Traveling with out insurance?

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

[b]True, but The use of transport & transportation throughout 49 USC/CFR & 23 USC/CFR is clearly for commercial purposes.

Oh, I get it ... now you want to take and mix and match definitions from different governments.

In that case, Italy defines ...

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by chapka

First, motor vehicle regulation is governed by state law, so making this kind of broad statement about what "states" require is not appropriate. Check your individual state's law to see what is and is not a motor vehicle. Yes, the trend is towards uniformity and the adoption of model codes, but it's still a bad idea to assume that the law of Wyoming is the same as the law of New Hampshire. This applies to the question in the OP, also; your insurance requirements are going to depend on your state's law, and unless you say what state you live in, you won't get a definite answer.

Second, I've never seen any state with a definition of "motor vehicle" that would reasonably exclude cars. The New York definition of "motor vehicle" is:

"Every vehicle operated or driven upon a public highway which is propelled by any power other than muscular power" (subject to certain stated objections, such as motorized wheelchairs).

The idea that "drive" or "operate" have some sort of secret definition that only covers cars used "in commerce" is pretty random. Honestly, if you and your friend are going on a trip, and your friend says, "Mind if I drive," are you going to say, "No, because then we'd be entering into a commercial relationship and I'd be obliged to pay you for your commercial activity?" Of course not, because that's not what "drive" means. "To drive" means, and as far as I know always has meant, simply "to make something go or move," since long before there were cars.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
BZZT! No cigar for Chapka. Actually, I'd avoid the word 'car' as well because it's short for carriage/carrier. Automobile and vehicle are NOT synonymous. The vehicle is the 'legal construction' or, rather, the 'conveyable/commercial paper'. It is that which has been conveyed and perhaps presumably remaining in public commerce. Vehicle and conveyance are related words. Automobile is the physical tangible machine. Vehicle is a 'description of' the likes of an automobile or a motorcycle. 'Conveying' relates to sale, exchange or assignment of title and likely when mentioned by a state its referring to such acts done in public cognizance and with the state as trustee.

"con·vey (kən-vā') pronunciation
tr.v., -veyed, -vey·ing, -veys.

1. To take or carry from one place to another; transport.
2. To serve as a medium of transmission for; transmit: wires that convey electricity.
3. To communicate or make known; impart: “a look intended to convey sympathetic comprehension” (Saki).
4. Law. To transfer ownership of or title to.
5. Archaic. To steal.*

[Middle English conveien, from Old French conveier, from Medieval Latin conviāre, to escort : Latin com-, com- + via, way.]"


Chapka check your state's codes concerning the taxes on exchanges vs sales involving 'motor vehicles'. Ask your county/city if there is a license for having an office that gives away canned food? Then ask them if there is a license required for having a store that sells canned food for profit? You should surely find yourself educated.

Chapka...have you seen evidence suggesting the word 'vehicle' *IN LEGAL USAGE* to be wholly synonymous with the word 'automobile'?

To reiterate, the word 'vehicle' is in reference to 'commercial paper' purported to be inextricably associated with the likes of an automobile or a motorcycle. 'State registration' of a 'motor vehicle' is may likely give rise to a phenomenon called 'divided title'.

"Every vehicle operated or driven upon a public highway which is propelled by any power other than muscular power" (subject to certain stated objections, such as motorized wheelchairs).

Notice that the comment about "motorized wheelchairs" is boxed. It isnt in the code.

The idea that "drive" or "operate" have some sort of secret definition that only covers cars used "in commerce" is pretty random.

Chapka, when one is talking to 'policy enforcements agents' or to 'judges', one would do well to be mindful that the words utilized on the streets and among friends in informal situations are not necessarily construed to have the same meaning when interpreted by said 'policy enforcement agents' or 'judges'.

The word 'drive' as it might be interpreted among high school chums is not necessarily going to find the same interpretation among by a municipal court judge.

If you are simply sincerely ignorant of that which you speak I suggest that you study. There is case law indicates that the 'right to drive' is a distinct and different matter from the 'right to travel'.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by B Rookard

Oh, I get it ... now you want to take and mix and match definitions from different governments.

In that case, Italy defines ...

Does michigan adopt Motor Vehicle Acts & uniform rules/procedures & also receive monetary grants for such from Italy (contracting)?

