wife with what I found out.