Vehicles on American roads

[Marc Vaughan]

Following on from the 'Radio Flyer' car thread ..

One thing I've always wondered about - is there any safety regulation in America for vehicles as I've seen a lot of cars on the road which would be instantly condemned in England and indeed something like that (Radio Flyer car) simply wouldn't get on the road in the UK because of its obvious lack of safety features (ie. no roll cage, large battering ram projecting 8 foot in the air etc.).

With America being much more lawyer friendly than home I've been amazed at the state of some of the cars on the road - if one has an accident because of its ill-repair what happens?

[Coffee Warlord]

There are absolutely specific things you have to meet on a vehicle to make it street legal here. You could prolly google around a bit and find out, I'm not sure what it all entails.

Likely varies by state, hence the reason that Radio Flyer car is legal up in Alaska - I'd bet it's not street legal in many other states.

[bhlloy]

FWIW Marc I've always thought the same thing going from the UK to California. The number of old POS that stall in the middle of traffic in LA that you just would never see allowed to be on the road in the UK because of the yearly MOT requirement....

Obviously in the UK you don't really have to have a car and a lot of the places in the US you really do (especially here in LA) so it makes sense that regulations are a little more relaxed but still a huge difference. If you go somewhere like Germany the requirements are even more stringent IIRC.

[molson]

And many, many cars are out there on the road regardless of legality. (I'm taking the cars that are stalling in traffic in LA more than the radio flyer-type novelty cars).

When I worked as a prosecutor in a rural county, it seemed like nobody was legal (either a problem with the car, or non-existent license, registration, insurance, etc.) Not really anything you can do about that except issue a fine that will never be paid.

[JonInMiddleGA]

FWIW, a much longer version of the story (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/873836--giant-motorized-radio-flyer-wagon-a-chick-magnet) makes mention of some of this stuff.

"The basic structure of the wagon is marine plywood, foam, fiberglass cloth and epoxy resin," he said. "It's a very strong structure."

Many components of the Mazda are still in the flyer: instrument panel, steering column, levels, frame and engine. Keller completed the frame, added smaller wheels, hubcaps painted white and used old laundry detergent caps for the hubs. He also constructed the 2.4-metre handle from PVC piping wrapped in fiberglass, which rises from the front bumper high over the windshield.
... The wagon was completed in August after making a few adjustments required by the state motor vehicles department (windshield, mudflaps, more lights) to make it street legal.

Basically PVC pipe doesn't make much of a "battering ram", neither does the little plywood platform it sits on. I also haven't seen too many convertibles with roll cages, meanwhile the rest of what's beneath the plywood & foam is essentially still a 1976 perfectly street legal pickup.

[RendeR]

In most states the only real requirements are headlamps, turning signals, braking lamps, working brakes and certain specific instruments in the panel. (speedometer being the only one I'm sure is required by most states)

There are varying requirements of sturdiness. As in the strength of the framing and bodywork. Almost every state has differing levels on that.

My brother in law once owned and drove what we affectionately named the "Danger Truck". It was 90% rust and had no floorboard in the passenger side. Holes in both doors and could not support a 10lb weight in the bed of the pickup.

But it was LEGAL. Go NY. Keep those roads safe!

[Sun Tzu]

Marc, the laws here are relatively stringent.

That being said, there are a good number of illegal vehicles on the road all over the country.

[panerd]

Didn't Frank the Tank take the restrictor plate off the red dragon to cause it to not be street legal?

[JediKooter]

I once saw a hotdog mobile in Texas and a guy hanging out the drivers side window with a flash light shining on the road a head of him because his head lights were out. This also was in Texas.

[thesloppy]

Although crappy American laws and testing are largely responsible for all the shitheaps on American roads, the dearth of junkers on UK roads has to be at least partially because nearly every classic Vauxhall/Healy/MG/Triumph/Rover stopped working over 25 years ago.