Thanks for recognizing that Michigan is a separate Nation from DC (U.S)

[chapka]

Originally Posted by fulltitle

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
BZZT! No cigar for Chapka. Actually, I'd avoid the word 'car' as well because it's short for carriage/carrier. Automobile and vehicle are NOT synonymous. The vehicle is the 'legal construction' or, rather, the 'conveyable/commercial paper'.

Whoa! Where did that come from?

Yes, "motor vehicle" is the term used in the statute. In that sense you can say that it's a legal definition or a legal construct encompassing a lot of things. But how on earth do you get from there to saying that the "motor vehicle" is "convyeable/commercial paper"? That's a completely separate concept that is, frankly totally irrelevant to this discussion.

It is that which has been conveyed and perhaps presumably remaining in public commerce.

Where does the statute say that?

Vehicle and conveyance are related words. Automobile is the physical tangible machine. Vehicle is a 'description of' the likes of an automobile or a motorcycle

No, it isn't. Where is that in the statue? Hint: the fact that a statute talks about "any description of vehicle" doesn't mean that the definition only includes the description and not the vehicle, any more than "any kind of vehicle" only includes vehicles that are nice and pleasant.

'Conveying' relates to sale, exchange or assignment of title and likely when mentioned by a state its referring to such acts done in public cognizance and with the state as trustee.

Where does the statute mention "conveying"?

Chapka check your state's codes concerning the taxes on exchanges vs sales involving 'motor vehicles'. Ask your county/city if there is a license for having an office that gives away canned food? Then ask them if there is a license required for having a store that sells canned food for profit? You should surely find yourself educated.

I doubt it. Why not just tell me what you mean?

Chapka...have you seen evidence suggesting the word 'vehicle' *IN LEGAL USAGE* to be wholly synonymous with the word 'automobile'?

Of course not. Nor is that what I said. The term "motor vehicle" as defined by New York includes automobiles but is not limited to them. It also includes motorcycles, segways, motorized bicycles, and a lot of other things.

To reiterate, the word 'vehicle' is in reference to 'commercial paper' purported to be inextricably associated with the likes of an automobile or a motorcycle.

Where is that in the statute? I see absolutely no basis for this claim.

Notice that the comment about "motorized wheelchairs" is boxed. It isnt in the code.

Uh...I put the parenthetical in to summarize the code. Because I actually looked at the code before I posted. The statute does absolutely except motorized wheelchairs:

For reference, here's the entire provision:

Motor vehicles. Every vehicle operated or driven upon a public
highway which is propelled by any power other than muscular power,
except (a) electrically-driven mobility assistance devices operated or
driven by a person with a disability, (b) vehicles which run only upon
rails or tracks, (c) snowmobiles as defined in article forty-seven of
this chapter, and (d) all terrain vehicles as defined in article
forty-eight-B of this chapter. For the purposes of title four, the term
motor vehicle shall exclude fire and police vehicles other than
ambulances. For the purposes of titles four and five the term motor
vehicles shall exclude farm type tractors and all terrain type vehicles
used exclusively for agricultural purposes, or for snow plowing, other
than for hire, farm equipment, including self-propelled machines used
exclusively in growing, harvesting or handling farm produce, and
self-propelled caterpillar or crawler-type equipment while being
operated on the contract site.

There's nothing there about "descriptions," nothing about commercial paper, nothing about any of the things you're talking about. To me, this provision is selfevidently about cars, motorcycles, and other...motor vehicles.

Chapka, when one is talking to 'policy enforcements agents' or to 'judges', one would do well to be mindful that the words utilized on the streets and among friends in informal situations are not necessarily construed to have the same meaning when interpreted by said 'policy enforcement agents' or 'judges'.

The word 'drive' as it might be interpreted among high school chums is not necessarily going to find the same interpretation among by a municipal court judge.

No; if the term in question is a legal term of art or is defined differently by the statute, that will be taken into account. But neither of these is the case here. "Rails or tracks" isn't defined in the statute either; does that mean it can mean whatever you want it to? Would you argue to a judge that the drafters of the law intended "rails or tracks" to mean "wheels"? Of course not, because there's no evidence that anything other than the common english meaning was intended. If the drafters had intended a different meaning, they would have said so by specifically defining their terms.

