Right. For out of state registered vehicles we can’t enforce our state laws on that vehicle. Obviously things having to do with unsafe operation like careless driving aren’t included but statutes pertaining to registration, documents, insurance and equipment can’t be enforced.
Why not for insurance? Why can’t New Jersey provide that every vehicle driven in a public street in NJ must have $xxx,xxx of insurance coverage?
And why not equipment standards?
As an out-of-state driver passing through am I beholden to that state’s requirments on this?
For instance, some states mandate a front license plate and others do not. Do I need to mount a front plate in states I pass through?
Isn’t this an issue with transporting guns too? If you legally own your gun in your state you can travel without needing to read local laws of every place you pass through?
Let’s make a ridiculous hypothetical for fun and illustration:
Illinois decides to mandate than all drivers have a copy of their high school transcripts in the car. You are from Indiana and driving to Wisconsin (passing through Illinois). Do you need to dig up a copy of your high school transcripts before heading through Illinois?
Now imagine all 50 states had some bizzaro requirements unique to each state because they decide it is a great revenue generator to bust unwary out-of-state drivers with. It would quickly become a nightmare.
If there’s a monetary penalty for not having it on you, it looks to me like the new statute aims to create more revenue from the same # of interactions; they can’t get away w/ pulling you over on suspicion of not having this piece of paper in your car. If they can hit drivers w/ more fines w/o having to pull more of them over in order to make that money, they’re happy.
Likewise, it’s a good way to keep poor people poor and generating revenue for the city/county/state in the way of fines, fees, bail, cheap prison labor, juicy jail service contracts for friends of powerful people and a slush fund or two for the sheriff to use as he wants instead of paying for inmate food.
Did they recently get rid of a civil forfeiture law? That may be income they have to make up now that they’ve fattened on its teat.
That’s not really true anymore though is it? I mean, I suppose to an extent it is, but driving records, registrations, etc ARE in fact able to be accessed across state lines and up to the federal level.
I just had my birthday and my drivers license expired and I had to get a new one which was the new, Real-ID license. Took two weeks to get it (well, an hour at the DMV and waiting two weeks as my application was screened or something).
Last time I got my license the state just sent a card asking if any info was changed, I said no and they just mailed me a new one.
Before that I went to the DMV, handed them some cash, they took a pic and I walked out with my new license.
I liked the old ways better.
I was talking in very broad terms. Similar to what is enforceable on private property, I would have to go statute by statute and say whether they are enforceable for out of state vehicles.
The bottom line is out of state vehicles have touring privileges in other states. A vehicle owner is obligated to follow the laws of their state. No all 50. It would not make sense that they would have to stop at the Delaware and change things. And we don’t have jurisdiction to enforce the laws of other states.
For instance our window tint law is very strict. You don’t have to replace your windows when you visit. We can’t enforce if your Ohio car hasn’t been inspected by Ohio law but you can be cited if you are found to be driving an unsafe vehicle. We can’t enforce if you are not carrying your Maine driver’s license but if you are found to be suspended you can be cited because you have to drive with a valid license from somewhere.
As for the insurance, the statute starts with “Any owner or registrant of a motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this State who operates or causes to be operated a motor vehicle upon any public road or highway in this State without motor vehicle liability insurance coverage required by this act…” It only covers cars from the state. It’s a jurisdictional issue. There is no federal car insurance standard.
In Europe, before the EU harmonised everything, insurance rules would vary between countries, but all the countries required all drivers, wherever they came from, to have it. My UK insurance covered me, my own car and any third party’s costs while I was in the UK, but if I crossed the Channel, I was only covered for third-party costs unless I paid extra. Those days are gone and whether drivers come from Latvia, Lithuania or Germany, they will be properly insured or liable to prosecution and possible confiscation of their cars.
In my state (I am surprised to find out this is not true in all states), in addition to presenting registration to a LEO, you also have to exchange it with another driver if you have an accident.
In the U.S. personal auto insurance will cover a driver who has permission to drive your car.
Once I was rear-ended by a woman who presented registration in someone else’s name. She said it was her sister’s car but it was a man’s name. Later her insurance company called me to tell me they were not covering it because she did not have permission to drive the car. They wouldn’t tell me anything else. My company covered me under uninsured motorist coverage.
I remember years ago some “it’s terrible what happened to this tourist” story in the local newspaper. A tourist from here in Canada was lying on the beach in Florida when he was run over by someone driving a vehicle from some Appalachian state with an insurance requirement of $25,000 minimum. Needless to say, even a few decades ago, that didn’t come close to covering the medical bills.
Generally AFAIK the rule is that people in the same household are assumed to have permission to drive the car, limited only by the insurance regulations. (I.e. persons under 25 - pay extra for the insurance). I was told the rule was that the insurance covered all drivers borrowing my car, subject to the limitation that I must verify they possess a valid driver’s license.