[Marc Vaughan]

Although crappy American laws and testing are largely responsible for all the shitheaps on American roads, the dearth of junkers on UK roads has to be at least partially because nearly every classic Vauxhall/Healy/MG/Triumph/Rover stopped working over 25 years ago.

LOL :D

But no - the reason few junkers are on UK roads is simply that every vehicle has to pass an MOT yearly, if they fail it they're not legal to be on the road ... if the police stop you you're toast (and having a tatty looking car or excessively loud motorbike IS reason for them to stop and check ... as a biker I used to get pulled a lot because of that), they don't take particularly kindly to such things and at BEST (if they're feeling particularly lenient and you've a sensible excuse - ie. wife giving birth in the car beside you as you discuss the matter, at worst they'll impound the car and leave you be) they'll give you a lift home and force you to abandon the car beside the road.

To me this makes perfect sense as an illegal car (at least in the UK) automatically invalidates any insurance - which in turn means potentially extra expense if there is an accident on the behalf of any innocent party.

With this in mind - why aren't such things dealt with more stringently here? (as several people have pointed out many such vehicles are illegally driven and I'd expect the same insurance situation as back home?).

[BishopMVP]

I once saw a hotdog mobile in Texas and a guy hanging out the drivers side window with a flash light shining on the road a head of him because his head lights were out. This also was in Texas.Our summer house in Maine is on an island with no cars, only golf carts. Either because of state or city ordinance they are all required to have headlights (and a flag at least 6 feet high), although a fair number of people do just use flashlights (because there are no police and the batteries are fickle at best.) I know nothing compares to Texas, but Maine can get pretty hickish in the rural areas, so I'm guessing that was still illegal.

[JediKooter]

Our summer house in Maine is on an island with no cars, only golf carts. Either because of state or city ordinance they are all required to have headlights (and a flag at least 6 feet high), although a fair number of people do just use flashlights (because there are no police and the batteries are fickle at best.) I know nothing compares to Texas, but Maine can get pretty hickish in the rural areas, so I'm guessing that was still illegal.

Spent plenty of time Aroostook county and have seen some of that Maine hickishness. :)

[Alan T]

I know nothing compares to Texas


It has been 15 years roughly since I lived in Texas, and I only lived there for three years, but I remember at least back then there was a huge debate over trying to pass tougher laws for road safety.

It ended up becoming some huge debate between those in favor of the new laws and a large number of the hispanic population combined with some of the minority politicians there at the time.

Basically the debate centered around the laws to make the cars/roads safer was racist and overly harsh against the low-income households. Mostly due to some of the laws having to do with requiring seat-belts, not letting people (or maybe it was just kids) ride in the back of pickup trucks and other similar laws.

I am assuming at some point since then they've found some common ground to try to improve some of the road safety there, but I found it interesting at the time how heated the debate got over simply trying to make the roads safer. I guess with every issue there is always two sides to the coin though.

[molson]

It has been 15 years roughly since I lived in Texas, and I only lived there for three years, but I remember at least back then there was a huge debate over trying to pass tougher laws for road safety.

It ended up becoming some huge debate between those in favor of the new laws and a large number of the hispanic population combined with some of the minority politicians there at the time.

Basically the debate centered around the laws to make the cars/roads safer was racist and overly harsh against the low-income households. Mostly due to some of the laws having to do with requiring seat-belts, not letting people (or maybe it was just kids) ride in the back of pickup trucks and other similar laws.

I am assuming at some point since then they've found some common ground to try to improve some of the road safety there, but I found it interesting at the time how heated the debate got over simply trying to make the roads safer. I guess with every issue there is always two sides to the coin though.

Ya, requiring safe cars is racist towards Mexicans, I've heard that one.

The debates are generally meaingless unless repeat offenders are actually locked up, and that's not going to happen anywhere (I've seen people put in jail for constantly driving on a license that was suspended for DUI - but even that's pretty rare).

