Dumb Car Laws

How about bicyclists or scooters, electric or gas? Here the rider of any form of two wheeled transportation must wear a helmet, not including brain buckets which are illegal.

Terry

California should wise up. This is how I lost a outside mirror on my SUV as a bike was traveling 40 mph faster than the 20 mph FWY speed on the 5:00 PM rush hour 405. He got his due about five cars ahead as a car changed lanes blocked him and made his day. Here are the rules;

California is the only state in the country that allows the maneuver. The guidelines were published on the CHP's website last year.They advised motorcyclists to ride between vehicles at speeds no more than 10 miles-per-hour faster than the vehicles they were passing. They also suggested that motorcyclists not attempt the move at full freeway speeds, or in any traffic going faster than 30 mph.

One lane, one vehicle!

Here's an almost-dumb-law. About 20 years ago the Land Transport Safety Authority in New Zealand proposed a regulation saying that there must be no gears between the parking brake and the wheel(s) it operated on. Yep, great idea, except that many light trucks have Cardan shaft hand brakes as does my 1930 Dodge. Luckily the New Zealand Vintage Car Club has a member of the executive who monitors proposed changes to regulations and legislation affecting motorists and he picked it up. He was also the Manager of Mitsubishi Trucks New Zealand and many of their light trucks (e.g. Canter) have Cardan shaft hand brakes.

On motorcyclists running up the white line between lanes, we were astounded to see this in Paris on the Péripherique when traffic slowed. Huge scooters (1000 cc +, ridden by people in suits) zoomed past and if you weren't in the middle of your lane and restricted them you got a blast and rude signs, maybe even a steel capped boot in your door.

Here's an almost-dumb-law. About 20 years ago the Land Transport Safety Authority in New Zealand proposed a regulation saying that there must be no gears between the parking brake and the wheel(s) it operated on.

Actually, not so dumb. My 1952 Chevy two-ton truck has the parking/emergency brake on the transmission output shaft. It also has a vacuum-actuated two-speed rear axle. Park on a hill, put it in gear, set the parking brake, and if the rear end pops out of gear, the truck rolls.

I will say that many of the dumb laws quoted here have been passed on by word-of-mouth. It pays to actually read the text of the law, not just take someone's word for it. Even the police get things wrong. For example, here in Virginia, my wife has been stopped by police because her Volvo wagon has dark tint on the side and rear windows. The officer tried to give her a ticket for the tint. It turns out that if you read the text of the law, there is an exception for vehicles with outside mirrors on both sides. In that case, you can make the side windows opaque aft of the driver and be legal. If you think about it, this is no different than a windowless delivery van, so at least someone had some common sense when drafting this law. Unfortunately, not even the police are aware of the exception. I suspect that many of the supposed dumb laws people have discussed here actually do have exceptions that cover the situations in question (such as the original post about it being illegal to install tubes, even in a tube-type tire). It pays to be informed.

I will say that many of the dumb laws quoted here have been passed on by word-of-mouth. It pays to actually read the text of the law, not just take someone's word for it. Even the police get things wrong.

It pays to be informed.

This is why I carry a printout of regulations that I think the cops may not be up on, such as the following which specifically allows me to run under acetylene.

§ 46.2-1036. Acetylene lights on antique motor vehicles.

Antique motor vehicles as defined in § 46.2-100 may be equipped with acetylene headlights, taillights, and lights to illuminate their rear license plates as provided in regulations promulgated by the Superintendent.

Again, here in the USA they CAN NOT force you to retrofit anything that was not required at the time of manufacture. If your car did not require an outside mirror when now, they can not ticket you for it now.

