Maryland MV owners are in trouble

[big1096]

From reading the bills, and speaking to a few people in other organizations, here's what I have surmised:

You have two House Bills: HB550 which covers Title 13-936, and limits the vehicles as less than 10,000 lbs, and does not include motor homes and truck tractors.

HB668: Which adds Title 13-936.2, and includes the trucks over 10,000 lbs, motor homes and truck tractors.

Then you have Senate Bill, SB846 which excludes vehicles over 10,000 lbs, motor homes and truck tractors.

I haven't seen any Senate Bills which add the exclusions at this point. All of the bills have no clause for "occasional transportation". That leaves it open too way too much interpretation to just what constitutes "events, and other such activities".

Right now it's going to be wide open until it gets through committee as one Bill. Hopefully it never will, but they've got an awful lot invested thus far for me to be comfortable. We need to stay the course and watch it closely.

 

[midcounty]

I agree it is very vague right now, and not a finished Bill. I don't think we should wait and watch. I think we need to flood them with opposition and try to make them reconsider making any changes.

 

[big1096]

I have sent emails to the representatives listed in the Bills, but I don't think we'll see anyone who is really concerned until after the hearings on the 28th. The following is from an email I received from correspondence with the ATHS. It is a forwarded letter from Rep. Nancy Jacobs to her fellow legislators.

Dear Colleagues,

At Wednesday’s hearing on Historic tags for Truck Tractors and Motor Homes there was a question about cost to the state. The specific question was if there would there be a loss of revenue if these vehicles had been registering at the commercial truck rate, and were now able to get the less expensive Historic tag rate.

Members of the Historic Truck group explained to JPR they’ve registered as historic for decades so revenue would not drop if they continued.
The only reason they began to have a problem is one irresponsible driver of an older truck was hauling freight with historic tags and became involved in a crash. State police researched and found that current law actually barred these tractors from getting historic tags. Apparently MVA employees, and the truck owners themselves were unaware of that in the past and the historic tags were granted.

When the truck collectors found they could no longer continue their hobby without a change in the law they contacted their legislators for help.

To confirm what they say it true about already having been granted historic tags, and that there will likely be no reduction in fees, they have sent their truck registrations (attached) that prove they are currently “historic”.
.
Thank you for your consideration of SB25, which if passed will prevent abuse of Historic tags by barring commercial use in the future, limit use to events like parades and shows, and still allow this small groups of enthusiasts to enjoy their hobby. Don’t forget two national shows of Historic trucks in Baltimore organized by this organization have brought many tourism dollars to our state.

Sincerely,

Nancy Jacobs

 

[steelsoldiers]

Please keep this thread constructive and avoid bashing of political parties, liberals, conservatives, eco activists, alternative fuels, etc... Stick to the issue at hand, which is contacting folks in the MD legislature and advising them against this bill for reasons x, y and z. I will be deleting posts and handing out infractions to any members who cannot follow the site rules about inflammatory political rhetoric.

 

[midcounty]

According to the first paragraph the primary concern is revenue. We need to show they will loose money by further regulating our vehicles. They will reduce sales, therefore sales tax, fuel usage, road and sales tax, people will be forced to sell their trucks out of state because they can't use them or can't afford them, so no tag fees will be paid. And the trade off will be disappointed voters, including Veterans, Fire fighters, Special interest groups, and so on. There will be no benefit to the new regulations.

 

[Tanner]

I have sent emails to the representatives listed in the Bills, but I don't think we'll see anyone who is really concerned until after the hearings on the 28th. The following is from an email I received from correspondence with the ATHS. It is a forwarded letter from Rep. Nancy Jacobs to her fellow legislators.

Dear Colleagues,

At Wednesday’s hearing on Historic tags for Truck Tractors and Motor Homes there was a question about cost to the state. The specific question was if there would there be a loss of revenue if these vehicles had been registering at the commercial truck rate, and were now able to get the less expensive Historic tag rate.

Members of the Historic Truck group explained to JPR they’ve registered as historic for decades so revenue would not drop if they continued.
The only reason they began to have a problem is one irresponsible driver of an older truck was hauling freight with historic tags and became involved in a crash. State police researched and found that current law actually barred these tractors from getting historic tags. Apparently MVA employees, and the truck owners themselves were unaware of that in the past and the historic tags were granted.

When the truck collectors found they could no longer continue their hobby without a change in the law they contacted their legislators for help.

