Legal to drive a car without front tag out of registered state? In the U.S. some states do not require cars to display license plates on the front of a vehicle, but a majority require plates on both the front and rear, as shown in the map below. My car is registered in Pennsylvania, so I only have a plate on the rear. AFAIK, I can drive it into any state that requires front plates without violating a law, because I comply with the registration state's law. But what if my car is registered in a state that requires a front plate (e.g., California) and I drive it in any other state without displaying a front license plate. Is there any state in which I could be cited for a legal infraction?
At least some two-plate states suggest that if you're registered in a two-plate state you must display both plates within their borders. And some even suggest you must have two plates even if your state only issues one, though this scenario would probably not withstand federal scrutiny. In Washington, License plates must be: (i) Attached conspicuously at the front and rear of each vehicle if two license plates have been issued; (ii) Attached to the rear of the vehicle if one license plate has been issued. If it was issued, you must display it. California law says (a) When two license plates are issued by the department for use upon a vehicle, they shall be attached to the vehicle for which they were issued, one in the front and the other in the rear. (b) When only one license plate is issued for use upon a vehicle, it shall be attached to the rear thereof, unless the license plate is issued for use upon a truck tractor, in which case the license plate shall be displayed in accordance with Section 4850.5. So if you were issued one, you can drive with one, and if the department (arguably and statutorily "The Department of Motor Vehicles") issued two, you must display both. You might think that you could therefore remove one out of state plate when in California, but they also require (as of this year) that (a) A license plate issued by this state or any other jurisdiction within or without the United States shall be attached upon receipt and remain attached during the period of its validity to the vehicle for which it is issued while being operated within this state or during the time the vehicle is being held for sale in this state, or until the time that a vehicle with special or identification plates is no longer entitled to those plates; and a person shall not operate, and an owner shall not knowingly permit to be operated, upon any highway, a vehicle unless the license plate is so attached. The law in Oregon says A person commits the offense of failure to display registration plates if the person operates, on the highways of this state, any vehicle or camper that has been assigned registration plates by this state and the registration plates assigned to the vehicle or camper are displayed in a manner that violates any of the following: (a) The plate must be displayed on the rear of the vehicle, if only one plate is required. (b) Plates must be displayed on the front and rear of the vehicle if two plates are required. Somehow, they failed to cover the condition that a person does not have plates issued by Oregon. The law in Ohio is that (1) No person who is the owner or operator of a motor vehicle shall fail to display in plain view on the front and rear of the motor vehicle a license plate that bears the distinctive number and registration mark assigned to the motor vehicle by the director of public safety, including any county identification sticker and any validation sticker issued under sections 4503.19 and 4503.191 of the Revised Code This doesn't even make an exception for vehicles from some adjacent state which have only one plate. If you otherwise keep your nose clean, the law says A law enforcement officer shall only issue a ticket, citation, or summons, or cause the arrest or commence a prosecution, for the failure to display a license plate in plain view on the front of a parked motor vehicle if the officer first determines that another offense has occurred and either places the operator or vehicle owner under arrest or issues a ticket, citation, or summons to the operator or vehicle owner for the other offense. but you can still get busted for driving your car. Finally, Montana says a person may not operate a motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, pole trailer, or travel trailer upon the public highways of Montana unless the motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, pole trailer, or travel trailer is properly registered and has the proper license plates conspicuously displayed... (1-plate exception for motorcycles etc)...All other motor vehicles must have one license plate displayed on the front and one license plate displayed on the rear of the motor vehicle. One thing to notice is that these laws are in sections on vehicle registration and not operation, where separate sections of the code regarding street-legal vehicles prohibit driving without lights or a muffler. Under the full faith and credit clause, I think your act of registering a vehicle in PA is given credit in OH, because the requirement pertains to registering, not the conditions for legal operation on the road.
So why are Amish people not required to register their &quot;vehicle,&quot; and to have a driver's license when driving on public roads? The Texas registration requirement in Texas is at Sec. 502.040. REGISTRATION REQUIRED; GENERAL RULE: a) Not more than 30 days after purchasing a vehicle or becoming a resident of this state, the owner of a motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer shall apply for the registration of the vehicle for: (1) each registration year in which the vehicle is used or to be used on a public highway; and (2) if the vehicle is unregistered for a registration year that has begun and that applies to the vehicle and if the vehicle is used or to be used on a public highway, the remaining portion of that registration year. (emphasis added) Now, you might argue that this requires owners of motor vehicles also to register their non-motorized vehicles, but I doubt that this is the prevailing interpretation. Regardless, an Amish person who does not own a motor vehicle is certainly not required by this subsection to register horse-drawn vehicles. Similarly, the requirement to hold a driver's license is at Sec. 521.021. LICENSE REQUIRED: A person, other than a person expressly exempted under this chapter, may not operate a motor vehicle on a highway in this state unless the person holds a driver's license issued under this chapter. (emphasis added) Similarly, this requirement does not apply to the operation of a horse-drawn vehicle. In other words, one statement in your question is incorrect: A driver's license is required for all persons &quot;driving&quot; a vehicle. In fact, a driver's license is generally required to drive a motor vehicle (and even there, exceptions exist).
