Nevada classic car law changes

[f.f.jones]

Nevada Assembly Bill 349, which proposes that for a vehicle to be registered as a classic car it must pass a smog check, carry classic or antique insurance, and can only be driven 5,000 miles per year.

 

See post in "Automotie Legislation"

Edited September 9, 2022 by f.f.jones (see edit history)

[wayne sheldon]

I wonder how often the smog check? And what kind of smog check would they give my model Ts?

I still consider moving to Nevada a distinct possibility! Besides, I was born there!

[joe_padavano]

Here we go again. The "smog check" can only apply to cars that were required to meet smog requirements when new. Obviously it does NOT apply to Model Ts. Common sense, please. And frankly, if people didn't abuse these classic car registration provisions by using them to keep their clapped-out 1989 Camry on the road without inspections, we wouldn't have this problem. Once again, this is why we can't have anything nice.

[auburnseeker]

That's the kind of stuff you need to stay on top of.  Being it will be written by people that know nothing about vintage cars,  they very well could use a standard for the smog test that will fail many cars.   What's the allowable smog level for a Sleeve valve willys?  How is each station going to know the difference from car to car?  How is it going to be implemented and testing performed?  Look to see who is behind it.  If it's an environmental group, be extra cautious as the end goal may have nothing to do with making sure that the old cars properly run and not excessively polluting. 

 

We had a bill currently passed in NY rammed through with no time for oversight or a period of public hearing (not car related really) but the court found the only reason to not overturn it,  was it had not personally affected the person that brought it to court to challenge it,  because the bill hadn't yet gone into affect.  Now it has so we have to wait for the first person to be arrested (which it is so vaguely written that the cops don't even really know how to enforce it) ,  then they have to take the same exact case to court.   They said the law will be overturned as soon as that happens.  Why we need to wait for that to happen,  blows my mind.  The whole idea was to prevent an illegal law from getting to the point of someone being arrested for it.  

 

Could see a similar thing happen here.  Easier to stop it before it becomes law.  Seems all the important stuff is sped through with little time for proper review and time for changes to be made so that when it's finally rolled out it's clearly written and everything is in place to support it. 

[auburnseeker]

3 minutes ago, joe_padavano said:

The "smog check" can only apply to cars that were required to meet smog requirements when new. Obviously it does NOT apply to Model Ts. Common sense, please.

If we were talking common sense,  most of these laws would never have been written.  Don't fool yourself If you don't think they won't try to work their way backward if they can find a way.  Even if the intention is nothing but pure in the beginning it can be corrupted very easily along the way. 

[60FlatTop]

47 minutes ago, joe_padavano said:

And frankly, if people didn't abuse these classic car registration provisions by using them to keep their clapped-out 1989 Camry on the road without inspections, we wouldn't have this problem.

I see way too much of that. Around here it is the cheap insurance and cheap plates that they want to take advantage of. Usually a pick up or a conversion van when I see them or hear them talking about it. They will use money from under the table pay for it too. Yet another stereotype.

[auburnseeker]

Think of it this way.  How easy is it for them to make a law?  How easy is it to get that law repealed?  The reason every law should be very well thought out and receive genuine support from almost everybody before it even voted on. 

 

I mentioned to a friend the other day, that any law that is proposed and advanced by any politician should bear their name and full responsibility.  If it is passed, especially hastily,  then found in court to have violated anyones rights, especially when later overturned by a court on those specific grounds,  that they should be removed from office.  It would definitely put the brakes on alot of stuff that gets run through in the dark of night.  If they had personal skin in the game,  they would be sure what they were doing was truly constitutional. 

[John348]

Is it still a 1932 (whatever) when you put in a modern drivetrain on a modern chassis? Maybe that is where the entire problem lays? Where it really is a street rod and the only vintage part of it the paperwork and the VIN

[Pfeil]

1 hour ago, joe_padavano said:

Here we go again. The "smog check" can only apply to cars that were required to meet smog requirements when new. Obviously it does NOT apply to Model Ts. Common sense, please. And frankly, if people didn't abuse these classic car registration provisions by using them to keep their clapped-out 1989 Camry on the road without inspections, we wouldn't have this problem. Once again, this is why we can't have anything nice.

