Nevada classic car law changes

[60FlatTop]

12 hours ago, Gunsmoke said:

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

Hey! I saw that on the TV news last night. The liberal station did that then said "After this" and tried to sell me an extended car warranty and brain food from jellyfish. I switched to the conservative station and they did the same thing. Pretty sure both did it for money. Not for my entertainment like here.

[8E45E]

9 hours ago, John348 said:

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.

Tha is exactly how I interpreted it when I first read it; simply a clampdown on abuse.  

 

In Nevada, one can get away driving a collector car more often than here, with little, if any snow in winter and not a lot of rain, which makes for a high survival rate of cars in the 25-40 year old range.  In Alberta those with antique plates have not abused the privelege as the consequences of abusing the vintage car itself by driving it in winter salt is far higher.  And here, cars do show their age after 25 years.

 

Craig

[rocketraider]

Well- we have to stay on top of what lawmakers are doing that might affect our old cars and other things, because it's a lot harder to get rid of bad law than it is to make it. What we in Virginia got smacked with in 2007 proved that. When the dust settled and the financial projections attached to that bill surfaced, it was readily apparent it had nothing to do with getting questionable antique plates off the roads but was, instead, nothing but a money grab.

 

What really burned me up was the legislator who introduced and sponsored it calls himself a "car guy" 🙄. I may end up back in his House district. If I do I will again hammer him without remorse. You cannot sit back and let these people have free rein. Gideon Tucker nailed it- "no man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session".

 

Yeah, I'm one who goes to county supervisor and planning commission meetings as an "interested observer".😈

 

I'm still a little uncomfortable with the classic insurance angle as it smacks of collusion with insurance companies.

[Bhigdog]

16 hours ago, Gunsmoke said:

That is why I encourage moderators not to tolerate this "baiting" game,

And yet.......You repeatedly keep rising to and taking the bait. Even a fish eventually learns..........Bob

[John348]

4 hours ago, rocketraider said:

 

I'm still a little uncomfortable with the classic insurance angle as it smacks of collusion with insurance companies.

Glenn,

It is a lot better then the insurance companies deciding that they are not writing policies in certain states for cars of that age group, so at least they are still accommodating those who are not attempting to defraud them, which they could easily do.  The insurance companies know how many claims they are receiving and the time of day that those incidents are occurring,  If anything this a positive thing for hobbyist. The Nevada DMV is differentiating a hobby use vehicle from an every day use vehicle of the same vintage rather then squashing the entire program, I believe in NYS when my cars were registered there I had to have proof of historical insurance to receive HX or historical plates     

[Mark Gregush]

In Oregon cars 1975 or newer have to pass DEQ if they live in a DEQ zone. 

[Robert Street]

On 9/9/2022 at 10:45 AM, John348 said:

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

John just thinking your post further. Where do you go from there if you have one of those old street rods?  Glad you and I own 348/409s

robert

[dochawk]

I know this is an older thread, but I hit it looking for other things, so I figured I'd offer a little clarity.

 

Registering old cloud-spewing, noisy junk as classics for daily use had indeed become a serious problem in Las Vegas.

 

The old rule only required age, and you could could either smog it, or be exempt from smog with the 5,000 mile cap.

 

You now must have classic insurance to get classic plates, and you have the 5,000 mile cap.

 

However, you do *not* need to have classic plates to get classic insurance.  Hagerty offers options up to 7,500 just by ordering it, and goes to underwriting for anything higher.

 

I expect to be going over 5,000 on at least one car in the near future as I take up cross country touring.  

 

Anyway, the point is that you can get classic insurance without classic plates if you're going to be doing the long tours.

 

I plan on doing the length of the Pacific Coast Highway *at least* once in each convertible, which will come in at about 1500+ miles, as well as the length of Route 66, again huge.  And things on the east coast.  

 

So for at least one car in a given year, I expect to pass 5,000.

[TAKerry]

I hope your not a bot that has fooled me(again), but I completely agree with the Nevada requirement. I must have read it subliminally at some point. My son and I are on the road enough to notice. Not a day goes by that we dont count at least a half dozen 'historic' cars (MD). The rule is 20 years. Period. There are restrictions but there are a lot of offenders. Its a big pet peeve of ours collectively. We were trying to figure out ways to fairly regulate it. One was having a non historic registered in the owners name. Another idea we had was to mandate any historic car have classic insurance. I think either would weed out the bad apples. The other thing would be to just do away with emissions testing on 20 yr old cars. That is the biggest reason these people tag their hoopties as a classic. By doing so they still dont pay the $14 emissions fee, PLUS their registration is pennies compared to a regular tag that is being skirted. 

[dochawk]

*You* hope I'm not a bot?  What about my poor wife; she would be *horribly* disappointed . . .

🤣

 

I do wish that they'd left open the option to have the plates, pass smog, and no limit, but . . .

