Out side door handle required by law?

[R Walling]

Has anyone ever heard of a law that requires an outside door handle?

 

In Ma, an inspection station failed a annual inspection because my friend did not have an outside handle on his roadster.

 

 WTF?

 

[8E45E]

Never!  What about several British sports cars such as MGA's that never came with outside door handles?

 

Craig

[Bloo]

And T fords, and a bunch of brass era cars, and Jeeps, and Crosley HotShots. Well, Jeeps and HotShots didn't have doors. I wonder if MA would require the handle? Out here in Washington, unless something has changed recently, we are required to have windshield wipers. A windshield isn't required though. Thank god we don't have vehicle inspections.

 

[8E45E]

1 minute ago, Bloo said:

And T fords, and a bunch of brass era cars, and Jeeps, and Crosley HotShots. Well, Jeeps and HotShots didn't have doors. I wonder if MA would require the handle? Out here in Washington, unless something has changed recently, we are required to have windshield wipers. A windshield isn't required though. Thank god we don't have vehicle inspections.

 

In Alberta, a vintage car is 'grandfathered'.  Turn signals, daytime Running Lights, and seat & shoulder belts are mandatory here, but one is not require to retrofit them to an older car if they are not equipped with them.  However, if the car has these items such as seat belts, which was an option at one time, one is still required to use them.

 

Craig

[Bloo]

That's true here too, in most cases there is some cutoff date that is a bit later than typical. I believe it is January 1 1954 for signal lights, January 1 1966 for seat belts, etc. I might be off a year or two. There is a stipulation that if a car built before the cutoff had the equipment originally, it has to still be there, so a 1959 car that originally had seat belts would still need to have them. I would be grandfathered in this way for the lack of windshield wipers, seat belts, bumpers, etc on my 1913 Studebaker. I was sort of kidding about the windshield wipers, but the last time I read Washington's vehicle code it was true, and some Jeeps that were new enough to require wipers would still technically need them without a windshield. I doubt anyone ever enforced that, but on the other hand I have seen pettiness occasionally, and I am indeed thankful we don't have yearly inspections.

 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Bloo (see edit history)

[joe_padavano]

Many states have requirements for outside door handles. This has been a problem for hot rods and customs where the outside handle was replaced with a solenoid release. And as Bloo correctly points out, most state inspection laws have grandfathering. For example, you are not required to have seat belts or outside mirrors if the car was built prior to the federal laws going into effect.

[rocketraider]

Things like that are a big reason AACA in Virginia continues lobbying to keep antique licensed cars exempt from the state safety inspection. Theory being a "properly" licensed antique car is likely to be better maintained by its owner than a typical 5 year old vehicle is. Also because vast majority of mechanics don't know how to service an older car and are apt to do more damage than repair.

 

Figure most inspectors are under 50 years old and have never seen a car older than they are. They have no idea what equipment was on an older car, much less how to service it. All they have is an inspector's guide which assumes all cars are "modern".

 

I like the idea of an annual safety inspection for daily driven cars because in theory it keeps a lot of unsafe clunkers off the roads. But just last night I saw a 2015 or so Toyota SUV on the shoulder that had had an obvious upper ball joint failure. Less than ten years old, no telling how many miles, and had probably had less than conscientious maintenance.

[Larry Schramm]

The problem with annual inspections IMO is that they can give the owner a false sense of security that everything on their car is good.  Most owners have a sense that their vehicle might have issues and may drive accordingly, but if an inspector says a vehicle is "good" they may drive more assertively. 

 

Plus I had family in PA and the joke for years was that it seemed every time they had a vehicle inspected it needed either brakes or shocks.  So much for the credibility for fair inspections.

Edited August 26, 2022 by Larry Schramm (see edit history)

[EmTee]

Many dealerships and garages in NY offer 'free' inspections.  People bring their cars in to save $20 and leave with a $600 repair bill.  Not all are shams, but even the new-car dealers recognize that in the long run they'll likely come out ahead...