  In California, in the late 60's the state created emission standards for 1955-1965 vehicles, there never were standards for these cars when new. One of the devises that had to be installed was a devise that capped the engine vacuum line to the distributor vacuum advance. A lot of overheating and blown engines and after a few years the law was rescinded.

  1966-1975 cars (these are the first cars with exhaust controls) must have all their emission devises on the car and working order, they are exempt from testing unless the AQMD or CARB brings them back into smog check. These vehicles could be brought back into smog check if Ca. air quality doesn't meet standards or if the state can't meet its self-imposed carbon offset. The state does not need a referendum to bring them back into smog check.

 1976- present day cars must be smogged biannually unless they are deemed gross polluters, then it's every year.

 I have a 1976 Oldsmobile that I bought new in Ca. I have every smog test and records from day 1 until I moved to AZ. in 2014. If you look at the standards on the very first smog test to the last test before I left Ca. you will see that the state tightened the standards every year, in fact in the 90's the state started measuring NOX and then created a standard. Even though my Olds had an EGR NOX devise from the factory there was never an EPA standard for that car, yet the state created a standard measurement, and tightened every year the HC and CO standard as if to try to legislate these cars off the road.  

 

[1912Staver]

I am not saying there is a true parallel to automobiles

, but for my working life re- powers were a reasonably common undertaking. Ships mostly { the last 30 years of my working life } but heavy equipment before that.

 As a machine got older parts became harder to obtain, but primarily the newer power plants got better fuel economy.  

 Still the same machine { or ship } , just lower opperating costs per hour.

 Re- powers have been around a long time. I have a few advertising pieces talking about early truck re- power kits . Budda etc mid 1920's advertising drop in kits to update yout teens Mack, Federal ,White,Packard etc.

[1937hd45]

Wonder how many "Hot August Nights" participants are Nevada residents or all those thousands of cars and people are from out of state? HUGE money maker for Reno!

 

https://www.bing.com/search?q=Hot August Nights Reno Money raised&qs=n&form=QBRE&=%eManage Your Search History%E&sp=-1&pq=hot august nights reno money raised&sc=0-35&sk=&cvid=1917BC907730485F805FBFCEFA0E4CBE&ghsh=0&ghacc=0&ghpl=

Edited September 9, 2022 by 1937hd45 (see edit history)

[John348]

2 hours ago, joe_padavano said:

Here we go again. The "smog check" can only apply to cars that were required to meet smog requirements when new. Obviously it does NOT apply to Model Ts. Common sense, please. And frankly, if people didn't abuse these classic car registration provisions by using them to keep their clapped-out 1989 Camry on the road without inspections, we wouldn't have this problem. Once again, this is why we can't have anything nice.

 

I think Joe and Pfeil hit it on the head. Apparently Nevada has a few different categories of vintage automobile plates based on years of manufacture and even street rods. The first category begins with vehicles 25 years to 40 years old, and those would be the ones that would be subject to this proposal, and those are the ones that had emission standards out of the factory. There are three different things mentioned, from the  looks of it seems like people are beating the road use tax by getting lower price tags, getting lower price insurance based on limited use and using their vehicles as full service vehicles. The smog check allows the system to get that open pipe 87 Camry to put a muffler and cat on so he does not annoy the entire neighborhood. 

As Joe said "common sense"  

[60FlatTop]

"Ignorance in making a law is no excuse" isn't that some legal quote?

[John348]

1 minute ago, 60FlatTop said:

"Ignorance in making a law is no excuse" isn't that some legal quote?

I think it was 
"ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law"

[60FlatTop]

I like my intentional misinterpretation better.

[John348]

7 minutes ago, 60FlatTop said:

I like my intentional misinterpretation better.

But you and I both know that really does not help a situation

[auburnseeker]

No point in covering for lawmakers.  Being they have our very lives/ livelihood/ enjoyments of freedoms at the end of a pen which may not always be used in our best interest,  giving them a little slack is the last thing we should do.  They should be held to the highest standards and critique. 

