There is a concept in law: If an act, such as the Motor Vehicle Act, has the intent or affect of removing a previously existing right, like our right to travel, it must do so clearly, specifically and unequivocally. It must mention the right. If it doesn't mention the right, it can't be deemed to affect it. Rights not mentioned are deemed unaffected.
The Motor Vehicle Act does not mention the previously existing right to travel. It creates no obligation for us to register, but it does create, in the mind of the police, the idea that they can stop us for not doing so. The Motor Vehicle Act was created by politicians. They could have used unambiguous, easily understood language, but they didn't because then our rights would be very obvious. They created a method of extorting money for the right to travel. And, yet, there is nothing in the Motor Vehicle Act which allows this.
If the government didn't create a body of words clearly designed to be deceptive, then the DMV (ICBC for Canada) wouldn't feel they had a mandate which empowers them to interfere with the common law right to travel. Police officers wouldn't interfere with the our right to travel because they would know what the limits to their authority was. The moment you accept the courts services, you have successfully subjected yourself to the jurisdiction of the government. At that point, you are going against them regarding the charges they bring you in on, instead of questioning the jurisdiction, they assume you are operating under the Motor Vehicle Act and your common law right to travel has nothing to do with it.
The Government, Department of Motor Vehicles, Police and the courts are acting in collusion and conspiring to deny what is clearly in existence, the right to travel unimpeded. Try asking the police if they distinguish between a vehicle or automobile or a driver and a traveler and they are either incapable or unwilling to do that. Police shouldn't be enforcing the statute at all if they can't understand the limits of their mandate.