Ok so I'd like to know what the procedure is from local law enforcement to pull over someone who believes that if they dont deal with ICBC at all then they are exercising their "right to travel"
here's the link officers
the short form of this if you dont feel like watching a 5part video series is this.
In law it states that if you wish to create a new ACT (MVA) then you must first and foremost state which act you are replacing. So we go back in time before the MVA and we have the "right to travel act"
Now since the MVA doesn't actually state anything about the RTTA then the MVA is pretty much useless if your exercising your right to travel.
(this doesn't mean you can endanger others just that BS laws created for revenue no longer exsist)
The only way to exercise your right to travel however is to "not register your automobile" with ICBC. Thus it is not a motor vehicle and as such doesn't fall under the MVA.
Most I think (myself included) would perfer to be insured rather then be liable should they be at fault for the accident and be left with a hefty commercial liability.
but I'd like to hear what the boys in blue have to say about this...