[Gunsmoke]

Another pending "gripe session". If only the original poster Mr. Jones had posted the entire proposed legislation in his posting (as opposed to perhaps a biased article) we would know what the law is intended to target. But that would be too easy, better to just get the "usual suspects" all riled up at the very thought of controlling smog! Willing to bet when the facts are clear this gripe session will have raised the blood pressure unnecessarily for all who bother to read it.

[60FlatTop]

I'm entertained. If it wasn't for irreverence I wouldn't have any reverence at all.

 

To truly understand people or a culture you must learn the things they are told not to do. Been that way for 6,000 years. Ain't changing soon.

[joe_padavano]

4 hours ago, Pfeil said:

  In California, in the late 60's the state created emission standards for 1955-1965 vehicles, there never were standards for these cars when new. One of the devises that had to be installed was a devise that capped the engine vacuum line to the distributor vacuum advance. A lot of overheating and blown engines and after a few years the law was rescinded.

I'm well aware of the NOx device and the need to retrofit them. This is the only instance I'm aware of in history where a car owner was required to retrofit emissions equipment not required when the car was built. What most people don't know (and I found that this applied to the technicians in the test centers also) is that there were specific exceptions to the requirement for a NOx device, including most prominently an exception for high performance models with factory superchargers, turbochargers, or outside air induction. I had to produce the specifics of the law to argue this case with the testing station when I got my 1969 Hurst/Olds tested in the early 1980s. The reality was, this was a trivial requirement. You plug the NOx device in to the vacuum advance circuit, get tested, and revert to stock when you got home. In any case this is not germane to Nevada law.

[39BuickEight]

7 hours ago, joe_padavano said:

Here we go again. The "smog check" can only apply to cars that were required to meet smog requirements when new. Obviously it does NOT apply to Model Ts. Common sense, please. And frankly, if people didn't abuse these classic car registration provisions by using them to keep their clapped-out 1989 Camry on the road without inspections, we wouldn't have this problem. Once again, this is why we can't have anything nice.

Around here it’s a primered 1992 S-10 pickup. 🤦🏼

[car crazy]

Legislative vigilance is key. One should never assume that any proposed or pending legislation is completely innocuous, nor necessarily completely harmful to our hobby, despite what is claimed. But one thing to keep foremost in our collective minds as hobbyists is that there is now an entirely new social mindset to the environment vs. automobile equation, and that, coupled with a smaller number of younger automobile enthusiasts than in previous generations (potential voters that legislators might factor in as part of their decision making)  could make legislation that could be detrimental to our hobby much easier to find its way into our lives. Nothing political, just facts. Again, legislative vigilance is key.

Edited September 9, 2022 by car crazy (see edit history)

[wayne sheldon]

1 hour ago, 60FlatTop said:

I'm entertained. If it wasn't for irreverence I wouldn't have any reverence at all.

 

I like that!

 

My comment about smog checking my model Ts was intended as tongue-in-cheek. Although as others have pointed out, we and our clubs do need to keep a sharp eye on lawmakers because they often do not have our interests in their hearts or any real sense of right and wrong or practical reality.

[Pfeil]

Not Germaine.

 

It's quite relevant because states influence each other. Just look at that latest California EV law. There are thirteen states that have followed California.

 Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

[auburnseeker]

I would like to know how these states push this stuff through.  We are never contacted about it.  You have to stay on top of it to be informed. Seems anything short of a true emergency where lives are in direct harm today (and that even really needs to be annalized if the doom is truly impending)  Should have more exposure to the electorate and more time allowed for public comment/ concern. 

Easy for freedoms to be legislated away,.  hard to claw them back in court. 

 

Also be vigilant as alot of this stuff seems to get bundled with things that sound good on the surface,  but often have little to do with what they are being pushed as.  Something about the saying a spoon full of sugar makes the poison pill go down, comes to mind. 

[auburnseeker]

I also wonder how many cars they are really going to catch doing this.  We all have seen maybe one or two,  but how many really are out there,  being used every day and logging 10,000 miles a year on them?