[2501]

Ok, so that section posted by Chapka, which is claimed to be the new york code states:
"Motor vehicles. Every vehicle operated or driven upon a public
highway which is propelled by any power other than muscular power,
except (a) electrically-driven mobility assistance devices operated or
driven by a person with a disability, (b) vehicles which run only upon
rails or tracks, (c) snowmobiles as defined in article forty-seven of
this chapter, and (d) all terrain vehicles as defined in article
forty-eight-B of this chapter. For the purposes of title four, the term
motor vehicle shall exclude fire and police vehicles other than
ambulances. For the purposes of titles four and five the term motor
vehicles shall exclude farm type tractors and all terrain type vehicles
used exclusively for agricultural purposes, or for snow plowing, other
than for hire, farm equipment, including self-propelled machines used
exclusively in growing, harvesting or handling farm produce, and
self-propelled caterpillar or crawler-type equipment while being
operated on the contract site."

Without reading title four and five it seems that the phrase "other than for hire" stands out. In other words it's not a motor vehicle if it's exclusivley used for other than for hire purposes.

weishaupt, you havent noticed that he gonna disagree with anything you post? its about arguing, dont do it.

[Libertarian]

Without reading title four and five it seems that the phrase "other than for hire" stands out. In other words it's not a motor vehicle if it's exclusivley used for other than for hire purposes.

The way I read that, "other than for hire" is only talking about snowplows.

[dadmoonbunny]

in regards to the seemingly endless discussion (which I AM finding beneficial), i actually have a couple of questions:


Quote:
Notice that the comment about "motorized wheelchairs" is boxed. It isnt in the code.


Uh...I put the parenthetical in to summarize the code. Because I actually looked at the code before I posted. The statute does absolutely except motorized wheelchairs:

For reference, here's the entire provision:

Motor vehicles. Every vehicle operated or driven upon a public
highway which is propelled by any power other than muscular power,
except (a) electrically-driven mobility assistance devices operated or
driven by a person with a disability, (b) vehicles which run only upon
rails or tracks, (c) snowmobiles as defined in article forty-seven of
this chapter, and (d) all terrain vehicles as defined in article
forty-eight-B of this chapter. For the purposes of title four, the term
motor vehicle shall exclude fire and police vehicles other than
ambulances. For the purposes of titles four and five the term motor
vehicles shall exclude farm type tractors and all terrain type vehicles
used exclusively for agricultural purposes, or for snow plowing, other
than for hire, farm equipment, including self-propelled machines used
exclusively in growing, harvesting or handling farm produce, and
self-propelled caterpillar or crawler-type equipment while being
operated on the contract site.

There's nothing there about "descriptions," nothing about commercial paper, nothing about any of the things you're talking about. To me, this provision is selfevidently about cars, motorcycles, and other...motor vehicles.


First, I see that you have posted the statute on "motor vehicles" when,as I understand it, vehicle being a legal term meaning a conveyance is the term needing interpretation. Motor Vehicle is another term, seemingly seperate.

Second, I understand through prior reading that the Supreme Court has upheld the right to travel is NOT something we need a license to do.

Thirdly, if I have the MSO to a automobile, or motorcycle or even my tractor, then it means that the state does not own it, it has never been registerd with the state for taxation purposes and cannot and is not taxable. A reading of the industry standard(?) MSO shows this by logic and inference both.

I have, in my travels seen with my own eyes, a number of automobiles , motorcycles and other machinery operated upon public roads without tags, with "NOT FOR HIRE" perinted on the rear. Never seen one hassled by BB. How is this possible?

[iamfreeru2]

There are many people that travel in their automobiles in California and Washington state that I know of that do not have licenses or "vehicle" registrations and are no longer pulled over or ticketed. The powers that be got tire of losing. Haha!!

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

There are many people that travel in their automobiles in California and Washington state that I know of that do not have licenses or "vehicle" registrations and are no longer pulled over or ticketed. The powers that be got tire of losing. Haha!!

Danceing in the streets....ok, I can't sing. Yet that's what the above news makes me want to do. It makes me want SHOUT: Just what the doctor ordered.

Thanks for your wonderful post iamfreeru2.