I once had a Sheriff try to ticket me for not wearing my seatbelt in my Amphicar (never had them) while in the water. We had a heated conversation about how my car never had them and in the water I should NOT be wearing them anyway. In the end he succumbed to common sense. You should NEVER be belted into a boat. Even the racers do not have belts for obvious reasons. They have parachutes to save them. Not very useful in an Amphicar. (shrug)

I did not intend to start a conversation of seatbelt VS helmet. I don't see this being deleted, it's a good conversation and no one appears to be offended. I was only illustrating the hypocrisy of the uneducated comments about motorcycles. Especially in the 1st responders field whom I have the utmost respect for. They see numerous car wrecks and the resulting carnage every day yet still drive a car. They see an occasional motorcycle wreck and deem them all as death traps. This does not pass the BS or common sense test. I have well over 100,000 miles on bikes all over the US and to date, in spite of stupid, inattentive and poor drivers best efforts, I am still here, insurance paid in full and $400 helmet in use. My exhaust is loud and that has saved me from those very people many times. The horn has the same effect as the finger, little if any. My loud pipes gets attention immediately. When I leave my home I go into a higher gear keeping the noise at a minimum. NOBODY has ever complained in 18 years here.

There are dumb laws out there all over. Most of the time I'd like to believe they are there for a good reason, but many just are head scratchers. Lately I have been seeing very expensive, intricate, convoluted and senseless intersections being built. One here in Loveland on a 4 lane VERY busy hiway, CO (see pic) is beyond a WTF. Turn lanes that cross ea other, thru lane that go thru turn lanes and super long lights. If you end up in the wrong lane it become like going thru Chicago to get to L.A. from Santa Fe. They said there are fewer wrecks, that may be but I think like myself most avoid it and less traffic is why less wrecks. I'm sure the powers that be have a rationale for it, but I don't speak "idiot" so it's lost on me.

Again, here in the USA they CAN NOT force you to retrofit anything that was not required at the time of manufacture. If your car did not require an outside mirror when now, they can not ticket you for it now.

Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. California DID require the retrofit of a NOx device (a primitive emissions control device) on 1966-1970 vehicles. Granted, this was for emissions control, not safety equipment. I do agree that I've not seen any instances of actual written laws (as opposed to word-of-mouth) where safety equipment was required to be retrofitted. Here in VA, the State Police set the vehicle safety inspection standards and post those standards on their website. For example, in the case of outside mirrors, here is the text:

No motor vehicle registered in the Commonwealth, designed and licensed primarily for passenger vehicular transportation on the public highways and manufactured after 1968 shall be driven on the highways in the Commonwealth unless equipped with at least one outside and at least one inside rear view mirror meeting the requirements of this section.

In nearly every case of required equipment, there is an exception based on model year. Front turn signals are not required on cars built before Jan 1, 1943. Windshield wipers are also required from Jan 1, 1943. Windshields, however, are only required from July 1, 1970. This may appear to be a case of a "dumb law", but careful reading proves otherwise. The windshield wiper requirement from Jan 1943 only applies to vehicles with "a permanent windshield". Again, one needs to carefully read the exceptions before declaring "dumbness".

dumb laws are made by dumb people and tolerated by other dumb people ! If the law is that dumb take action to initiate change.

Wayne

Traffic laws can also be dumb. Many STOP signs in small towns are unenforceable since every sign must be OKed by PennDot and requires an expensive traffic study before they can be enforced. We just put 'em up and depend on citizens obeying them without asking questions.

Does that mean that someone who gets a ticket for gong through the stop sign is not required to pay the fine? (Don't ask why I am asking this question at this present time)

In PA a stop sign is unenforceable without a PennDot traffic study having been done. Of course a cop might just charge you with something else like reckless driving but if I were charged with driving thru a stop sign in a small town I would ask the District Justice if a traffic study was done. This defense has been used successfully more than once but not by me. Just like traffic signs in WalMart parking lots, meaningless.

My wife and I got pulled over for "thinking about not stopping at that STOP sign back there..."! As far as I know, there is no law against thinking about doing anything....

Just be careful regarding stop signs in parking lots like Walmart.... They may be quite legal. Here is the New York statute regarding obeying such stop signs:

S 1100. Provisions of title refer to vehicles upon highways;

exceptions. (a) The provisions of this title apply upon public highways,

private roads open to public motor vehicle traffic and any other parking

lot, except where a different place is specifically referred to in a

given section.