[John348]

1 hour ago, auburnseeker said:

I also wonder how many cars they are really going to catch doing this.  We all have seen maybe one or two,  but how many really are out there,  being used every day and logging 10,000 miles a year on them?

A lot more then you think in a warm weather states.  The rule is not saying you can't drive more then 5,000 miles you just can't have collector insurance if you do, so if you want to drive 10,000 miles insure it like everyone else who drives 10,000 miles. If it is a collector car then treat it like one not like an everyday beater.   We are all about how it left the factory, so make it run like it left the factory and get the emissions right. They know people are trying to beat the system and so do you. 

Edited September 9, 2022 by John348 (see edit history)

[auburnseeker]

So tell me exactly how many people you personally know that do that?  Remember you told me I had to name people that used a loan to buy a classic car,  so we need the same,  otherwise it's not happening right? 

[Ford Fan]

5 hours ago, Gunsmoke said:

Another pending "gripe session". If only the original poster Mr. Jones had posted the entire proposed legislation in his posting (as opposed to perhaps a biased article) we would know what the law is intended to target. But that would be too easy, better to just get the "usual suspects" all riled up at the very thought of controlling smog! Willing to bet when the facts are clear this gripe session will have raised the blood pressure unnecessarily for all who bother to read it.

 

If you are truly interested in the original legislation, look it up yourself since it's so easy. Belly aching because someone else doesn't do what you think they should is never a solution. Do a little research yourself and let us know how this article is biased.

[Gunsmoke]

Ford Fan, my point is not what I need to know. My point is that when one posts a superficial topic with a provocative title, all the angry ranters and band-wagoners never look at the full picture, but only jump on the band wagon and wail away about big government without bothering to take the time to research anything. That is why I encourage moderators not to tolerate this "baiting" game, especially when there is no obvious direct connection to the legitimate antique car hobby.

[TerryB]

From the Nevada dmv website:

 

Beginning January 1, 2023, owners of vehicles with Classic Vehicle, Classic Rod, or Old Timer license plates will be required to carry classic or antique vehicle insurance. Owners who do not meet the requirements will have to obtain a different license plate style.

• You must show the Declarations page from your insurance policy as proof that the vehicle is covered by Nevada liability insurance that is specifically designated for classic or antique vehicles
• The vehicle may not be used as general transportation, driven more than 5,000 miles per year or used in any commercial capacity
• The vehicle may be driven in club activities, exhibitions, tours, parades or similar activities or for maintenance
• Vehicles that meet these requirements are exempt from emissions testing if the owner also completes an Odometer Certification for Emissions Exemption Form (EC 018).
• Renewals may be completed in person, by mail or by fax at (775) 684-4797. Complete a Payment Authorization Form (ADM 205) for mail or fax renewals. Original plates must be obtained in person.

If you do not meet these requirements, you must obtain a different plate style and an emissions inspection if needed. These requirements apply to all vehicles with Classic Vehicle, Classic Rod or Old Timer plates regardless of location or whether they are subject to emissions testing.

These are new laws passed during the 2021 Nevada Legislature. See Assembly Bill 349.

[John348]

38 minutes ago, auburnseeker said:

So tell me exactly how many people you personally know that do that?  Remember you told me I had to name people that used a loan to buy a classic car,  so we need the same,  otherwise it's not happening right? 

It was pointed out by two other posters in this thread, I do know people who have said they have done it. 

 

As usual you must find a diversion to avoid addressing the points presented. According to the rule presented the owner of the car can still drive it over 5,000 miles but the owner needs to have regular insurance, and no longer can have collector insurance if they do. What is wrong with that? How is that affecting their rights? Every collector policy I have had has some sort of limited use stipulations.

The state now has opted to require those cars that drive more than 5,000 miles to certify for emission testing. The inspection station interface with DMV and in most states interface with insurance companies, so when the mileage is entered by the inspector the insurance company will know. So this is the owners decision to do so, and it is the owners option. 