Someone who isn't in the country legally certainly isn't going to care that his car isn't legal. And the majority of criminal fines go unpaid (because all they can do is suspend your license or cancel your registration, which isn't really a concern when you don't have either anyway)

[thesloppy]

To me this makes perfect sense as an illegal car (at least in the UK) automatically invalidates any insurance - which in turn means potentially extra expense if there is an accident on the behalf of any innocent party.

With this in mind - why aren't such things dealt with more stringently here? (as several people have pointed out many such vehicles are illegally driven and I'd expect the same insurance situation as back home?).

Yeah, I dunno. On the one hand, I'd think a mandate that directly or indirectly pushes folks to buy more insurance and new cars, while also promoting public safety, would be a pretty easy sale across the board. On the other hand, we luvz our classic cars, and nearly any edict calling for increased traffic stops, or increased police presence, is going to be met with immediate resistance from lots of different groups.

[Mustang]

Yeah, I dunno. On the one hand, I'd think a mandate that directly or indirectly pushes folks to buy more insurance and new cars, while also promoting public safety, would be a pretty easy sale across the board. On the other hand, we luvz our classic cars, and nearly any edict calling for increased traffic stops, or increased police presence, is going to be met with immediate resistance from lots of different groups.

You think it is an easy push to get people to commit to a new car sale and more insurance? Half the people I know can't afford to buy a $5,000 car from the late 90s let alone lay down $15-$20K on a new car.

And you think classic cars are a big issue? So, someone driving around in a 1967 that is better maintained than probably 99% of the other cars on the road should be scrutinized?

[thesloppy]

You think it is an easy push to get people to commit to a new car sale and more insurance? Half the people I know can't afford to buy a $5,000 car from the late 90s let alone lay down $15-$20K on a new car.

And you think classic cars are a big issue? So, someone driving around in a 1967 that is better maintained than probably 99% of the other cars on the road should be scrutinized?

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I think pushing insurance and new cars would be an easy sell to politicos/voters, and an easy agenda to push (on imaginary people other than one's self, of course), I didn't mean to suggest it would be an easy reality. The classic car thing wasn't meant as any sort of criticism either, simply that it's probably a bigger culture/concern in America than it is in the UK. Wasn't meant to be a contentious post, in any way, just thinking (admittedly pretty poorly) out loud.

[Marc Vaughan]

The classic car thing wasn't meant as any sort of criticism either, simply that it's probably a bigger culture/concern in America than it is in the UK. Wasn't meant to be a contentious post, in any way, just thinking (admittedly pretty poorly) out loud.

In case you weren't aware classic cars in the UK are exempt from certain parts of the MOT or categorised slightly differently (depends entirely on the age of the vehicle - some ie. 1920's cars I believe are exempt full-stop but obviously they're very restricted in performance and rather valuable anyway so generally only taken out for specific rallies etc. by their owners .... bit like when the Spitfires do flyovers .. they're not 'safe' by current air standards at all).

For instance if you had a classic Caddy then you would be exempt from emissions requirements BUT you'd still need to prove the brakes and general road worthyness of the vehicle.

Someone who isn't in the country legally certainly isn't going to care that his car isn't legal. And the majority of criminal fines go unpaid (because all they can do is suspend your license or cancel your registration, which isn't really a concern when you don't have either anyway)

Surely though thats why in the UK you impound the vehicle if its considered unroadworthy or someone is caught repeatedly offending for having no insurance.

That way either the criminal repeatedly has to purchase a vehicle or goes the cheaper/easier route and just gets legal ....

Why encourage someone to commit a crime by not enforcing it? - either enforce the law or just repeal it surely if you're not going to bother enforcing it ...

[DaddyTorgo]

In case you weren't aware classic cars in the UK are exempt from certain parts of the MOT or categorised slightly differently (depends entirely on the age of the vehicle - some ie. 1920's cars I believe are exempt full-stop but obviously they're very restricted in performance and rather valuable anyway so generally only taken out for specific rallies etc. by their owners .... bit like when the Spitfires do flyovers .. they're not 'safe' by current air standards at all).

