Is folding down the windshield illegal?

[WDE]

Traffic laws are regulated by the states, and therefore vary from state to state.

Ironically in Alabama, you are required to have windshield wipers but there is no requirement to have a windshield.

 

[WDE]

Yes in the eye would SUCK. But it's also why if you do have it dropped you should wear some type of eye protection.

There are worse things than a rock hitting you in the face or chest. At least when riding a bike there is.

I hit a buzzard with my head while zipping down a back road at @70mph on my sportbike. It hurt. I saw stars and blacked out momentarily, but kept the rubber side down somehow. It broke the visor on my full face Shoei and put a lower tooth through my lip. The impact killed the buzzard but I shot it 4 times with my .45 anyway to make me feel better. I still duck when I see buzzards on the side of the road, even in a car.

 

[PCO6]

A little different situation here ... I drove my LJ across town to an auto glass shop a few weeks ago with the frame in place but with no glass. I'm doing the body and paint and had just put a new windshield frame in. It was a bit below freezing that day and I was surprised by the lack of "wind" and that it wasn't all that cold while driving it. I gave a few other Jeepers a wave along the way which I'm sure gave them a bit of a laugh.

 

[Fishtaco]

A little different situation here ... I drove my LJ across town to an auto glass shop a few weeks ago with the frame in place but with no glass. I'm doing the body and paint and had just put a new windshield frame in. It was a bit below freezing that day and I was surprised by the lack of "wind" and that it wasn't all that cold while driving it. I gave a few other Jeepers a wave along the way which I'm sure gave them a bit of a laugh.

View attachment 211681

Seriously! you have a face mask on while driving your Jeep? lol

 

[PCO6]

Seriously! you have a face mask on while driving your Jeep? lol

I had a passenger (the photographer) and it was -0*C. I also put on glasses.

 

[Jack72]

• (a) No person shall drive any motor vehicle with any sign, poster, or other nontransparent material upon the front windshield, side windows, or rear windows of such vehicle which obstructs the driver's clear view of the highway or any intersecting highway.
  
  (b) The windshield of every motor vehicle shall be equipped with a device for cleaning rain, snow, or other moisture therefrom, which device shall be so constructed as to be controlled or operated by the driver of the vehicle.
  
  (c) Every windshield wiper upon a motor vehicle shall be maintained in good working order.
  
  (d) No opaque or solid material including, but not limited to, cardboard, plastic, and taped glass shall be employed in lieu of a glass windshield or window.
  
  (e) No motor vehicle shall be operated with a windshield or rear window having a starburst or spider webbing effect greater than three inches by three inches.

Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., p. 556, § 119; Code 1933, § 68E-404, enacted by Ga. L. 1982, p. 165, § 4; Code 1981, § 40-8-73, enacted by Ga. L. 1982, p. 165, § 10.

Here’s the GA code on windshields. It’s required to have one, but it technically doesn’t say anything about using it. Having a Jeep is a bit of a loop hole. Personally I think if you got a ticket and fought it, you’d win.

 

[Mr. Bills]

It's illegal in California to drive on the street with your windshield down. Nothing to do with the mirrors, you're just required to have a windshield (in the up position of course).

California Vehicle Code sec. 26700 reads that an automobile must be equipped with a windshield, but it does not specify that the windshield cannot be capable of being folded down or that it must be in the up position when driven on streets and highways.

California Vehicle Code sec. 26710 prohibits driving with a "windshield or rear window is in such a defective condition as to impair the driver’s vision either to the front or rear" but it does not state that a hinged windshield must be in the "up" position.

I cannot find any California statute that requires a folding windshield to be in the up position when a motor vehicle originally equipped with one is operated on California streets and highways.

The bottom line is that a law enforcement officer may try to define section 26700 as requiring the use of a folding windshield in the up position but that is not what the statute says. The statute says that the vehicle must be equipped with a windshield that does not impair the driver's vision and that is all. Since jeeps are legally sold in California with folding windshields in compliance with section 26700, one cannot lawfully convict someone of an infraction for using the windshield as originally equipped and sold in California and as the manufacturer intended no matter what a cop on the street might think. I would take a ticket like that to court - and win every time.

 

[Rubicon88]

It's illegal in California to drive on the street with your windshield down. Nothing to do with the mirrors, you're just required to have a windshield (in the up position of course).

Really?
Enlighten me.

I own an inspection station in PA and while not all laws between states are identical most are very much identical even if wording is different.

I just glanced at the CA DMV code and there is nothing stating being illegal to operate a motor vehicle with a windshield down.
It must have a windshield with approved certified safety glazing (glass)...must have a working wiper(s) in good condition that will clean the appropriate area...

It does stress that the drivers view absolutely positively can't be obstructed.

It also clearly states any CA registered vehicle must have two functioning rear view mirrors. A non CA registered vehicle must have one.

Perhaps I overlooked it so by all means post it up.

 

[mrblaine]

California Vehicle Code sec. 26700 reads that an automobile must be equipped with a windshield, but it does not specify that the windshield cannot be capable of being folded down or that it must be in the up position when driven on streets and highways.

California Vehicle Code sec. 26710 prohibits driving with a "windshield or rear window is in such a defective condition as to impair the driver’s vision either to the front or rear" but it does not state that a hinged windshield must be in the "up" position.