To confirm what they say it true about already having been granted historic tags, and that there will likely be no reduction in fees, they have sent their truck registrations (attached) that prove they are currently “historic”.
.
Thank you for your consideration of SB25, which if passed will prevent abuse of Historic tags by barring commercial use in the future, limit use to events like parades and shows, and still allow this small groups of enthusiasts to enjoy their hobby. Don’t forget two national shows of Historic trucks in Baltimore organized by this organization have brought many tourism dollars to our state.

Sincerely,

Nancy Jacobs

big1096's post of the letter from Nancy Jacobs brings up the point that I'd see as the reason for many of these bills, regardless of state that the 'movement' occurs in... people skirting the intent of the use of Historic Tags in order to pay lower rates, then use the vehicle in a fashion that Historic Tags were not intended to be used.

Places a black-eye on the hobby, be it HMV's, collector cars/trucks, or whatever.

And this issue can spread to other states as they seek increased revenues to fill gaps in budget shortfalls - The challenge to the State is, what percentage of vehicles are in this category - less than 1%?

Good Luck with the fight, Gentlemen!

'Tanner'

 

[DieselBob]

The only reason they began to have a problem is one irresponsible driver of an older truck was hauling freight with historic tags and became involved in a crash. State police researched and found that current law actually barred these tractors from getting historic tags. Apparently MVA employees, and the truck owners themselves were unaware of that in the past and the historic tags were granted.

Thanks for the info. I have my letters ready to mail in the A.M. I also printed a couple copies of the bill's to have with me when I stop by to see the owners of some historic tagged fire trucks I've seen. Just in case the owners are not aware of the proposed legislation.

 

[3rdmdqm]

Members of the Historic Truck group explained to JPR they’ve registered as historic for decades so revenue would not drop if they continued.
The only reason they began to have a problem is one irresponsible driver of an older truck was hauling freight with historic tags and became involved in a crash. State police researched and found that current law actually barred these tractors from getting historic tags. Apparently MVA employees, and the truck owners themselves were unaware of that in the past and the historic tags were granted.

When the truck collectors found they could no longer continue their hobby without a change in the law they contacted their legislators for help.

I would be curious to know what exactly barred them from getting historic tags. If they were barred from getting historic tags because they are prohibited from using the trucks in business/commerce or for profit/hire under the historic tag restrictions then they would be rightfully barred. If it was because of the class F designation for tractors as opposed to the class E designation for other trucks being eligible then that is another matter, however adding additional restrictions on top of adding a class of vehicle is not the answer. There are already laws and restrictions in place to address the "irresponsible" users of historic tags through enforcement, there is no reason to use the shotgun approach to stick it to everyone else as our legislators so frequently try to do when there are already laws in place to deal with them on the books.

I agree that this needs to be addressed by voicing our concerns as hobby enthusiasts through the legislative channels, opposing additional restrictions. As collectors, many choose increased insurance coverage through policies other than historic vehicle policies. More insurance is better in many respects. Maryland has minimum insurance requirements already and mandating a specific company or type is just wrong. In adition, since many get insurance outside of conventional "historic/collector" insurance companies which mandate storage of the vehicle in a locked garage this could be problematic for many. The focus of the legislation should not be on type of insurance or weight of vehicle. The focus of the legislation should be on age (hence historic) and intended use. I encourage everyone from this site in Maryland to send their comments to their representatives as the more feedback the better and the sooner the better.

 

[3rdmdqm]

I recently contacted a local VFW regarding this since myself and others assist them with parades and other functions. They have lobbyists that lobby on their behalf and are going to look into this also. While the bills do not appear to effect participating with them in their events, the restriction on insurance could have a devastating effect on the ability of many to own/store in compliance with insurance retrictions. They are aware and were receptive to assisting.

 

[jaxsof]

My insurance is from Gulfway, is historic vehicle insurance, and is written as a version of commercial insurance. They had to use a commercial policy due to the weight.

In the policy it dictates usage, which is similar to the current MD Historic regs.

As to enforcement, I absolutely agreewith officers doing thier job, and at least questioning every-day historic vehicle tagged drivers. They are the ones hurting us. Seems to me that most legislator donot know what laws already exist, and just want to get their name on something even if itis arehshof something already not being enforced.

We absolutely need to act, and if an officer is in error, and thinks he saw you driving your 90 Caprice every day last week, at 0630 at this intersection, dont get angry, just let him know, you respect the law (and your driving privilage)enough not to be so flagrant and that he respectfully has the wrong vehicle. And please, be honest with that. Too many others dont care what happens as long as they can get over.