You will still have to pay A ticket can be ammended if the state so chooses (they can look up what color and model your car is). The car is probably on video. The officer can testify if they wrote your car info down somewhere else. And if they identified you inside the car as the violator, the car's color hardly matters. The idea that minor mistakes or omissions on tickets can get you off is a myth. From an actual lawyer
Both are to some extent correct, but as might be expected, the USPTO site is more accurate. Trademarks owned by virtue of use, rather than registration, are protected only in the market area in where actual use can be documented. Even state registration may be limited to a geographic market area in which use can be shown, and may not extend to the whole state unless use throughout the state, or at least in most major markets in the state, can be shown. As discussed in the news story &quot;Burger King Is Banned From Opening Within 20 Miles Of This Original, Mom-And-Pop Burger King Sign&quot; The owners of a small restaurant branded &quot;Burger King&quot; secured a state-level trademark on that name, but it only serves to exclude the well-known fast-food chain from a 20-mile circle. Remember, the prime purpose of a trademark is to identify the source of goods or services, and to prevent one supplier from benefiting by the reputation of another. In an area where the first supplier does not do business, there is considered to be no such risk of unfair competition. Also, nationwide protection is one of the benefits of federal registration. In addition, a mark is only protected for the same class of goods or services. Nationwide use of &quot;Pear&quot; as a mark for a brand of computer would not prevent use of the same word as a mark for a brand of automobile, say, or for a restaurant chain. Note also that trademarks are normally at most national in scope. A US Federal registration will offer no protection in Canada, or any other country.
Maybe: In California, you must be at least 16 years old to drive with an out-of-state permit. Since some states offer permits to persons younger than 16, those would not be valid in CA until the individual's 16th birthday. An out-of-state learner's permit is only valid for 10 days following the date of entry (inclusive). For periods longer than 10 days, one must apply for a Nonresident Minor's Certificate. Cal. Veh. Code § 12504(a) takes the previous two sections on nonresident licensing, which apply to persons over the age of 18, applies them to persons aged 16-18, and adds the 10-day caveat as described above: (a) Sections 12502 and 12503 apply to any nonresident over the age of 16 years but under the age of 18 years. The maximum period during which that nonresident may operate a motor vehicle in this state without obtaining a driver's license is limited to a period of 10 days immediately following the entry of the nonresident into this state except as provided in subdivision (b) of this section. (b) provides that the 10-day restriction does not apply where the person has a license and has a Nonresident Minor's Certificate: (b) Any nonresident over the age of 16 years but under the age of 18 years who is a resident of a foreign jurisdiction which requires the licensing of drivers may continue to operate a motor vehicle in this state after 10 days from his or her date of entry into this state if he or she meets both the following: He or she has a valid driver's license, issued by the foreign jurisdiction, in his or her immediate possession. He or she has been issued and has in his or her immediate possession a nonresident minor's certificate, which the department issues to a nonresident minor who holds a valid driver's license issued to him or her by his or her home state or country, and who files proof of financial responsibility. General learners permit information for non-residents travelling in the 50 states can be found here.
People can take their personal cars through the Channel Tunnel from Great Britain to France. They don't actually drive their cars through the tunnel, but going by car is a perfectly normal way to travel between those two countries. That's probably the most well-known place where drivers will switch from driving on one side of the road to the other, but there are many more . If driving with a car with the wheel on the "wrong" side were forbidden, these options would not exist, because at least one direction of travel would not work. Now, of course, that doesn't mean a country like Belgium, which does not have to direct way to Britain, couldn't forbid cars with the steering wheel on the right. But at least for EU states, that seems to be forbidden, as Poland and Lithuania learned when they tried to require cars that were to be registered there to have the steering wheel repositioned to the left Consequently, the Court holds that the position of the driver’s seat, an integral part of the steering equipment of a vehicle, comes within the harmonisation established by Directives 2007/46 and 70/311, so that, in the context of the registration of a new vehicle in their territory, the Member States may not require, for reasons of safety, that the driver’s seat of that vehicle be moved to the side opposite the direction of the traffic. It notes in that regard that the legislation at issue provides for exceptions with regard to the use of vehicles equipped with a steering-wheel on the right by people who reside in other Member States, and travel to Poland and Lithuania for a limited period (for example, tourists). That fact shows, according to the Court, that the contested legislation tolerates the risk involved in such use. So even those countries that tried to ensure that registered cars had the steering wheel on the "right" side made provisions for cars that were just traveling through. And the EU does not consider it a valid law to require wheels to be repositioned.
The amended section 46.2-2101 is in Chapter 21 of Title 46.2. Chapter 21 deals with regulation of property carriers (e.g. moving companies). So the amendment to 46.2-2101 says that EPDDs are exempt from these Chapter 21 regulations. 46.2-2102 says, in general, that the Section 21 regulations apply to anyone who gets paid to transport property using motor vehicles. So without the exemption, there might be confusion as to whether those regulations would apply to someone using an EPDD. The legislature therefore made it clear that it did not intend those regulations to apply in that case. Most of the rest of the cited Act amends Chapter 8 of Title 46.2, which deals with traffic laws and regulations. The amendment to 46.2-2101 does not exempt EPDDs from those regulations; as you say, that would defeat the whole purpose of the law.
Using two states as examples: In California, emergency vehicle operators are exempt from pretty much the entirety of the rules of the road (VC 21055). They can pass you on the right if they want to. Department policy might say no, but that depends on department policy and the details of their emergency vehicle operation course. However, California law requires all drivers to pull to the right when an emergency vehicle approaches (VC 21806). Even though an ambulance driver legally could pass you on the right, you are required to pull right. According to the BLM's emergency response policy for fire personnel in California, this means passing on the right is heavily disfavored: the emergency vehicle operator doesn't know that the driver (who is clearly not paying much attention) won't suddenly notice them and comply with the vehicle code, cutting them off or running into them. Other policies/things which seem to reflect policies say similar things, and all make it clear that operators need to be careful that the car they're passing won't drive into them. In Maryland, the law is a bit different. Section 21-405 of the Maryland Code obligates drivers to move to the edge of the roadway. This means either edge, so on a divided highway you might pull left. On a non-divided road, you obviously pull right. In this case, the vehicle may end up passing you on the right, but again: they are going to be careful about it, and would rather you get out of their way so they don't have to worry that you'll suddenly see them and drive into them.