|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ch. 14
|
|
|
|
|
1156
|
|
LAWS OF MARYLAND
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At the present time, the National Committee on
Uniform Traffic Laws is proposing a revision of its
counterpart to this Title 12, While one would hope that
improved clarity would also be a consideration, the
primary purpose of that proposal is a resolution of the
federal preemption problem. The following excerpts from
the Committee's "Summary of Deliberation" may be of
interest:
"A problem exists. It is becoming
increasingly difficult for state laws to keep
abreast of changes in technology and federal
motor vehicle safety standards. Some state
laws are obsolete. Others conflict with
federal standards. Adoption of the federal
standards is not a practical solution to this
problem because they do not apply to cars made
before January 1, 1969 and because states may
not wish to adopt and enforce all the
standards. Furthermore, federal regulations
often are not intended to apply to all
vehicles commonly used on our highways. Some
were designed to apply to new vehicles or to
larger ones in interstate commerce. In some
states, the courts may not allow the
legislature to adopt present or future federal
standards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Too much detail is found in Chapter 12. The
more detailed the equipment provisions in
statute, the less likely these state statutes
will be consistent with federal rules and
regulations, or anything else that changes
with considerable frequency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"{We} believe that basic equipment
requirements should be in statute. Thus, a
requirement for two headlamps, two taillamps,
a horn, brakes on four wheels, windshields,
specific locations of rear vision mirrors, a
muffler, and depth of tire tread, all lend
themselves to responding to what an individual
automobile owner needs to know about equipment
requirements for his vehicle. Generally, this
means he knows that the equipment is installed
and appears to be functioning properly."
Certainly, adoption of the Committee's proposal ?
in whole or in part ? would result in simplification of
the Code: Only the basic equipment requirements would be
specified; details as to specific standards and approval
would be delegated to the State Motor Vehicle
Administrator. (To some degree, delegation of this sort
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