( The provisions of this title relating to obedience to stop signs,

flashing signals, yield signs, traffic-control signals and other

traffic-control devices, and to one-way, stopping, standing, parking and

turning regulations shall apply to a parking lot only when the

legislative body of any city, village or town has adopted a local law,

ordinance, rule or regulation ordering such signs, signals, devices, or

regulations.

Frank

Again, here in the USA they CAN NOT force you to retrofit anything that was not required at the time of manufacture. If your car did not require an outside mirror when now, they can not ticket you for it now.

I am not as sure about that as you seem to be. (and I think that you meant "when NEW" not "when NOW")

I have re-read the regulations on required equipment and everyplace EXCEPT mirrors and horns they give a year of manufacture or antique registered exception. In any event, this is a state-by-state and not a U.S.A. regulation so as they say, "your mileage may vary".

Note the 1968 YOM for outside plus inside mirrors which Mr. Padavano cited but he left off the first paragraph.

where there is no year or exception for the general mirror requirement. (and I left out the rather detailed requirements for trucks with no rear window.)

§ 46.2-1082. Mirrors.

No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway in the Commonwealth if the vehicle is not equipped with a mirror which reflects to the driver a view of the highway for a distance of not less than 200 feet to the rear of such vehicle.

No motor vehicle registered in the Commonwealth, designed and licensed primarily for passenger vehicular transportation on the public highways and manufactured after 1968 shall be driven on the highways in the Commonwealth unless equipped with at least one outside and at least one inside rear view mirror meeting the requirements of this section.

dumb laws are made by dumb people and tolerated by other dumb people ! If the law is that dumb take action to initiate change.

Wayne

What about the good laws that are ignored by dumb people? Where I live you can be on the FWY and a truck jacked sky high with wheels/tires sticking out way beyond the fenders and no mud flaps or fender flairs and the Highway Patrol just goes by at a leisurely pace does nothing.

Thanks Restorer22.

I got ticketed last night for turning right at a stop sign without coming to a complete stop. It was dark and I was trying hard to make sure no one was approaching the crosswalk. It was on (or adjacent to) Penn State Harrisburg campus. It is my first moving violation in 45 years of driving. I am going to pay the fine. I did something wrong, but I might include a letter asking if there was a traffic study done on that sign.

Dwight

Thanks Restorer22.

I got ticketed last night for turning right at a stop sign without coming to a complete stop. It was dark and I was trying hard to make sure no one was approaching the crosswalk. It was on (or adjacent to) Penn State Harrisburg campus. It is my first moving violation in 45 years of driving. I am going to pay the fine. I did something wrong, but I might include a letter asking if there was a traffic study done on that sign.

Dwight

If it was a state road then there would be traffic studies for all signs but not necessarily for local roads under the jurisdiction of a municipality.

Some years back a California motorist was ticketed for parking under a "No Stoping" sign. He showed up in court with a dictionary, and a picture of the sign.

He used the dictionary to prove that "stoping" means "to extend a mine shaft with side drifts or tunnels". He told the judge that he was doing no such thing, and therefore committed no offence.

The judge agreed, and commented that it was hard enough for citizens to obey the law, and the city had the obligation to be clear and accurate in their signs.

I don't see this being deleted, it's a good conversation and no one appears to be offended.

Well, I am offended...I have been called "ignorant", "myopic", "uneducated" and a "hypocrite" for voicing my opinion that it is a dumb law that allows motorcycle riders to go without helmets in the same state that requires seatbelts (and helmets for bicycle riders too in most localities). I suspect that no one has answered for the same reason that the no helmet law got passed in the first place, those of us that have seen the carnage stand quietly by and don't want to get in an argument. As I said, I have been an Emergency Medical Services provider for 30 plus years. I am a Paramedic as well as an instructor and preceptor for Paramedics and Emergency Medical Technicians. I have seen more than "an occasional wreck". The fact remains that a motorcycle wreck ALWAYS has a higher potential for serious injury, and not wearing a helmet further increases that potential as does not wearing protective equipment such as leathers. I have seen the statistics that have been twisted to the contrary and I have seen statistics that have quoted just what I am saying. My personal observations have been that not wearing a helmet is plain foolhardy at best. I understand that we live in a country where people have rights and I respect that, If you want to not wear a helmet, you have that right by law in Pa., just don't expect me to agree with you. I'll be there to take care of you when that idiot that isn't watching pulls out in front of you and you bounce your bare skull off the road laying your bike down to avoid that collision.