I cannot find any California statute that requires a folding windshield to be in the up position when a motor vehicle originally equipped with one is operated on California streets and highways.

The bottom line is that a law enforcement officer may try to define section 26700 as requiring the use of a folding windshield in the up position but that is not what the statute says. The statute says that the vehicle must be equipped with a windshield that does not impair the driver's vision and that is all. Since jeeps are legally sold in California with folding windshields in compliance with section 26700, one cannot lawfully convict someone of an infraction for using the windshield as originally equipped and sold in California and as the manufacturer intended no matter what a cop on the street might think. I would take a ticket like that to court - and win every time.

I'd like to be the opposing lawyer so I could get you to fully explain how a windshield is in fact a windshield when it doesn't. It can NOT shield you from the wind when lowered to the horizontal position.

 

[Rubicon88]

As a rider, myself, I completely agree. I was more referring to why it may be illegal to drive windshield down.

Except it's not illegal.

 

[Mr. Bills]

I'd like to be the opposing lawyer so I could get you to fully explain how a windshield is in fact a windshield when it doesn't. It can NOT shield you from the wind when lowered to the horizontal position.

Whether or not a folding windshield is still a windshield when folded down is a nice philosophical exercise but it is irrelevant to the statute which merely requires that an automobile originally equipped with a windshield must continue to be equipped with a windshield.

A good analogy is seatbelts. There is a statute in California that requires that automobiles be equipped with a seatbelt for each passenger. There is a separate statute in a completely different chapter of the California Vehicle Code that mandates seatbelt use on streets and highways and specifies a penalty for non-use. There is no "use statute" to create a moving violation in the case of windshields.

 

[JEEPCJTJ]

I can see a wind shield being something that shields anything from the wind (and other stuff). It's a noun (shield) following an adjective (wind).

A windshield is it's own noun. Nouns just exist no matter where they are or what they may do.

Of course the government probably can't tell the difference and will do whatever they can to grab your cash

 

[psrivats]

A little different situation here ... I drove my LJ across town to an auto glass shop a few weeks ago with the frame in place but with no glass. I'm doing the body and paint and had just put a new windshield frame in. It was a bit below freezing that day and I was surprised by the lack of "wind" and that it wasn't all that cold while driving it. I gave a few other Jeepers a wave along the way which I'm sure gave them a bit of a laugh.

View attachment 211681

Off tangent, but I really really like this grey color on your Jeep. Very nice choice.

For me it's just too much effort to drop the windshield and risk not getting it back up just right and create issues later with the tops fitting properly. I also think that windshield down look better suits the flatfenders.

The legality question if an interesting philosophical question. Is the law to be interpreted exactly as written or (probably) as they meant it?

 

[PCO6]

Off tangent, but I really really like this grey color on your Jeep. Very nice choice.

For me it's just too much effort to drop the windshield and risk not getting it back up just right and create issues later with the tops fitting properly. I also think that windshield down look better suits the flatfenders.

The legality question if an interesting philosophical question. Is the law to be interpreted exactly as written or (probably) as they meant it?

Thanks. It's very close to Jeep "Sting Grey" used on JK's and I think JL's. I'm spraying it with Tremclad "Gloss Grey" single stage enamel which is basically Rustoleum (same company - just more popular up here). I think the Rustoleum equivalent is "Smoke Grey".

 

[Wildman]

Thanks. It's very close to Jeep "Sting Grey" used on JK's and I think JL's. I'm spraying it with Tremclad "Gloss Grey" single stage enamel which is basically Rustoleum (same company - just more popular up here). I think the Rustoleum equivalent is "Smoke Grey".

I like that color also. I keep seeing everyone painting their rigs and I makes me think about painting mine. Better get it running and driving first.

 

[Mr. Bills]

The legality question if an interesting philosophical question. Is the law to be interpreted exactly as written or (probably) as they meant it?

If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous there is no need to do anything other than interpret the words as written. To delve into interpretations of legislative intent or motive would be improper. Plain language controls. If a legislature is unhappy with the way a statute is applied after passage the legislature can amend the statute.

When a statute or law is ambiguous or so general in its terms that multiple objective interpretations are equally plausible, that is when the mischief occurs and legislative intent begins to matter.

Fortunately, statutory construction is relatively straightforward. Unlike Constitutional law, where the language is purposely broad and intended to control the exercise of power by the government rather than the conduct of individuals.

 

[PCO6]

I like that color also. I keep seeing everyone painting their rigs and I makes me think about painting mine. Better get it running and driving first.

Thanks. I did a test run on my off road trailer and liked the colour so I decided to go for it. Just have to get the 2 of them together for a group shot!

 

[TheBoogieman]

It's illegal in California to drive on the street with your windshield down.

Yet it's ok with the Governor to loot and burn your cities to the ground.

 

[Mr. Bills]

Yet it's ok with the Governor to loot and burn your cities to the ground.

That's Oregon and Washington, not California.

Here, its ok with the Governor to shut down restaurants for everyone but him and lock kids out of public schools while his attend private academies.

Not much looting or burning . Yet.

 

[JEEPCJTJ]

That's Oregon and Washington, not California.

Here, its ok with the Governor to shut down restaurants for everyone but him and lock kids out of public schools while his attend private academies.

Not much looting or burning . Yet.

I could be wrong but it certainly sounds like he's asking for it.