Classic Car Weekday Driving Ban

[Gaspowered]

I just read this on Newsweek.
Even though I don't don't live in Minnesota, I sure hope this doesn't pass.

Cheers

https://www.newsweek.com/classic-cars-m ... n-11805629

[WillyDaP]

One has to wonder if it is just a political ploy to raise the licensing fees for older vehicles that are currently paying a reduced rate to be listed as " Classic ?" It would be interesting to find out from a Minnesota member if one can pay a regular fee for an older car and avoid this silly pending law. With all the reasonable laws needed to be enacted it seems ludicrous the Senators and Legislators are playing fiddle fiddle with such a minor issue.

[PSU_Crash]

Apparently Minnesota has solved all of it's real problems, so this is just the next on the list, right?
For sure Willy! Sounds like another political stunt to appease the "green" minority and steal money. In my opinion

[Tom]

Looks like the bill was killed yesterday before ever reaching a committee. I wish the media would protect California car owners the way they went after this proposed law. As best I can tell, this bill was aimed entirely at cracking down on people who pay a negligible fee (e.g., a $13.50 one time fee!) to register their car as a classic car, but then drive it around like any other registered car.

Calling it a 'weekday ban' sure got people rallying against the bill, though I'm guessing Snopes would rate that headline as at least partially false. The law arguably expanded use of collector cars, despite the headlines, by saying they could be driven anytime/anywhere during the day on weekends, but only to parades/shows on weekdays/nights. Existing law says they can't be used for 'general transportation,' but that's vague and hard to enforce so people end up commuting in cars without paying normal registration fees. (Incidentally, that was one of the strongest arguments IMO against the recent Leno's Law proposal --which is back by the way-- for smog-check relief in California.)

The author of the Minnesota bill, Rep. Luger-Nikolai, pretty much confirmed this was was all about the money (unlike California where there is a vocal faction trying to get older cars off the roads.) She pointed out: "It is important to note that if you buy a regular plate, you can take a classic car anywhere you want, any day you want, and at any time of day. Had (my bill) been heard and passed, the classic plate you purchase would also have enabled you to drive around in daylight hours on weekends — as well as to shows, parades, and club activities at any time."

[blueline]

Looks like the bill was killed yesterday before ever reaching a committee. I wish the media would protect California car owners the way they went after this proposed law. As best I can tell, this bill was aimed entirely at cracking down on people who pay a negligible fee (e.g., a $13.50 one time fee!) to register their car as a classic car, but then drive it around like any other registered car.

Calling it a 'weekday ban' sure got people rallying against the bill, though I'm guessing Snopes would rate that headline as at least partially false. The law arguably expanded use of collector cars, despite the headlines, by saying they could be driven anytime/anywhere during the day on weekends, but only to parades/shows on weekdays/nights. Existing law says they can't be used for 'general transportation,' but that's vague and hard to enforce so people end up commuting in cars without paying normal registration fees. (Incidentally, that was one of the strongest arguments IMO against the recent Leno's Law proposal --which is back by the way-- for smog-check relief in California.)

The author of the Minnesota bill, Rep. Luger-Nikolai, pretty much confirmed this was was all about the money (unlike California where there is a vocal faction trying to get older cars off the roads.) She pointed out: "It is important to note that if you buy a regular plate, you can take a classic car anywhere you want, any day you want, and at any time of day. Had (my bill) been heard and passed, the classic plate you purchase would also have enabled you to drive around in daylight hours on weekends — as well as to shows, parades, and club activities at any time."

Great follow-up and clarification Tom.

A simple solution is to just charge regular registration fees regardless of the vehicle age. That would cut through the diversionary language and wasted time trying to create new, unnecessary laws and bills. It also would (or should) make all parties happy, including newer vehicle owners who, for whatever reasons, don't think old cars should get a pass on registration costs.