[30DodgePanel]

23 minutes ago, rocketraider said:

Things like that are a big reason AACA in Virginia continues lobbying to keep antique licensed cars exempt from the state safety inspection. 

 

Figure most inspectors are under 50 years old and have never seen a car older than they are. They have no idea what equipment was on an older car, much less how to service it. All they have is an inspector's guide which assumes all cars are "modern".

 

Not to mention they are State employees (in most states) so some of them have a badge and power to match the ballon on top of their shoulders.

 

@Roger Walling, they can file a complaint to see if that helps. Or better yet (I'm not a lawyer) you could check into some of the other statutes like 310 CMR 60.02 (do a search on the Mass.gov) heres a link Mass.Gov Search to the code (second one listed). I'd recommend bringing up the statute on page 3 of 21 that describes original equipment from the manufacturer and insist on a waiver for said vehicles original equipment. 

 

Edited August 26, 2022 by 30DodgePanel (see edit history)

[joe_padavano]

1 hour ago, rocketraider said:

Things like that are a big reason AACA in Virginia continues lobbying to keep antique licensed cars exempt from the state safety inspection. Theory being a "properly" licensed antique car is likely to be better maintained by its owner than a typical 5 year old vehicle is. Also because vast majority of mechanics don't know how to service an older car and are apt to do more damage than repair.

 

Figure most inspectors are under 50 years old and have never seen a car older than they are. They have no idea what equipment was on an older car, much less how to service it. All they have is an inspector's guide which assumes all cars are "modern".

 

I like the idea of an annual safety inspection for daily driven cars because in theory it keeps a lot of unsafe clunkers off the roads. But just last night I saw a 2015 or so Toyota SUV on the shoulder that had had an obvious upper ball joint failure. Less than ten years old, no telling how many miles, and had probably had less than conscientious maintenance.

 

Glenn, the VA inspection manual published by the State Police covers grandfathering of equipment requirements on older cars in excruciating detail. For example, windshield defrosters are only required on cars built after Jan 1, 1969. The manual DOES explicitly point out that outside door opening mechanisms are required on the doors on either side of the driver.

 

 

[CChinn]

4 minutes ago, joe_padavano said:

 

Glenn, the VA inspection manual published by the State Police covers grandfathering of equipment requirements on older cars in excruciating detail. For example, windshield defrosters are only required on cars built after Jan 1, 1969. The manual DOES explicitly point out that outside door opening mechanisms are required on the doors on either side of the driver.

 

 

So a door opening mechanism without a handle would be allowed?

[Terry Bond]

Hopefully someone will look up the MA laws that pertain and quote them here. Not sure were even talking about an antique car here either - just a "roadster."  Roger, if you want accurate info instead of guesses give us some more info on the car involved.

Thanks, 

Terry

[rocketraider]

I knew it used to (last time I took the inspector's exam was 1992) but haven't looked at it in several years.

 

My experience is just because someone has a reference available doesn't mean they'll use it!🙂

[Terry Bond]

11 minutes ago, joe_padavano said:

 

Glenn, the VA inspection manual published by the State Police covers grandfathering of equipment requirements on older cars in excruciating detail. For example, windshield defrosters are only required on cars built after Jan 1, 1969. The manual DOES explicitly point out that outside door opening mechanisms are required on the doors on either side of the driver.

 

 

So, I'd need to cut out a door on my model T if it wasn't exempt from inspection.  

Terry

Edited August 26, 2022 by Terry Bond (see edit history)

[joe_padavano]

7 minutes ago, CChinn said:

So a door opening mechanism without a handle would be allowed?

 

You could read the rule:

 

[joe_padavano]

4 minutes ago, Terry Bond said:

So, I'd need to cut out a door on my model T if it wasn't exempt from inspection.  

Terry

Read it again. It doesn't say that DOORS are required, just that IF there are doors, they need an external release mechanism.

[rocketraider]

Terry, if you took a T in for a VA safety inspection they'd have to open up a bed in Staunton for that inspector!