 

The significant part is the requirement to have classic car insurance on it; that weeds out the rolling smog clouds, as it requires having another normally registered car. (OK, there are some rather narrow exceptions; Hagerty mentions the possibility of a golf cart in some retirement communities, and maybe a bicycle in others)

[Paul Dobbin]

I was up to 6 cars in my American Collectors policy at renewal, all with a 2500 mile annual limit.   One of the cars hadn't left the

garage since I got my knees replaced 5 years ago, so I asked about a lower mileage limit.   The 1000 mile limit was a big savings,

so i researched all the cars and I qualified.   I had quit the national tours because of all the walking involved and didn't realize how

little I was driving.   SOLD 2 cars and now will pay less until I get my knees to work again and can hit the road more.

Moral of the story is:  keep logs on your usage and tell you agent.

[Buffalowed Bill]

On 9/9/2022 at 1:57 PM, Pfeil said:

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.

Pardon my ignorance, but I don't know what California EV law you are talking about. However pertinent to this discussion, about five years ago the state of Washington, stopped all emission testing. This reversed a long standing testing process. Common sense led to the realization that there is little air pollution from new vehicles, so testing them was making little sense. That left the older cars on the road who could be offenders, but since less then 1% of cars over twenty years old even exist, and since few of those are even driven, maintaining the resources to test them made little sense either.  

[TAKerry]

6 hours ago, Buffalowed Bill said:

Pardon my ignorance, but I don't know what California EV law you are talking about. However pertinent to this discussion, about five years ago the state of Washington, stopped all emission testing. This reversed a long standing testing process. Common sense led to the realization that there is little air pollution from new vehicles, so testing them was making little sense. That left the older cars on the road who could be offenders, but since less then 1% of cars over twenty years old even exist, and since few of those are even driven, maintaining the resources to test them made little sense either.  

My thoughts on emission testing exactly.  I have often wanted to know the pass/fail rate in my area. I would bet the pass rate is extremely high compared to the fail. The older cars that will fail get a 'historic' tag so they will not have to go through the test. They pay a very cheap registration fee thus 'cheating' the state out of revenue. They should either get rid of it completely or make a 20 yr exemption period. 

[Pfeil]

5 hours ago, TAKerry said:

My thoughts on emission testing exactly.  I have often wanted to know the pass/fail rate in my area. I would bet the pass rate is extremely high compared to the fail. The older cars that will fail get a 'historic' tag so they will not have to go through the test. They pay a very cheap registration fee thus 'cheating' the state out of revenue. They should either get rid of it completely or make a 20 yr exemption period. 

In Ca. it makes no difference if you put historical plates on a 1976 and newer vehicle. Historical plates on those cars won't exempt you.

FYI, in AZ in enhanced areas like Tuson, Phoenix etc. cars are smog checked back to 1967. I mentioned earlier in this thread that I have every test my 76 Oldsmobile has taken from 1978 to 2012 and that the pass/fail standards got stricter each testing cycle plus they added a NOX standard even though a standard never existed in 1976 when the car was new, and Oh by the way the Olds had Ca. historical plates. 

Edited June 15 by Pfeil (see edit history)

[Packard enthus.]

I wouldn't worry about ANY state's legislation.    Of course the car need only meet whatever standards it had to meet when manufactured.   I doubt if anyone these days cares whether a car has been re-powered.    The important thing to remember is that given what we have become as a country, loss of clarity..standards...etc.... it is perfectly acceptable, even encouraged, to call ALL used vehicles "CLASSICS".....just think, by present  AACA  thinkinh & standards,  my Toyota RAV 4 is going to be an "antique" in a couple more years...!

[Pfeil]

10 minutes ago, Packard enthus. said:

I wouldn't worry about ANY state's legislation.    Of course the car need only meet whatever standards it had to meet when manufactured.   I doubt if anyone these days cares whether a car has been re-powered.    The important thing to remember is that given what we have become as a country, loss of clarity..standards...etc.... it is perfectly acceptable, even encouraged, to call ALL used vehicles "CLASSICS".....just think, by present  AACA  thinkinh & standards,  my Toyota RAV 4 is going to be an "antique" in a couple more years...!

Not true in Ca. The car must meet the standard the state required. I said in the above  thread the standard in Ca. changed from year to year and where no standard existed, like NOX, a standard was created.  

[Packard enthus.]

1 hour ago, Pfeil said:

Not true in Ca. The car must meet the standard the state required. I said in the above  thread the standard in Ca. changed from year to year and where no standard existed, like NOX, a standard was created.  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not picking on you personally - it is normal and human to want to participate in Internet conversations.   Let me respectfully suggest to our fellow old car buffs to THINK before you start posting just to see yourself in print.   Why THINK?  Because if what you say is wrong, ( just something you feel like saying) your incorrect info. could cause other old car buffs inconvenience and trouble.  The FACT is in Calif,   NO vehicle manufactured in 1975 or earlier is subject to the so-called "smog" rules.  For those who are curious about such things,  see Sect. 3340.5, Title 16, found in the Calif. Dept Of Consumer Affairs, sub.sect. Bureau Of Auto Repair...that's where you will find their Inspector's Manual & Guidelines.

 

1 hour ago, Pfeil said: