Is folding down the windshield illegal?

^^^ There was that.

Funny you would post that clip. The "George Floyd" looting in Santa Monica exemplifies why Beverly Hills does not want a subway/mass transit station anywhere near Rodeo Drive and has fought against one for years. It was never about George Floyd; it was about an excuse to steal stuff.

The Beverly Hills theory is that a subway/mass transit station makes it too easy for the thugs and undesirables to come to your community to pillage and rob because now they don't need cars or trucks to get there or to carry away the loot.
 
  • (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.
Pretty much the same law in Alabama. There is not a specific requirement to have a windshield, only that the windshield of every motor vehicle must have a wiper. Your state or local courts might interpret the implied element differently, here the lack of per se requirement means it is not mandated by the law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wildman
I'm not going to argue. The windshield does not do what it is designed to do (shield the wind) if it laying down. Hey, I don't care one way or the other. I like to have my windshield down. Unfortunately, I think a Judge would find you guilty if you were ticketed in California for driving on the Hwy in your Jeep with the windshield down. My opinion, and I'm entitled to that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wildman
I was referring to the GA law that was posted, CA law is likely different. Ultimately the only opinion that counts will be the judge if you are cited.

On a lighter note...Is your glovebox only a glovebox when you put gloves in it?
 
I was referring to the GA law that was posted, CA law is likely different. Ultimately the only opinion that counts will be the judge if you are cited.

On a lighter note...Is your glovebox only a glovebox when you put gloves in it?
I wasn't referring to you @WDE, I was referring to @Mr. Bills comment when he copied me. Should have copied him. Sorry.
 
I'm not going to argue. The windshield does not do what it is designed to do (shield the wind) if it laying down. Hey, I don't care one way or the other. I like to have my windshield down. Unfortunately, I think a Judge would find you guilty if you were ticketed in California for driving on the Hwy in your Jeep with the windshield down. My opinion, and I'm entitled to that.

But you are arguing. It is an essential and time honored skill in a civilized society practiced by great thinkers since ancient times. :)

ar·gue
/ˈärɡyo͞o/

verb To give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view.



Unfortunately, you would lose this argument . A judge cannot properly add terms to an otherwise unambiguous statute. He/she would be summarily reversed on appeal because there is a presumption in statutory construction that the legislature intends the plain and ordinary meaning of the statutory language it adopts and that missing language isn't missing at all - it was intended to be omitted.

If the California Legislature intended the use of a fold-down windshield to be unlawful it has had more than 54 years since the first civilian jeep with fold down windshield was lawfully sold for use on California highways to make it so, but the Legislature has instead elected not to amend the relevant statutes to include such terms. During this same timeframe the Legislature has added hundreds if not thousands of other equipment standards and statutes governing the use of motor vehicles, many of which are more stringent than in any other state, which only strengthens the position that the California Legislature intended the statutes referring to windshields to mean exactly what they say and nothing more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wildman
^^^ There was that.

Funny you would post that clip. The "George Floyd" looting in Santa Monica exemplifies why Beverly Hills does not want a subway/mass transit station anywhere near Rodeo Drive and has fought against one for years. It was never about George Floyd; it was about an excuse to steal stuff.

The Beverly Hills theory is that a subway/mass transit station makes it too easy for the thugs and undesirables to come to your community to pillage and rob because now they don't need cars or trucks to get there or to carry away the loot.

It's true. I used to ride the metro subway from N. Hollywood to downtown near the Staples Center. Lots of homeless and drug activity (though also really entertaining at times). People they definitely don't want wandering down Rodeo.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Wildman
Interesting topic.

In Virginia, the law states that it is unlawful to drive without a windshield any vehicle manufactured after 1 July '70. No mention of fold-down windshields at all. Personally, I like that rocks and falcons and deer and insects and odd bits of furniture are deflected by my windshield, so I don't aim to test this on any highways at high speed. Around town, though, it might be interesting...

§ 46.2-1057. Windshields.

It shall be unlawful for any person to drive on a highway in the Commonwealth any motor vehicle or reconstructed motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle or autocycle, registered in the Commonwealth that was manufactured, assembled, or reconstructed after July 1, 1970, unless the motor vehicle is equipped with a windshield.
 
At one time I was told it was illegal to run with a broken one, but no rules about none at all

I don't think the police always know all the rules and regulations, but most are written to be interpreted to fit the situation. Illinois requires front and rear license plates, but I never see anyone pulled over for not having a front one.

As far as mirrors go, no reason why you couldn't still use the rearview mirror on the windshield, just angle it down.