 

[BKubu]

Insurance is only one issue. Inspections bring up far greater problems. I once TRIED to get an M929 inspected. I had no interest in actually using the truck as it was intended, but it was younger than 20 years old and I wanted to be able to drive it. This was in the early-2000s before the flood of M939 series trucks. Anyway, I had to get it inspected to gets tags. As you would expect, military trucks are not in their (the inspection sites') books. They ASSUMED I should have rear marker lights, three point seat belts, extra reflectors, and front marker lights on top of the cab (the truck had a soft top), in addition to other things (padded dash, I believe was a requirement that I was told). I am the type who wants to keep my trucks in as-used condition without modifications. For some that may not be a problem. For me, it is. Still, you'd have to make some serious mods just to get the trucks to pass inspection. This will take money AND effort. Another thing to consider...

 

[BKubu]

Others have already said it and I want to stress it again...write letters to the writers of this bill AS WELL AS your own Maryland Senator. The more times they are hit with letters complaining about this, the better. I have already done so (mine, unfortunately, was one of the author's of the bill and all I got in response was a mis-replied email asking "Max" if he had seen this one!). Another friend has done so, too, and his representative has stated he hopes to kill this bill in committee. Now is the time to act...

 

[Amer-team]

Good points that we all need to consider and keep in mind, regardless of location.
Go Maryland!

 

[3rdmdqm]

Existing Historic plate law on the books for comparison to new bills for anyone interested.

Md. TRANSPORTATION Code Ann. § 13-936

Annotated Code of Maryland
Copyright © 2011 by Matthew Bender and Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group
All rights reserved.

*** Current through the 2011 Special Session ***
TRANSPORTATION
TITLE 13. VEHICLE LAWS -- CERTIFICATES OF TITLE AND REGISTRATION OF VEHICLES
SUBTITLE 9. REGISTRATION CLASSIFICATIONS AND FEES
PART II. CLASSIFIED VEHICLES
Md. TRANSPORTATION Code Ann. § 13-936 (2011)
§ 13-936. Historic motor vehicles: Class L (historic) vehicles


(a) "Historic motor vehicle" defined. -- In this section, "historic motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or truck that:

(1) Is at least 20 years old;

(2) Has not been substantially altered from the manufacturer's original design; and

(3) Meets criteria contained in regulations adopted by the Administration.

(b) Remanufactured or reconstructed vehicles. -- In this section, "historic motor vehicle" does not include a vehicle that has been remanufactured or reconstructed as a replica of an original vehicle.

(c) Classification. -- If registered with the Administration under this section, every historic motor vehicle is a Class L (historic) vehicle.

(d) Annual fee. -- Except as provided in subsection (i) of this section, for each Class L (historic) vehicle, the annual registration fee is $ 25.50.

(e) Special registration requirements. -- In applying for registration of a historic motor vehicle under this section, the owner of the vehicle shall submit with the application a certification that the vehicle for which the application is made:

(1) Will be maintained for use in exhibitions, club activities, parades, tours, occasional transportation, and similar uses; and

(2) Will not be used:

(i) For general daily transportation; or

(ii) Primarily for the transportation of passengers or property on highways.

(f) Special registration plate. -- Except as provided in § 13-936.1 of this subtitle, on registration of a vehicle under this section, the Administration shall issue a special, historic motor vehicle registration plate of the size and design that the Administration determines.

(g) Exception from equipment requirements. -- Unless the presence of the equipment was specifically required by a statute of this State as a condition of sale when the vehicle was manufactured, the presence of any specific equipment is not required for the operation of a vehicle registered under this section.

(h) Exemption from inspection requirements. -- A vehicle registered under this section is exempt from any statute that requires periodic vehicle inspections or that requires the use and inspection of emission controls.

(i) Fee; registration nontransferable. --

(1) For a motor vehicle manufactured at least 60 years prior to the current model year, there is a onetime registration fee of $ 50.00.

(2) Registration of a motor vehicle manufactured under this subsection is not transferable to a subsequent owner.

 

[jeffhuey1n]

Existing Historic plate law on the books for comparison to new bills for anyone interested.

Md. TRANSPORTATION Code Ann. § 13-936

Annotated Code of Maryland
Copyright © 2011 by Matthew Bender and Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group
All rights reserved.