I presume the rules about having registration etc. were formulated back in the days before databases. I think it’s still a requirement in some provinces, but I have never heard of anyone being ticketed for it - some require you to show up with the license at a police station within 24 hours or 7 days or something, same as requiring proof of repair of faulty taillight or such. Nowadays the police can pull up the same information as the driver’s license, including your license photo, on their in-car terminal. The warning I read was that people tend to keep their registration in the glovebox, so a typical trick was for thieves to break into the car, take the garage door opener, and find the address on the registration in order to go find the house to rob - since often the door between garage and house would not be locked.
AFAIK, you MUST present license, insurance and registration identification to the other party if there has been an accident - but this is usually limited to the name and address and license number of the driver; insurance company policy: and I assume, the registration is to verify the name of the owner of the car, for the insurance company to process.
It’s possible the state is just being a dick about this; another possibility is that the state has determined the information to be private - an insurance company who wants to make a claim cannot just call up the state database with a license number any more, and get the personal details of the owner… hence the need to be carrying the registration so as to present this information to the other driver. And, make a few bucks for the police while they are at it.
In the US, insurance is primarily for the driver, with one or more vehicles assigned.
In Spain, insurance is for the vehicle, with one or more drivers assigned; anybody who drives the vehicle with permission from one of the listed drivers is covered. Anybody driving it without permission is uninsured, as well as guilty of apropiación indebida (it’s not considered a theft unless they try to chop it or sell it; while they don’t, it’s merely “inappropriate use”). Borrowing a car in an emergency where the owner or one of his allowed drivers can’t grant permission (you’re taking his car to take him to the hospital) is considered covered.
The division about what is the primary object of insurance is one of those things which causes a lot of confusion, as we all tend to use that our country’s way is the way “everybody” does it aaaaaand - nope.
That’s always the case when talking about the US, but the default mental assumption is that it’s “driver’s” insurance, perhaps because that’s what you guys call it.
This is not true in CT and wasn’t true in OH or IL when I lived there. You had (what everyone calls it) car insurance not driver insurance. If you get a second car you need to add that to your policy. I don’t know of any state in the US that has driver’s insurance. If you have car insurance in your name it does generally serve as back-up driver’s insurance in a rental car for example.
I don’t remember hearing it called that.
In Spain you can’t even get that, either as a stand-alone policy or as part of one of the big packages. I’ve got the “everything under the sun and a few things above it” policy and that’s not included; rentals always include compulsory insurance and if you want to be covered for more you pay more, but you pay for a specific policy which covers the specific rental vehicle. The insurance is always for the vehicle+driver(s) combination.
It may be possible in the US to have insurance that covers the driver and not people who borrow the vehicle, but I’ve never heard of it and it’s certainly not typical. Nor is it typically called “drivers insurance” - it’s “ car insurance”
Although it is possible to get a policy that excludes a particular person in the policyholders household, but just that person.
As always, the devil is in the details. The first detail is the statute regarding the unlawful activity.
For example, prior to 1980, it was impermissible to turn right after stopping while a light was red (last state to change). The way the statute was written, it would not matter what state you were from; turning right after stopping while the light was red was a violation of the law. You could be cited, even if the state you were from allowed that turn.
By comparison, as shown above by Loach, the statute in his state regarding mandatory insurance coverage only applies to someone who is the owner or registrant of a car registered or principally garaged in the state driving on the public roads of the state. So, if I borrow my friend’s car, and it turns out that the car is uninsured, I cannot be charged with violation of the statute. If I am from out of state, but I am driving a car that I own and for whatever reason I “principally garage” in the state, I can be charged. That’s not that far-fetched; happens a lot with people who have vacation homes in other states, and leave cars there for use while visiting.
I think the general rule you can follow (and Loach can correct me if I’m wrong) is that, if the law in question has to do with your car itself, then the state will write it to apply only to cars from the state. However, if the law has to do with what you as a driver are doing while in the state, then you will have to comply with the law since it will be written that way. Thus, when I drive each year from South Carolina (a one-plate state) to California (a two-plate state) for my vacation, I don’t have to get a second plate. But when last summer South Carolina notified me that my license to drive in that state was about to be suspended (because of the fact Arizona had, in fact, suspended my driving privileges in THAT state over an unpaid moving violation), I made DAMN good and sure to get that resolved before I left South Carolina, so that I didn’t become suddenly unlicensed while on my happy vacation in the Golden State.
Meanwhile, in Aus, the law has changed so that you /don’t/ have to have registration details with you. (At least in NSW and VIC). We always used to have a registration sticker on the car. The states have decided that it is a needless expense and have removed the requirement. Police all can do immediate checks on the licence plate.
(FWIW, the effect of this is that people who are too disorganised to to keep their registration paid – ie poor, old, sick or marginal people – don’t have the constant reminder of their registration expiry date, and are hit by fines in greater numbers than ever before.)
Depends on what your policy says. Many credit cards offer back up insurance if you pay for the rental with the card.