No insurance required!!!

[djdalfaro]

Hi,
So, I've been doing some reading and I found something that I'm a little curious about. Texas Transportation Code 601.051 states,

"A person may not operate a motor vehicle in this state unless financial responsibility is established for that vehicle..."

And then 601.052 states,

"Section 601.051 does not apply to:
(1) the operation of a motor vehicle that:
(A) is a former military vehicle or is at least 25 years old;..."

Does that mean if my Skoolie is 25 yrs old I don't need insurance? If that's the case, seeing as how mine is a 1994, and I probably won't be done with the conversion for a year, I may not need insurance by the time it's finished.

Any other states have provisions like this?
https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/transpo...t-601-051.html
https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/transpo...t-601-052.html

[PNW_Steve]

(1) the operation of a motor vehicle that:

(A) is a former military vehicle or is at least 25 years old;

(B) is used only for exhibitions, club activities, parades, and other functions of public interest and not for regular transportation; and

(C) for which the owner files with the department an affidavit, signed by the owner, stating that the vehicle is a collector's item and used only as described by Paragraph (B);

The way I read it, you are exempt if you meet A, B and C.

It is not entirely clear.

[o1marc]

You'll need to check deeper. I can guarantee you can't drive on the roads of America without insurance or prove "Financial Responsibility" by having a bond or account set up with a minimum amount of dough in it.

I think the catch in your links is all 3- A,B,and C have to be met.

[djdalfaro]

Originally Posted by PNW_Steve

(1) the operation of a motor vehicle that:

(A) is a former military vehicle or is at least 25 years old;

(B) is used only for exhibitions, club activities, parades, and other functions of public interest and not for regular transportation; and

(C) for which the owner files with the department an affidavit, signed by the owner, stating that the vehicle is a collector's item and used only as described by Paragraph (B);

The way I read it, you are exempt if you meet A, B and C.

It is not entirely clear.

Ahh, you are correct. I missed that pesky "; and"

All that being said, we should start a club! Or exhibit our skoolies to the bears in the forest. In all seriousness though, as my skoolie will not be intended for "regular transportation", I wonder if I can get away with it?

[djdalfaro]

Club activities to include;

1. Camping in as many National and State Parks as possible.
2. Educating the public on the merits of school bus conversions.

Hmmm... Seriously I wonder if this would work. Obviously not for full-timers, but for those of us who won't be "regularly transporting," I think it might.

Now to find out if there are any stipulations on starting a club here in Texas.

[o1marc]

You do realize you're wasting your time even researching this, get insurance and be done with it.

[djdalfaro]

Originally Posted by o1marc

You do realize you're wasting your time even researching this, get insurance and be done with it.

Wow, that's pretty dismissive? There are lots of car clubs out there that do a whole lot of "club activities." Those activities include meetups, car shows, rallys, etc...

There might be enough pre-1994 skoolie owners in TX to warrant something like this. As I stated, it obviously wouldn't apply to full-timers. Many owners I'm sure only use them occasionally. Would a yearly skoolie meet up meet the requirements that the state has set forth? IDK, It was just a thought.

And yes, I will be getting insurance. Because, obviously the state knows what's best for me and everything the state tells me to do is for my own good, and it doesn't matter if they enforce their rules at the point of a gun, "They're from the government, and they're here to help me."

[Drew Bru]

Originally Posted by djdalfaro

And yes, I will be getting insurance. Because, obviously the state knows what's best for me and everything the state tells me to do is for my own good, and it doesn't matter if they enforce their rules at the point of a gun, "They're from the government, and they're here to help me."

I think (in terms of practicality) the bigger issue is getting in an accident and losing your house or life savings due to an injury. Not worth the risk, IMO.

[djdalfaro]

Originally Posted by Drew Bru

I think (in terms of practicality) the bigger issue is getting in an accident and losing your house or life savings due to an injury. Not worth the risk, IMO.

I know, It is more just an thought exercise in "how can I legally get away with doing something the state doesn't want me to do."

Yes, I will be getting insurance, because I believe in personal responsibility. Obviously I don't want to drain my 401k to pay for someone else's medical bills.

[o1marc]

Originally Posted by djdalfaro

Wow, that's pretty dismissive? There are lots of car clubs out there that do a whole lot of "club activities." Those activities include meetups, car shows, rallys, etc...

There might be enough pre-1994 skoolie owners in TX to warrant something like this. As I stated, it obviously wouldn't apply to full-timers. Many owners I'm sure only use them occasionally. Would a yearly skoolie meet up meet the requirements that the state has set forth? IDK, It was just a thought.