I moved some of them.........

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) stats from 2011 show motorcyclists were 30 times more likely to die in a traffic accident than automobilists. However, about 30% of motorcyclists killed were drunk.

I moved some of them.........

Where did you move them to?

Where did you move them to?

I "deleted" them to the Moderator Forum for review. We do this to any posts that are detrimental to the AACA. Any posts that are abusive can be moved. As some members have said on this thread, a lot of information has been posted, but you must do so in a mature way.

I have a good friend who operates a towing company and whose "beat" includes a stretch of Interstate 83 between Baltimore and Harrisburg. He estimates that the vast majority of accidents he tows involve alcohol to one degree or another.

Note the 1968 YOM for outside plus inside mirrors which Mr. Padavano cited but he left off the first paragraph. where there is no year or exception for the general mirror requirement. (and I left out the rather detailed requirements for trucks with no rear window.)

§ 46.2-1082. Mirrors.

No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway in the Commonwealth if the vehicle is not equipped with a mirror which reflects to the driver a view of the highway for a distance of not less than 200 feet to the rear of such vehicle.

Because I took that to apply to an inside rear view mirror, not an outside one.

In Kentucky you can't be given a ticket for anything that the ticket writer did not see you do. You can be speeding at 150 mph and 49 other drivers can call to report you, but if the police officer does not see you doing it, you can successfully challenge it on your court date. This is good and bad, but mostly good I think.

I know in FL (and I think OH?) if you cause an auto accident you are given a moving violation for whatever you did to cause it, adding insult to injury. For example I've seen a guy accidently back into a car and get a ticket for "Improper backing" after the officer arrived. In KY that wouldn't fly.

(I am an insurance adjuster)

Here in MN they put cameras up on the freeway. Apparently the original plan for them was to clock the time it took to travel the distance from one camera to the other to calculate if the person was speeding. There was a woman arrested for "Habitual Speeding" because she was accused of driving at a calculated 85+ MPH on her way to and from work. When the court case came up they had to throw it out because there was no actual physical speed clocked, and because she could not cross examine her accuser (being that she was caught by a recording that was later examined, and not by someone watching at the time it was happening). They have since ruled that no one can be ticketed or fined by using these cameras. Good thing they spent taxpayers money putting them up only to find out they can't even use them.

Here in MN they put cameras up on the freeway. ......................They have since ruled that no one can be ticketed or fined by using these cameras. Good thing they spent taxpayers money putting them up only to find out they can't even use them.

I wish Maryland would think that way. My early morning trip to Hershey last year got me one of those camera tickets around the Baltimore beltway. I just paid it.

I wish Maryland would think that way. My early morning trip to Hershey last year got me one of those camera tickets around the Baltimore beltway. I just paid it.

Next time tell them it's a violation of your 6th amendment. You can not cross examine your accuser. At least that's what worked in her case.

Because I took that to apply to an inside rear view mirror, not an outside one.

I take it to mean that you must have some sort of mirror regardless of whether it is inside, outside, or handlebar mounted. No criticism intended.

Additional requirements are covered in the following paragraphs of the regulation (i.e. 1968 for both inside and outside and the confusing part about trucks)

But the requirement of a mirror really does not belong on this thread since it is NOT a dumb law and in fact, I would have to go so far as to say that it is a GOOD law.

Next time tell them it's a violation of your 6th amendment. You can not cross examine your accuser. At least that's what worked in her case.