For instance if you had a classic Caddy then you would be exempt from emissions requirements BUT you'd still need to prove the brakes and general road worthyness of the vehicle.



Surely though thats why in the UK you impound the vehicle if its considered unroadworthy or someone is caught repeatedly offending for having no insurance.

That way either the criminal repeatedly has to purchase a vehicle or goes the cheaper/easier route and just gets legal ....

Why encourage someone to commit a crime by not enforcing it? - either enforce the law or just repeal it surely if you're not going to bother enforcing it ...

Because this is a stupid country, not a sensible country like the UK.

[thesloppy]

Surely though thats why in the UK you impound the vehicle if its considered unroadworthy or someone is caught repeatedly offending for having no insurance.

That way either the criminal repeatedly has to purchase a vehicle or goes the cheaper/easier route and just gets legal ....

Why encourage someone to commit a crime by not enforcing it? - either enforce the law or just repeal it surely if you're not going to bother enforcing it ...

I think (and again, I'm just talking out of my ass here), that a lot of cars are impounded, depending on the locality and/or the crime in question....but the same root problem you've already noticed provides an easy solution for those folks in question:

There's lots of crappy cars available and on the road in America. You can pretty much treat them as disposable, if that's the way you want to roll. It's not too much of an exaggeration to say you could find some kind of crapass car for the same cost of a single month's insurance premium, without too much work, depending on locale and assuming you've already got a record of distinction. The bigger the city the more crappy cars available, and the higher the insurance premium. Part of this is also probably a function of two things already noted, American society/city-planning has evolved in such a manner that lots more of us 'need' cars in the US than in the UK, and plenty of folks can't afford a new car or even necessarily a good used car, and as such we've just come to accept crappy cars on the road as part of the cost of a society that is relatively car-centered (and just for clarity's sake I don't mean that as a criticism, just an observation).

That said, it's also hard to deny that there IS a problem in this country with repeatedly releasing repeat vehicular offenders to do whatever they do so well, and we'd all probably be better served if folks who have repeatedly proven themselves unfit to drive didn't have such an easy time getting back on the road.

[molson]

Surely though thats why in the UK you impound the vehicle if its considered unroadworthy or someone is caught repeatedly offending for having no insurance.

That way either the criminal repeatedly has to purchase a vehicle or goes the cheaper/easier route and just gets legal ....

Why encourage someone to commit a crime by not enforcing it? - either enforce the law or just repeal it surely if you're not going to bother enforcing it ...

Cars are certainly impounded here but that's not really a solution when the car doesn't have a legal registered owner to begin with. When you pull someone over who's driving one of these cars (again, I'm talking more about the crap car than the novelty car), the police might ask them who's car it is, and they'll get an answer like ("ya, it's my brother's friend's, I think"). It's not necessarily stolen, that's just the culture with these cars.

And you can't "just get legal" when you've racked up thousands of dollars of fines and can't drive legally until you pay them off. Many people have no ability to pay them off, but plenty of ability to "find" something through a friend of a friend that has 4 wheels and that can get then to the supermarket. Many, many people have ZERO ability to drive legally because of either unpaid fines, a permanently suspended license, or an illegal immigration status. But these people are still going to drive, because in many parts of the country, they have to.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Many, many people have ZERO ability to drive legally because of either unpaid fines, a permanently suspended license, or an illegal immigration status.