*** Current through the 2011 Special Session ***
TRANSPORTATION
TITLE 13. VEHICLE LAWS -- CERTIFICATES OF TITLE AND REGISTRATION OF VEHICLES
SUBTITLE 9. REGISTRATION CLASSIFICATIONS AND FEES
PART II. CLASSIFIED VEHICLES
Md. TRANSPORTATION Code Ann. § 13-936 (2011)
§ 13-936. Historic motor vehicles: Class L (historic) vehicles


(a) "Historic motor vehicle" defined. -- In this section, "historic motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or truck that:

(1) Is at least 20 years old;

(2) Has not been substantially altered from the manufacturer's original design; and

(3) Meets criteria contained in regulations adopted by the Administration.

(b) Remanufactured or reconstructed vehicles. -- In this section, "historic motor vehicle" does not include a vehicle that has been remanufactured or reconstructed as a replica of an original vehicle.

(c) Classification. -- If registered with the Administration under this section, every historic motor vehicle is a Class L (historic) vehicle.

(d) Annual fee. -- Except as provided in subsection (i) of this section, for each Class L (historic) vehicle, the annual registration fee is $ 25.50.

(e) Special registration requirements. -- In applying for registration of a historic motor vehicle under this section, the owner of the vehicle shall submit with the application a certification that the vehicle for which the application is made:

(1) Will be maintained for use in exhibitions, club activities, parades, tours, occasional transportation, and similar uses; and

(2) Will not be used:

(i) For general daily transportation; or

(ii) Primarily for the transportation of passengers or property on highways.

(f) Special registration plate. -- Except as provided in § 13-936.1 of this subtitle, on registration of a vehicle under this section, the Administration shall issue a special, historic motor vehicle registration plate of the size and design that the Administration determines.

(g) Exception from equipment requirements. -- Unless the presence of the equipment was specifically required by a statute of this State as a condition of sale when the vehicle was manufactured, the presence of any specific equipment is not required for the operation of a vehicle registered under this section.

(h) Exemption from inspection requirements. -- A vehicle registered under this section is exempt from any statute that requires periodic vehicle inspections or that requires the use and inspection of emission controls.

(i) Fee; registration nontransferable. --

(1) For a motor vehicle manufactured at least 60 years prior to the current model year, there is a onetime registration fee of $ 50.00.

(2) Registration of a motor vehicle manufactured under this subsection is not transferable to a subsequent owner.

OK, call me stupid, I accept the title freely. This "looks" like the similar "Pioneer" tags and rules and regs for here in Wyoming. Given the use for the typical MV (using mine as my examples), I am not seeing the problem. But again, I am not fully in the know of all things with Maryland Laws. My trucks are all titled as Trucks. I pay comercial insurance because that's what State Farm requires for trucks of the M35 class/size with standard Truck titles. Now if I went to get the Pioneer tags I'd get a different tag and I'd pay a lot less in tag and insurance fees. But, I have a bunch of restrictions dumped on me that i'n not ready to accept. Financial restriction may force me to get the Pioneer tags, I don't drive my M35's daily, even weekly. I fit within the restrictions for the tag. So I need to ask is this the current rules for MD or the proposed rules that has/have everyone wound up? If so and you have the time, what's wrong with these restrictions? Please see my first sentence, I aint the tallest pole in the tent as it were.

 

[3rdmdqm]

Above is the law as it is currently on the books today. They are trying to change the above law by introducing new legislation which removes wording to allow for occassional use, specified what type of insurance someone must have, and size/weight limits (depending on what bill you read). See the links posted for the actual bills that were introduced to see the new language they have proposed.

here's the under 10K bill HB550
http://mlis.state.md.us/2012rs/bills/hb/hb0550f.pdf

and there is one for over 10K HB668
http://mlis.state.md.us/2012rs/bills/hb/hb0668f.pdf

 

[tcody]

Of all the critical issues facing our nation it boggles my mind that our elected representatives choose to spend their time doing stuff like this!

 

[GPrez]

Glad I stumbled across this. I'll be typing a letter today

 

[jaxsof]

Of all the critical issues facing our nation it boggles my mind that our elected representatives choose to spend their time doing stuff like this!

Three or four years ago they spent the whole session argueing whether mechanical bulls should have seat belts.

Mr Pipkin has/had a few bars with mechanical bulls, and introduced legislation to remove the requirement for restraints. Said it was interfering with trade.

 

[USAFSS-ColdWarrior]

Three or four years ago they spent the whole session argueing whether mechanical bulls should have seat belts.

WOW - Other than looking like a SPINAL INJURY waiting to happen, this reminds me of those who wanted to cut their state budget by laying-off half of the CATTLE GUARDS on State Land. BTW: This is a CATTLE GUARD.....