 

Reminds me of getting my first 64 Starfire inspected in 1987. The station had inspected the car before, but the fellow who always did it had retired. A 25-year-old had taken his place. Kid was a good methodical mechanic with a Nashville Auto Diesel College diploma but totally unfamiliar with a then 23 year old Oldsmobile.

 

The first thing that threw him was the PNDSLR HydraMatic. Had trouble finding reverse to get it into the inspection lane and check the backup lights. "Put it in R" "Where's R?!"

 

Then when he pulled the left front wheel to inspect the brakes and wheel bearings he didn't get the speedometer drive cable indexed into the dust cap.

 

I won't tell you what the Guide-Matic headlight dimmer did to him! That one was my fault, I forgot to disarm it...☺️

 

But, I made a friend and got the kid interested in old cars so it wasn't a total bad experience.

[Mark Shaw]

1 hour ago, 30DodgePanel said:

Not to mention they are State employees (in most states) so some of them have a badge and power to match the ballon on top of their shoulders.

I totally agree!

[bryankazmer]

first generation Vipers have no external handles

[leomara]

Here in New Jersey motor vehicle inspections are a joke.  Back in the day cars were thoroughly checked out, the brakes, the front end, lights and more.  Now the only thing they check and care about is your emissions, so as long as you are not polluting the air your brakes can be lousy and anything else on your car as well.  I drive a 1991 Ford Bronco and I don't even have to have it inspected because it's over 25 years old.  It's all a joke but then again so are a lot of other things today.......

[Terry Bond]

51 minutes ago, joe_padavano said:

Read it again. It doesn't say that DOORS are required, just that IF there are doors, they need an external release mechanism.

I'd not seen till you posted so thanks for doing that. As I suggested to the OP. Its not until we know the vehicle and the law that an accurate response is possible.  There is no reason why I'd have to get my antiques inspected here in Va anyway. We're very fortunate in that regard 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Terry Bond (see edit history)

[Terry Bond]

47 minutes ago, rocketraider said:

Terry, if you took a T in for a VA safety inspection they'd have to open up a bed in Staunton for that inspector!

 

Reminds me of getting my first 64 Starfire inspected in 1987. The station had inspected the car before, but the fellow who always did it had retired. A 25-year-old had taken his place. Kid was a good methodical mechanic with a Nashville Auto Diesel College diploma but totally unfamiliar with a then 23 year old Oldsmobile.

 

The first thing that threw him was the PNDSLR HydraMatic. Had trouble finding reverse to get it into the inspection lane and check the backup lights. "Put it in R" "Where's R?!"

 

Then when he pulled the left front wheel to inspect the brakes and wheel bearings he didn't get the speedometer drive cable indexed into the dust cap.

 

I won't tell you what the Guide-Matic headlight dimmer did to him! That one was my fault, I forgot to disarm it...☺️

 

But, I made a friend and got the kid interested in old cars so it wasn't a total bad experience.

Since I'm in Va I consider us fortunate we've had hobby folks closely involved in legislative affairs. Thank goodness our properly registered antique vehicles are exempt from inspection. 

Terry

Edited August 26, 2022 by Terry Bond (see edit history)

[rocketraider]

1 hour ago, Terry Bond said:

Since I'm in Va I consider us fortunate we've had hobby folks closely involved in legislative affairs. Thank goodness our properly registered antique vehicles are exempt from inspection. 

Terry

And that is something we in the Commonwealth cannot afford to be complacent about. Kudos to the AACA and other car groups which keep their ears to the ground.

 

Now if we could just get DMV to quit issuing AQ/AV plates to owners whose POS cars clearly do not meet any reasonable definition of "antique motor vehicle" but who are gaming the inspection and tax advantages of those plates.

[Leif in Calif]

2 hours ago, joe_padavano said:

Read it again. It doesn't say that DOORS are required, just that IF there are doors, they need an external release mechanism.

Otherwise they might be required on motorcycles! 