Of the first category & a few of the second, a goodly number apparently also get D-1 football scholarships ;)

[BishopMVP]

And you can't "just get legal" when you've racked up thousands of dollars of fines and can't drive legally until you pay them off. Many people have no ability to pay them off, .... But these people are still going to drive, because in many parts of the country, they have to.I went through this to a minor extent recently. Picked up a speeding ticket in Maine and never received anything in the mail (turned out they were sending it to my Maine address which doesn't have any mail service) until I received a notice from Mass that my license was going to be suspended in this state - apparently it had been in Maine for a year. Between the reinstatement fees and the paperwork I needed sent from Maine it cost $300-$400 and I drove without a license for about a week getting to work and the RMV (in addition to the year I had been driving w/o one in Maine unbeknownest to me.) While there I heard people being quoted payment plans from the $1200 to $4000 range, and I could easily see how someone would choose to drop off the grid instead of comply - this isn't an area with public transportation, so holding a job without a car is pretty hard.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I went through this to a minor extent recently. Picked up a speeding ticket in Maine and never received anything in the mail (turned out they were sending it to my Maine address which doesn't have any mail service) until I received a notice from Mass that my license was going to be suspended in this state - apparently it had been in Maine for a year.

I'm the slightest bit confused here, so I'll ask: do you have separate DL's for ME and MA? And the address associated with the one in ME was taken straight from the license, which carries an address where you don't live/don't get mail?

My confusion is two-fold, just like the question.
a) In Georgia, to get a license then you typically surrender the license issued by your previous state of residence. I think that varies from state to state though, but I'm just guessing. To end up "dual-licensed" here, you'd have to go through the entire driver's exam (just like in high school) to get a GA license w/out giving up your other one.

b) I'm guessing that the ME address is like an old one & they just sent correspondence there based on something on file. Surely you didn't give them an address that you knew wouldn't get mail, because then you'd be lucky they didn't take on some charge like "giving false information" which definitely wouldn't be worth it over a speeding ticket. (FTR, I don't believe you misled them on purpose, 'cause if you did then I'd be knocking you upside the head for making your life more difficult over a simple speeding ticket)

[DaddyTorgo]

Cars are certainly impounded here but that's not really a solution when the car doesn't have a legal registered owner to begin with. When you pull someone over who's driving one of these cars (again, I'm talking more about the crap car than the novelty car), the police might ask them who's car it is, and they'll get an answer like ("ya, it's my brother's friend's, I think"). It's not necessarily stolen, that's just the culture with these cars.

And you can't "just get legal" when you've racked up thousands of dollars of fines and can't drive legally until you pay them off. Many people have no ability to pay them off, but plenty of ability to "find" something through a friend of a friend that has 4 wheels and that can get then to the supermarket. Many, many people have ZERO ability to drive legally because of either unpaid fines, a permanently suspended license, or an illegal immigration status. But these people are still going to drive, because in many parts of the country, they have to.

We could just shoot them (along with repeat vehicular offenders) on sight? That'd solve the problem.

[molson]

We could just shoot them (along with repeat vehicular offenders) on sight? That'd solve the problem.

No doubt that would be effective. I'd settle for misdemeanor convictions and some jail time. That would at least lead to a bunch of deportations (without having to resort to Arizona-like plans), and probably at least a little more carpooling (and even demand for more public transportation).

[Alan T]

I'm the slightest bit confused here, so I'll ask: do you have separate DL's for ME and MA? And the address associated with the one in ME was taken straight from the license, which carries an address where you don't live/don't get mail?

My confusion is two-fold, just like the question.
a) In Georgia, to get a license then you typically surrender the license issued by your previous state of residence. I think that varies from state to state though, but I'm just guessing. To end up "dual-licensed" here, you'd have to go through the entire driver's exam (just like in high school) to get a GA license w/out giving up your other one.

b) I'm guessing that the ME address is like an old one & they just sent correspondence there based on something on file. Surely you didn't give them an address that you knew wouldn't get mail, because then you'd be lucky they didn't take on some charge like "giving false information" which definitely wouldn't be worth it over a speeding ticket. (FTR, I don't believe you misled them on purpose, 'cause if you did then I'd be knocking you upside the head for making your life more difficult over a simple speeding ticket)


I can't speak for Bishop, but I had a speeding ticket issue that ended up with a similar result once. I can explain how it happened for me.