Doesn't work here in the DC area. The local jurisdictions have enacted laws that allow the speed cameras. In this case, it's a single camera triggered by a radar gun, not a sequence of cameras that require human intervention to determine the violation. Also, the speed camera citations are simply citations, not points on your license (likely done to avoid the kinds of legal argument you propose).

It's just another form of taxation...

I am not a motorcyclist and I take an ambivalent view when it comes to their safety, principally, because it is their right to ride a motorcycle if they should so wish but I can remember the outcry when legislation was proposed for the compulsory wearing of a crash helmets; it being deemed a gross infringement of personal liberty by many. Now, 40 years on from it's passing into law, the wearing of a crash helmet is second nature to motorcyclists - with the exception of turban wearing Sikhs; who were exempted on religious grounds.

Not withstanding the previously mentioned change in the law in Pa (and other states) allowing riders to not wear a helmet if they choose, I wondered if there has ever been an exemption on religious grounds like this anywhere in the U.S.A.?

http://www.righttoride.eu/2013/02/07/the-motorcycle-helmet-law/

Ray.

Thou Shalt carry thy Red Flag and thy Red Lamp at night and walk at least 25 feet ahead of thy Horseless Carriage.... Red Flag Law... LOL... How to get nowhere slow as molasses... Dandy Dave!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws

Thou Shalt carry thy Red Flag and thy Red Lamp at night and walk at least 25 feet ahead of thy Horseless Carriage.... Red Flag Law... LOL... How to get nowhere slow as molasses... Dandy Dave!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws

I can't believe they tried to pass this. Could you imagine having to take apart your car and hide it behind bushes every time you passed a horse.

[h=2]Red flag laws in the US[edit][/h]In the United States, the state of Vermont passed a similar flurry of Red Flag Laws in 1894. The most infamous of the Red Flag Laws was enacted in Pennsylvania circa 1896, when legislators unanimously passed a bill through both houses of the state legislature, which would require all motorists piloting their "horseless carriages", upon chance encounters with cattle or livestock to (1) immediately stop the vehicle, (2) "immediately and as rapidly as possible... disassemble the automobile," and (3) "conceal the various components out of sight, behind nearby bushes" until equestrian or livestock is sufficiently pacified.^[1] The bill did not become law, as Pennsylvania's governor used an executive veto.

Re: Dumb Car Laws

Quote,

..."immediately and as rapidly as possible... disassemble the automobile," and (3) "conceal the various components out of sight, behind nearby bushes" until equestrian or livestock is sufficiently pacified"

This works equally as well if your wife objects to your hobby.

Roger, how many cars do you have hidden in your old sheds, closets, etc??? :cool:

Re: Dumb Car Laws

Quote,

..."immediately and as rapidly as possible... disassemble the automobile," and (3) "conceal the various components out of sight, behind nearby bushes" until equestrian or livestock is sufficiently pacified"

This works equally as well if your wife objects to your hobby.

Whatever you do, don't let her read the law. Imagine how mad she would be to discover your system. Then imagine how mad she would be to be considered the "livestock" section of the law .

This is why we have the London to Brighton veteran car run (when a red flag is ceremoniously destroyed) to commemorate the passing of the 'locomotives on highways' act 1896 which overturned the restrictive 'locomotive acts' of 1861, 1865 and 1878 increasing the speed limit to 14 mph. Previously, there had been a 4 mph in the country and 2 mph in town with an escort carrying a red flag. Of course, it had been steam carriages that the law had attempted to curtail but early cars became caught up in the nonsense. The French had no such dumb car laws and their motor industry gained a ten year advantage as a result.

Roger, how many cars do you have hidden in your old sheds, closets, etc??? :cool:

12

And then there are those laws which are so abysmally stupid that the people charged with enforcing them don't bother because to do so would make them look stupid. The result being there are still laws on the books which should have been repealed long ago. Not to do with cars, but there is a law in one (unnamed) Canadian province which makes the buzzing of bees illegal!! Beg pardon?

Terry

Yup. LOL... If I could only find a man that can run 70 Mile Per hour. Well, I would be easy on him as I never drive quite that fast. Dandy Dave!