[Buffalowed Bill]

I guess that we are fortunate in the state of Washington, like a goodly number of other states, to have no yearly inspections. But I'm sure that the states that do have inspections have safety in mind, and it's not just some bureaucratic conspiracy designed to fill the stat's coffers. It does seem strange that outside door handles would be required on a car like a 1960 MGA, which has survived for over sixty years without them. If I understand this correctly, they could now be required to have them?

[joe_padavano]

1 hour ago, Buffalowed Bill said:

I guess that we are fortunate in the state of Washington, like a goodly number of other states, to have no yearly inspections. But I'm sure that the states that do have inspections have safety in mind, and it's not just some bureaucratic conspiracy designed to fill the stat's coffers. It does seem strange that outside door handles would be required on a car like a 1960 MGA, which has survived for over sixty years without them. If I understand this correctly, they could now be required to have them?

I lived in SoCal for eight years. No safety inspections there, either. You don't want to know how many times I saw a car on the side of the road having just popped a well-worn ball joint loose after hitting a bump or RR crossing. Sorry, there are too many morons on the road. I'm a big fan of annual safety inspections.

 

 

[1912Staver]

MGA's, Early Sprites and Midget's, XK 120, 140 roadsters, Tr 2s, early TR3's. and I am sure others. Thats a lot of late 1950's , early 1960's sports cars without outside door handles.

[lump]

7 hours ago, joe_padavano said:

 

You could read the rule:

 

If you read that rule Joe gave very carefully, nowhere does is say that an external door handle is required. Rather, it states that vehicles must have a device which, "....will permit the opening of the door from the outside and the inside of the vehicle."  Interior door handles on roadsters are easily accessible to anyone outside the vehicle. Some inspector got it wrong. 

[30DodgePanel]

Guys, I thought the OP was asking about MA? 

Maybe someone could dig into that state a bit closer with the same energy?

Mass.gov

[hidden_hunter]

 

 

10 hours ago, Terry Bond said:

Hopefully someone will look up the MA laws that pertain and quote them here. Not sure were even talking about an antique car here either - just a "roadster."  Roger, if you want accurate info instead of guesses give us some more info on the car involved.

Thanks, 

Terry

That’s the thing in my mind that makes it hard to comment. If it came that way

from the factory then with very few exceptions you’re all good here (TAKATA airbags being one). Hot rods or other recently manufactured (or modified extensively) are required to meet modern standards to stop someone just dropping an LS1 in a 32 ford and calling it a day. I assume that would be the case in most places 

[Max4Me]

4 hours ago, joe_padavano said:

I'm a big fan of annual safety inspections.

Joe, be careful what you wish for.  Many years ago California had safety inspections. They were a real pain in the … um, hemorrhoid zone. Often set up on the side of a busy street and randomly pulled cars in. Problem, issued a 30 day ‘fix-it’ ticket. Big item was they’d check headlight alignment to state specs. Almost every car that ever replaced a sealed beam light got nailed for that. Bad safety issue, park it until you can get it towed and repaired. (OK, I have no issue with that part). But, Highway patrol could pull you over to do a once over. I was pulled over because the CHP ‘thought’ I had a tail light out (NOT). Still checked tail, brake, head (high & low beams, and backup lights; turn signals (front & back), horn and ebrake. They also pulled on door handles to see if the door was secure, AND checked door locks to be sure they worked. Wasted 1/2 hour of my time and I didn’t even get the windshield sticker showing the car passed inspection! Now I agree there are cars on the road that junkyards wouldn’t take and should be removed from the road, but I am glad the annual inspections are history.

[ply33]

12 hours ago, Terry Bond said:

Hopefully someone will look up the MA laws that pertain and quote them here. Not sure were even talking about an antique car here either - just a "roadster."  Roger, if you want accurate info instead of guesses give us some more info on the car involved.

Thanks, 

Terry

 

4 hours ago, 30DodgePanel said:

Guys, I thought the OP was asking about MA? 

Maybe someone could dig into that state a bit closer with the same energy?