And yes, I will be getting insurance. Because, obviously the state knows what's best for me and everything the state tells me to do is for my own good, and it doesn't matter if they enforce their rules at the point of a gun, "They're from the government, and they're here to help me."

If you towed it to the parade or event. In an organized parade you might get away with driving it during the parade. I doubt you would be able to use it anywhere else. Once you're out of the parade or event and hit the road, you become a regular transport. How many Skoolies do you think are out there that are built and only used to show once a year?

[sutphinins]

Originally Posted by djdalfaro

Wow, that's pretty dismissive? There are lots of car clubs out there that do a whole lot of "club activities." Those activities include meetups, car shows, rallys, etc...

There might be enough pre-1994 skoolie owners in TX to warrant something like this. As I stated, it obviously wouldn't apply to full-timers. Many owners I'm sure only use them occasionally. Would a yearly skoolie meet up meet the requirements that the state has set forth? IDK, It was just a thought.

And yes, I will be getting insurance. Because, obviously the state knows what's best for me and everything the state tells me to do is for my own good, and it doesn't matter if they enforce their rules at the point of a gun, "They're from the government, and they're here to help me."

Collector cars and classics get insured all the time. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it. -insert Jeff Goldblum Jurassic Park meme here-.


It's an interesting take on the statute though. I think the ; and makes it all three and not a or b or c.

[PNW_Steve]

IMHO:

Even if you could get away with not having to meet the financial responsibility requirements, doing so would be foolish.

Nobody plans on having an accident but it happens.

The last accident I was in involved no injuries so there were no medical costs. Just damage to my truck and a new BMW. His insurance paid $26k for my truck. I suspect that the BMW was more.

If you decide to go without insurance I would recommend you keep a spare $100k or so on hand for a rainy day.

[djdalfaro]

Originally Posted by sutphinins

Collector cars and classics get insured all the time. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it. -insert Jeff Goldblum Jurassic Park meme here-.


It's an interesting take on the statute though. I think the ; and makes it all three and not a or b or c.

Yeah, I agree on the "; and" making it a "must meet all three" situation.

Do you write in TX?

[Deezl Smoke]

Originally Posted by djdalfaro

I know, It is more just an thought exercise in "how can I legally get away with doing something the state doesn't want me to do."

Yes, I will be getting insurance, because I believe in personal responsibility. Obviously I don't want to drain my 401k to pay for someone else's medical bills.

Ya, it's kinda fun sometimes to see the opposing "technicality". For sure the courts use wording of laws to "get you", but unfortunately, we cant use them to get out of things.

[dan-fox]

In MD you are also restricted to to/from events in which a minimum of X similar interest vehicles, parades, etc., and to 2500 miles/yr. That being said, I've never heard of a cop saying anything to an owner of a classic-tagged car other than "cool car!"

[snonut]

Originally Posted by o1marc

You do realize you're wasting your time even researching this, get insurance and be done with it.

In Washington, motorcycles are not required to be insured but if we go out of state we need to have insurance. There is even a sign saying so at the Oregon border.

[1olfart]

I have an '81 pickup and only am only required (by law) to carry liability insurance. It only has to have an annual "safety" inspection. As far as cars and trucks, in Texas, I think, that if I registered it as an antique, and get antique plates, it requires a less stringent annual inspection, as well. BUT if I register it as a classic, THEN I can only drive it to shows and club events.
I also know that many police officers don't have a clue, as to these laws, so I carry a copy of them in my glove box.
Texas DPS should be able to give you the straight 'skinny" on all of this.

WHERE'S TANGO????? He should know!

[PNW_Steve]

Originally Posted by snonut

In Washington, motorcycles are not required to be insured but if we go out of state we need to have insurance. There is even a sign saying so at the Oregon border.

That just didn't sound right to me so I asked my insurance guru who has been in the insurance business for 30 years (my wife).

She confirmed that WA does not require financial responsibility for motorcycles.

Whoodathunkit?

[o1marc]

Originally Posted by PNW_Steve

That just didn't sound right to me so I asked my insurance guru who has been in the insurance business for 30 years (my wife).

She confirmed that WA does not require financial responsibility for motorcycles.

Whoodathunkit?

That sucks, you hit me and kill a passenger in my car and all I can get is your personal crap when I sue you? That's just crazy.

[PNW_Steve]

Originally Posted by o1marc

That sucks, you hit me and kill a passenger in my car and all I can get is your personal crap when I sue you? That's just crazy.

I agree!

As retentive as they are about insurance/financial responsibility here this just blows my mind.