When I was actually moving from Texas to Massachusetts back 12 years ago, I got a speeding ticket driving through Tennessee on I-40 in the foothills. I gave them of course my Texas drivers license with my Texas address that I was moving from.

Eventually they sent the ticket to that address (I assume), but I found out that evidently when you have your mail forwarded, it doesn't necessarily apply to all mail I guess at least things like speeding tickets didn't get forwarded. Or maybe it was sent out so much after the fact that the forwarding had run out. Either way, I never received it at my new address in Massachusetts.

I had forgotten about it actually, and several years later, one day I got a RMV letter from Massachussetts saying they were going to suspend my license for out of state speeding tickets. It took me a week to find out where the ticket even was, then another 10-12 days to get it resolved. I had to call the Mass RMV who then gave me the number to call of the offending state (Texas where my drivers license was from). Once calling them, they then said I had to call the town where the ticket was from. Some small town in Central Tennessee. After finally getting a hold of them, I had to send them the payment, and then they had to send a release to Texas who then had to send a notice to Massachussetts to clear it up.

Would have been much easier if I had gotten that original speeding ticket, or if I had at least just remembered it to pay it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I can't speak for Bishop, but I had a speeding ticket issue that ended up with a similar result once. I can explain how it happened for me.

Ah, I didn't think about the ticket-crossing-paths-just-as-your-forwarding- address-expires potential.

Sad to say, I can actually see where that would be the kind of thing that would happen to me too.

[molson]

Ya, just innocently forgetting a ticket can be a huge hassle - imagine how it is for people sharing a car with 10 cousins and their friends. Everybody's getting tickets, comitting crimes in the car, etc. There's no way that car can ever be legal to drive (and it's probably not getting regular oil changes and maintence).

[BishopMVP]

I'm the slightest bit confused here, so I'll ask: do you have separate DL's for ME and MA? And the address associated with the one in ME was taken straight from the license, which carries an address where you don't live/don't get mail?

My confusion is two-fold, just like the question.
a) In Georgia, to get a license then you typically surrender the license issued by your previous state of residence. I think that varies from state to state though, but I'm just guessing. To end up "dual-licensed" here, you'd have to go through the entire driver's exam (just like in high school) to get a GA license w/out giving up your other one.

b) I'm guessing that the ME address is like an old one & they just sent correspondence there based on something on file. Surely you didn't give them an address that you knew wouldn't get mail, because then you'd be lucky they didn't take on some charge like "giving false information" which definitely wouldn't be worth it over a speeding ticket. (FTR, I don't believe you misled them on purpose, 'cause if you did then I'd be knocking you upside the head for making your life more difficult over a simple speeding ticket)Single DL (MA), car(s) registered at the same MA address, never listed the Maine address as a residence (and honestly I didn't even know my address there for 5+ years - there are 3 roads and we just call them low/middle/high), so you can see where I was confused as well. Turns out they must have taken that address from when we registered the golf cart with the Maine DMV for island-use.

Speeding tickets (and I'd guess the court system in general, but I don't have much experience with the criminal side of things) are something that could definitely be streamlined. I automatically appeal mine due to the insurance hike involved, and in my small sample size so far the officer (or in the Maine case me) hasn't shown up to any hearing, but the lag time it takes to get resolved varies so much from jurisdiction to jurisdiction - I've received mail within 2 weeks from Western Mass, but I picked one up over a year ago here in Middlesex County and still haven't heard anything more. The same issue seems to apply even moreso with parking tickets - how can you threaten to revoke a registration without ever having any proof the accusation reached the person in question?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Turns out they must have taken that address from when we registered the golf cart with the Maine DMV for island-use.


Okay, I'm generally a stickler that errs on the side of law enforcement, but I don't know how anyone could reasonably have anticipated that one. Sheesh.

how can you threaten to revoke a registration without ever having any proof the accusation reached the person in question?