Mass.gov

I guess I am used to the layout of the California motor vehicle regulations (which near as I can recall don’t mention door handles at all). I think this is a link to the top of the Massachusetts motor vehicle laws: https://www.mass.gov/lists/mass-general-laws-c90 but you might want to start at https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-law-about-automobiles

 

I didn’t see an obvious equipment requirements section like California has but there is one for safety equipment at https://www.mass.gov/info-details/mass-general-laws-c90-ss-7 but searching for “door” turns up nothing on that page.

[hook]

20 hours ago, joe_padavano said:

 

Glenn, the VA inspection manual published by the State Police covers grandfathering of equipment requirements on older cars in excruciating detail. For example, windshield defrosters are only required on cars built after Jan 1, 1969. The manual DOES explicitly point out that outside door opening mechanisms are required on the doors on either side of the driver.

 

 

So, I guess you couldn't get a 1954 Covette through inspection.

[8E45E]

1 hour ago, hook said:

So, I guess you couldn't get a 1954 Covette through inspection.

What an exciting impound lot that would be!

 

First generation 'vettes, MGA.s, 1950's Austin-Healeys, early Sprites & Midgets, Triumph TR2's, 1957 Ferrari Testarossas, first gen Vipers.....

 

Craig

Edited August 27, 2022 by 8E45E (see edit history)

[Flivverking]

We have to see your State DMV statute regading this....Otherwise this is a nonsense post.

   

 

[rocketraider]

Cars w/o outside door handles have been in MA forever same as they have in every other US state.

 

This is a case of an inexperienced and I'm guessing young inspector trying to be a hard-ass, or some likewise inexperienced bureaucratic nincompoop having edited the inspection procedure without looking at the big picture.

 

Such people tend to think only in the here and now, instead of looking forward, backward and sideways to see if what they're doing conflicts with years of precedent.

 

It's not a nonsense post if it makes us think about what we ourselves might run into with our own cars because some nitwit changed the rules to where what had been perfectly legal for decades, is no longer legal.

 

You have to keep your eyes on these people to protect your interests.

 

Just curious. Does AACA have a legislative watchdog group in each state like we do here in Virginia? If it hadn't been for that there's no telling what a certain legislator being prodded by a small-town police chief would have done to us 15 years ago.

[Frank DuVal]

On 8/26/2022 at 10:23 AM, rocketraider said:

I knew it used to (last time I took the inspector's exam was 1992) but haven't looked at it in several years.

Here you go, the latest is here for you to read:

 

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title19/agency30/chapter70/

 

I use this a lot in answering internet questions, or arming myself before the trip to the inspection station.   They still want the heater to blow hot air in a minute on the Corvair windshield in November... Ha! It will blow hot, just takes a few more minutes since I leave it on their lot overnight and it is stone cold in the morning. As Joe says, defrost is not required in 1966. 

 

For years a specific piece of equipment was needed to be a VA State Safety Inspection Station. It was needed to inspect some older vehicles. No youngsters knew what it was. OK antique buffs, what was it?

 

I was once failed for no door handles, paint was still fresh so I had not reinstalled them yet. Just stick finger in hole to actuate mechanism. Who needs a handle on most 60s GM cars? Now the 57 Olds requires a bent coat hanger to release catch, no way a firefighter or rescue people will know that!

 

You want to drive a car with no obvious way to open the doors with the windows closed, then no one can help you if you are inside and unconscious. 

 

Roadsters have no glass, so what's the issue?

Edited August 27, 2022 by Frank DuVal (see edit history)

[Frank DuVal]

22 hours ago, rocketraider said:

Now if we could just get DMV to quit issuing AQ/AV plates to owners whose POS cars clearly do not meet any reasonable definition of "antique motor vehicle" but who are gaming the inspection and tax advantages of those plates.

As the old saying goes,

 

Now you've quit preaching and gone to meddling!😇

[Frank DuVal]

14 hours ago, Max4Me said:

Almost every car that ever replaced a sealed beam light got nailed for that.

The proper way to change the sealed beam does NOT require messing with the adjustment screws. Yes, I know, some people...Let's turn every screw ...😁