I own an 1988 Chevy Celebrity that if I drove 500 miles in 8 years would be a lot. If I had to take it for an emission inspection I would, and I am pretty sure it would pass. If not, I would repair it. I don't see what the problem is of making the car run the way it was designed to run, after all isn't that is what we do? 

 

You seem to keep confusing luxury loans with new and late model car financing, which are two different financial tools. Financing and insurance fraud are very different. We must not forget that the insurance companies that are getting taking advantage of are the companies that service the legitimate hobbyist and are able to give us the good price that they do.   

[Pfeil]

7 minutes ago, TerryB said:

From the Nevada dmv website:

 

Beginning January 1, 2023, owners of vehicles with Classic Vehicle, Classic Rod, or Old Timer license plates will be required to carry classic or antique vehicle insurance. Owners who do not meet the requirements will have to obtain a different license plate style.

• You must show the Declarations page from your insurance policy as proof that the vehicle is covered by Nevada liability insurance that is specifically designated for classic or antique vehicles
• The vehicle may not be used as general transportation, driven more than 5,000 miles per year or used in any commercial capacity
• The vehicle may be driven in club activities, exhibitions, tours, parades or similar activities or for maintenance
• Vehicles that meet these requirements are exempt from emissions testing if the owner also completes an Odometer Certification for Emissions Exemption Form (EC 018).
• Renewals may be completed in person, by mail or by fax at (775) 684-4797. Complete a Payment Authorization Form (ADM 205) for mail or fax renewals. Original plates must be obtained in person.

If you do not meet these requirements, you must obtain a different plate style and an emissions inspection if needed. These requirements apply to all vehicles with Classic Vehicle, Classic Rod or Old Timer plates regardless of location or whether they are subject to emissions testing.

These are new laws passed during the 2021 Nevada Legislature. See Assembly Bill 349.

TerryB, it seems that the above passed legislation HAS an obvious direct connection to the legitimate antique car hobby.

[TerryB]

1 minute ago, Pfeil said:

TerryB, it seems that the above passed legislation HAS an obvious direct connection to the legitimate antique car hobby.

I didn’t say anything, I just posted the dmv website information as it was not included in the discussion.  The link for the odometer form, if you click on it, is a document the vehicle owner fills out and submits with the annual registration renewal to show the car was driven less than 5k miles.  When you sign the odometer document you are saying the information you entered is correct under penalty of perjury if you falsify the document.  Pretty simple.

[auburnseeker]

I'm pretty sure the insurance companies will take care of themselves. 

 

Regardless of luxury or loans on late model cars,  also many of which are late model luxury cars which are financed,  but regardless I mentioned that it could be used,  like any other tool to prevent us from financing our cars.  IF you blindly want to believe that nothing ever gets fudged along and original intent wildly changed when other groups get involved,  then that's fine,  but I want to mention it to those that may not have thought of that angle to be vigilant about what is going on.  Doesn't hurt to keep tabs on things and mention what we may see as a possible connection or a path legislation can take to restrict our hobby.  Those that push the it won't affect old cars,  really need to step back and take a good look at past legislation for not only cars but other things to see how these monsters grow. 

 

Is it better to not alert our fellow members?  Even if it seems like maybe that's not the original intent.  Vigilance is necessary to make sure we can enjoy our hobby and so that future generations will get to as well. 

 

If you want to see sneaky, look into what some states have done to restrict other rights in the bill of rights.  NY for one. Pertaining to what I mentioned above.  Regardless of intent it has overreaching ramifications that affect all types of people and that's on one of the fundamental rights,  not just the right to the pursuit of happiness which our old cars fall under, but one of the top ones. 

[John348]

7 minutes ago, auburnseeker said:

I'm pretty sure the insurance companies will take care of themselves. 

 

Regardless of luxury or loans on late model cars,  also many of which are late model luxury cars which are financed,  but regardless I mentioned that it could be used,  like any other tool to prevent us from financing our cars.  IF you blindly want to believe that nothing ever gets fudged along and original intent wildly changed when other groups get involved,  then that's fine,  but I want to mention it to those that may not have thought of that angle to be vigilant about what is going on.  Doesn't hurt to keep tabs on things and mention what we may see as a possible connection or a path legislation can take to restrict our hobby.  Those that push the it won't affect old cars,  really need to step back and take a good look at past legislation for not only cars but other things to see how these monsters grow. 