Could even carry it a step further and create a bit more revenue by charging extra if an owner of a defined older vehicle wanted a specialty plate such as 'antique automobile' or whatever. In TN they have specialty plates for just about everything that's not offensive or controversial which generates quite a bit of additional revenue. On top of that there are the personalized versions of both standard and specialty plates bringing in even more dollars.

Problem solved - all are on equal footing.

[Tom]

Looks like the bill was killed yesterday before ever reaching a committee. I wish the media would protect California car owners the way they went after this proposed law. As best I can tell, this bill was aimed entirely at cracking down on people who pay a negligible fee (e.g., a $13.50 one time fee!) to register their car as a classic car, but then drive it around like any other registered car.

Calling it a 'weekday ban' sure got people rallying against the bill, though I'm guessing Snopes would rate that headline as at least partially false. The law arguably expanded use of collector cars, despite the headlines, by saying they could be driven anytime/anywhere during the day on weekends, but only to parades/shows on weekdays/nights. Existing law says they can't be used for 'general transportation,' but that's vague and hard to enforce so people end up commuting in cars without paying normal registration fees. (Incidentally, that was one of the strongest arguments IMO against the recent Leno's Law proposal --which is back by the way-- for smog-check relief in California.)

The author of the Minnesota bill, Rep. Luger-Nikolai, pretty much confirmed this was was all about the money (unlike California where there is a vocal faction trying to get older cars off the roads.) She pointed out: "It is important to note that if you buy a regular plate, you can take a classic car anywhere you want, any day you want, and at any time of day. Had (my bill) been heard and passed, the classic plate you purchase would also have enabled you to drive around in daylight hours on weekends — as well as to shows, parades, and club activities at any time."

Great follow-up and clarification Tom.

A simple solution is to just charge regular registration fees regardless of the vehicle age. That would cut through the diversionary language and wasted time trying to create new, unnecessary laws and bills. It also would (or should) make all parties happy, including newer vehicle owners who, for whatever reasons, don't think old cars should get a pass on registration costs.

Could even carry it a step further and create a bit more revenue by charging extra if an owner of a defined older vehicle wanted a specialty plate such as 'antique automobile' or whatever. In TN they have specialty plates for just about everything that's not offensive or controversial which generates quite a bit of additional revenue. On top of that there are the personalized versions of both standard and specialty plates bringing in even more dollars.

Problem solved - all are on equal footing.

There's probably an argument for reduced fees for true classics -- like my friend who restores Auburns, Cords, and Duesenbergs, since his cars see 'maybe' 50 miles on public roads in a good year. Of course, from a public sentiment perspective, no one is going to feel too bad about the owner of a Pebble-Beach-winning Duesenberg paying standard registration fees. What's next, sales tax on private jets? The problem is a lot of states define classic cars to include old Cayennes (literally), so even if the laws are well intentioned, they end up creating these kinds of problems. If fee reductions were limited to seriously old cars -- where every drive is an adventure -- I'm guessing the law would self-regulate...

[Damo]

We have a very effective historic/classic car registration system in Australia using a logbook with up to 60 days use per year. Regular car rego costs around AUD$1000 per year but for any car over 30 years old you can join a car club and then register a historic (stock)/classic (modified) car for about AUD$50/year.

60 days annually is more than once per week, or plenty of multi day trips. The cops can ask to see the logbook has been filled in for the current day - if not a large fine will follow. Simple system and it works for the intended use of the cars.

[Tom]

We have a very effective historic/classic car registration system in Australia using a logbook with up to 60 days use per year. Regular car rego costs around AUD$1000 per year but for any car over 30 years old you can join a car club and then register a historic (stock)/classic (modified) car for about AUD$50/year.

60 days annually is more than once per week, or plenty of multi day trips. The cops can ask to see the logbook has been filled in for the current day - if not a large fine will follow. Simple system and it works for the intended use of the cars.

Infinitely too rational for US lawmakers. All laws are made by committee here, and it shows.