That's pretty simple: the burden is on you to prove you didn't get it, not on them to prove that you did. Same principle applies to at least some stuff like property tax bills, etc. All they have to do is make a reasonable effort, not physically get you "served" with it.

[molson]

The same issue seems to apply even moreso with parking tickets - how can you threaten to revoke a registration without ever having any proof the accusation reached the person in question?

That's why people are legally required to notify the relevant government authorities within 30 days of any move.

I've (sadly) actually done trials on this. The state has to prove that it mailed the ticket or notification to the address they have on file for you. A clerk from the DMV comes in and testifies that they did, and the state offers some kind of paperwork as evidence. That's it. It's 100% the driver's responsibility that the state has a workable address to utilize.

That's what happens of registration/insurance issues, but when an officer cites you, obviously you have proof of the speeding complaint right there. I didn't quite understand that part of the stories here either. You have the ticket, you either pay it, or contest it (and if you contest it, it's your responsibility to keep up with court dates). Are people getting pulled over and the officer is just telling them they'll mail them something later, and not giving them an actual ticket?

[BishopMVP]

That's why people are legally required to notify the relevant government authorities within 30 days of any move.

That's what happens of registration/insurance issues, but when an officer cites you, obviously you have proof of the speeding complaint right there. I didn't quite understand that part of the stories here either. You have the ticket, you either pay it, or contest it (and if you contest it, it's your responsibility to keep up with court dates). Are people getting pulled over and the officer is just telling them they'll mail them something later, and not giving them an actual ticket?On parking tickets I guess they do mail something to you. I was thinking of the initial delivery system (placing it on your windshield) - I can't be the only one who sees the large gap there between the ticket leaving the state's control and reaching the owner in question. (I can appreciate the argument that you are responsible for anyone driving your car, but that still leaves the possibility of it blowing away/being taken off your car - don't ask me why anyone would do the latter, but I've seen drunk kids doing it.)

Whenever I've been pulled over I've been handed a ticket and an envelope. I mark off "appeal", sign it and send it in. In the Maine case I assume it had my license info on it, but I don't keep copies. I have no idea where along the line the confusion came in (I was pulled over in or near Aroostook County on my way to ski, so I don't know if they even have computers up there) - all I know is I was on the phone with the DMV trying to figure out what was going on well over a year later and I had someone telling me they were sending mail to my Maine address, which I corrected back to Mass. I never had any contact with the court system up there - that was kind of my point with the varying times it takes to receive a court date (2 weeks to a year+ and still going) - I assumed it was taking longer than usual for whatever reason, and I'm not the type of person to call the court weekly and see if I'm on the docket.

Either way, we're getting away from what this thread is about - are seat belt laws racist against spanish-speaking immigrants?

[DanGarion]

LOL :D

But no - the reason few junkers are on UK roads is simply that every vehicle has to pass an MOT yearly, if they fail it they're not legal to be on the road ... if the police stop you you're toast (and having a tatty looking car or excessively loud motorbike IS reason for them to stop and check ... as a biker I used to get pulled a lot because of that), they don't take particularly kindly to such things and at BEST (if they're feeling particularly lenient and you've a sensible excuse - ie. wife giving birth in the car beside you as you discuss the matter, at worst they'll impound the car and leave you be) they'll give you a lift home and force you to abandon the car beside the road.

To me this makes perfect sense as an illegal car (at least in the UK) automatically invalidates any insurance - which in turn means potentially extra expense if there is an accident on the behalf of any innocent party.

With this in mind - why aren't such things dealt with more stringently here? (as several people have pointed out many such vehicles are illegally driven and I'd expect the same insurance situation as back home?).

Sounds to me like a way the government forces the citizens to keep the auto industry afloat...

[lordscarlet]

Perhaps if you didn't get so many speeding tickets this would all be a moot point.