 

Is it better to not alert our fellow members?  Even if it seems like maybe that's not the original intent.  Vigilance is necessary to make sure we can enjoy our hobby and so that future generations will get to as well. 

 

If you want to see sneaky, look into what some states have done to restrict other rights in the bill of rights.  NY for one. Pertaining to what I mentioned above.  Regardless of intent it has overreaching ramifications that affect all types of people and that's on one of the fundamental rights,  not just the right to the pursuit of happiness which our old cars fall under, but one of the top ones. 

You still never addressed the fact that in Nevada it is the owners own decision to drive the car over 5,000 miles, and no one is restricting their right to commit insurance fraud

 

That loan thing must have really got under skin

Edited September 10, 2022 by John348 (see edit history)

[auburnseeker]

Then go after each individual owner that abuses it.  If it is insurance fraud they can get them on that alone.   Don't start writing laws that may affect others that don't abuse the system.   Seems if they did a better job of prosecuting existing laws we wouldn't have to write all kinds of new laws.  Again I refer to NY's recent array of laws passed end of June.  Many of which are duplicates of existing laws,  because no time was allowed for the new laws proposed to be vetted. 

 

I only brought the loan part up,  because you stated that no one used loans,  then immediately a fellow member posted he did,  I did several times.  Throwing around all knowing info as stated no one uses loans to buy old cars  does rub me the wrong way. 

[John348]

1 hour ago, auburnseeker said:

Then go after each individual owner that abuses it.  If it is insurance fraud they can get them on that alone.   Don't start writing laws that may affect others that don't abuse the system.   Seems if they did a better job of prosecuting existing laws we wouldn't have to write all kinds of new laws.  Again I refer to NY's recent array of laws passed end of June.  Many of which are duplicates of existing laws,  because no time was allowed for the new laws proposed to be vetted. 

 

I only brought the loan part up,  because you stated that no one used loans,  then immediately a fellow member posted he did,  I did several times.  Throwing around all knowing info as stated no one uses loans to buy old cars  does rub me the wrong way. 

The Nevada DMV is going after the individuals who do abuse it.  Just because the vehicle is 25 years old or older does not mean it is being used as a collector vehicle. If the owner want's to use it as an every day vehicle then pay the same road use fee and insurance as everyone else, if it is a collector vehicle then they are entitled to discounts that apply, but they should not be shaming the system. 5,000 miles for a collector vehicle is a lot. It seems like you just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

 

I never stated that nobody uses loans to purchase antique automobiles, what I did say is that I do not know anyone personally who did take a loan out, and I also stated that it a entirely different financial tool then a new car loan. which I still don't think you seem fully understand, or you would let it go.     

 

One week ago you were concerned about the collector loan companies loosing revenue because of something in Australia , the next week your flipping off the collector automotive insurance companies 

[auburnseeker]

50 minutes ago, John348 said:

One week ago you were concerned about the collector loan companies loosing revenue because of something in Australia , the next week your flipping off the collector automotive insurance companies 

I'm not worried about loan companies losing money by not giving loans,  I'm worried enthusiasts won't be able to buy the cars because the loans won't be available.  It's about our ability to use and collect our cars,  nothing more.  Maybe go back and carefully read everything I wrote the way it's written.  It's always about us and our cars.  That's what the forums are about,  not every body else's stuff.   What may directly effect us.  That's what I have posted about over and over.  How each thing could evolve to effect us!

[Gunsmoke]

Thanks John 348 for your noble effort to both explain the legislation and to combat the same old "word salads" coming from some posters, whom from where I sit seem to only have the message they hate laws of any kind, as exemplified by their verbosity on this post and several others over past 3-4 weeks that have eventually been deep sixed. I wish posters would follow the axiom "if I don't have something helpful to add, say nothing".