judge upholds ticket on stock evo wing

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Amused
The kid is going about this all wrong. He needs to first file a lawsuit against Mitsubishi for selling him an illegally equiped car, and then contact all the news orgs.

Of course he will not win against mits, but the attention will get him waht he wants.

Seeing that many commercial trucks don't have rear windows at all, on what basis are you claiming that the evo is an illegally equipped car?

Okay. Commercial trucks are NOT cars. Doesn't anyone realize that there are different sets of rules for different classes of vehicles?!

wow i bet that corresponds with having a seperate license for each class as well huh? amazing how that works!

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Also, name a car that has trouble with road traction at normal highway speeds? WTF do you want to increase downward force, which in turn increases the rolling friction, which decreases gas mileage?

because at heart we're all boyracers.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: NutBucket
Uhm, El Fenix, Texas smog laws are tougher then federal standards as well (at least the testing).

what does that have to do with anything?

 

[nsafreak]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: nsafreak

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: nsafreak
<snip the ravings of an eknowitall>

explain california emissions please

Ok, Federal emissions regulations set a standard that states can not go below. It states in the emission laws themselves that states can have stricter guidelines than the proposed federal guidelines. However when it comes the Department of Tranpsortation deeming that a car is suitable for sale in the United States there are NO SUCH PROVISIONS. If you want to I can post the regulations, laws, etc. behind this as well. Or I can call a friend of mine that is a lawyer in New York and have him post on the board.

please do so.

Since the DoT site does not seem to want to load the relevant regulations. I'll let you read them yourself. For the EPA regulations go here and for the US DoT regulations go here and read the relevant volume. Frankly I hope this judge does get overturned on his ruling, just absolutely ludicrous how he ruled.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Originally posted by: BigFatCow
I just got a ticket the other day when i was driving my moms car for having one of those liscense plate things on that they put on at the dealership.

I got a warning for that a couple of years ago on my last car, I think he was about to give me a ticket, but I took the darn thing off right in front of the officer. I threw it out when I got home ... I guess I was a bit lucky.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: nsafreak


Since the DoT site does not seem to want to load the relevant regulations. I'll let you read them yourself. For the EPA regulations go here and for the US DoT regulations go here and read the relevant volume. Frankly I hope this judge does get overturned on his ruling, just absolutely ludicrous how he ruled.

so you offered and now you're not going to find the reg; just point at some volumes... yay for you!

 

[waggy]

Hmm i always thought fedral law trumps state.

Now a state can have more strict laws then the fedral. such as california on evorimental regs. BUT a state can not say they do not need them at all.


That would make the judge wrong. Fedral Law states the car is legal. a judge then can not go and say it is not legal since fedral law says it is.

The kid should be contacting a lawyer to sue the maker and telling every paper around.


edit: OH heh nasafreak said the same but better!

 

[nsafreak]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: nsafreak


Since the DoT site does not seem to want to load the relevant regulations. I'll let you read them yourself. For the EPA regulations go here and for the US DoT regulations go here and read the relevant volume. Frankly I hope this judge does get overturned on his ruling, just absolutely ludicrous how he ruled.

so you offered and now you're not going to find the reg; just point at some volumes... yay for you!

I don't have all night to spend trying to load the PDF files when they will not load as I have better things to do than to teach you federal law. Frankly I don't give a damn what you think ElFenix as I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong but I know that I'm right in this case.

 

[NutBucket]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: NutBucket
Uhm, El Fenix, Texas smog laws are tougher then federal standards as well (at least the testing).

what does that have to do with anything?

You act as if Cali is the only state with smog req's that are tougher then federal standards.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: nsafreak
I don't have all night to spend trying to load the PDF files when they will not load as I have better things to do than to teach you federal law. Frankly I don't give a damn what you think ElFenix as I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong but I know that I'm right in this case.

txt files seem to load ok for me, but i'm not willing to spend all night to prove your point for you when you offered to do so. i mean, you offered and now you're pussying out and trying to blame me.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: NutBucket

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: NutBucket
Uhm, El Fenix, Texas smog laws are tougher then federal standards as well (at least the testing).

what does that have to do with anything?

You act as if Cali is the only state with smog req's that are tougher then federal standards.

where did i do that?

 

[nsafreak]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: nsafreak
I don't have all night to spend trying to load the PDF files when they will not load as I have better things to do than to teach you federal law. Frankly I don't give a damn what you think ElFenix as I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong but I know that I'm right in this case.

txt files seem to load ok for me, but i'm not willing to spend all night to prove your point for you when you offered to do so. i mean, you offered and now you're pussying out and trying to blame me.

Not trying to blame you but if you really want to find out then you should just read the law, educate yourself for crying out loud. Besides I made my point already with the posting of Article VI of the friggin CONSTITUTION now just shut the hell up.

 

[BornStar]

Realizing that this probably isn't the state that the Evo person is from, I was able to find this tidbit from Michigan (my home state).

A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if driver visibility through the rear window is obstructed, unless the vehicle is equipped with 2 rearview mirrors, 1 on each side, adjusted so that the operator has a clear view of the highway behind the vehicle.

Text

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: nsafreak
Not trying to blame you but if you really want to find out then you should just read the law, educate yourself for crying out loud. Besides I made my point already with the posting of Article VI of the friggin CONSTITUTION now just shut the hell up.

i suggest you educate yourself. article 6 doesn't mean that the states can't regulate in a place that the federal gov't can. no reason to get your panties in a twist about it, though.

 

[maziwanka]

thats good. stupid as$ ridiculous wings.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Also, name a car that has trouble with road traction at normal highway speeds? WTF do you want to increase downward force, which in turn increases the rolling friction, which decreases gas mileage?

because at heart we're all boyracers.

Baaaaaaaammmmmmmm!

- M4H

 

[Dulanic]

This is how traffic courts in our country are, they aren't even courts anymore IMO, they are simply collection agency's out to grab some of our money. There is no innocence or guilt, there is pay us and admit it, and well give you supervision or driving school etc... Or don't admit your guilty and it goes straight to your record AND we take the money. Atleast that's how it is in IL where they can give supervision. If you walk in and say not guilty, the judge will actually warn you, that if you fight it and lose it's going right on your record vs supervision if you plead guilty. It is such CRAP!

I have had ONE ticket in 6 years, and it was for no seat belt... I still have NO idea why he pulled me over. But he did, so I took off my seatbelt for a moment to get out my wallet, got a ticket. He could NEVER have seen if I was wearing it or not, it was dark out, black car, black interior, and I had a black shirt on. I even went out and took pictures from the angle he was at, you couldnt tell if I was wearing my seatbelt or not... I had PROOF he couldnt have seen it, and GUILTY.

Traffic Court is a load of sh1t, they need to rename it the department of revenue.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Dulanic
This is how traffic courts in our country are, they aren't even courts anymore IMO, they are simply collection agency's out to grab some of our money. There is no innocence or guilt, there is pay us and admit it, and well give you supervision or driving school etc... Or don't admit your guilty and it goes straight to your record AND we take the money. Atleast that's how it is in IL where they can give supervision. If you walk in and say not guilty, the judge will actually warn you, that if you fight it and lose it's going right on your record vs supervision if you plead guilty. It is such CRAP!

I have had ONE ticket in 6 years, and it was for no seat belt... I still have NO idea why he pulled me over. But he did, so I took off my seatbelt for a moment to get out my wallet, got a ticket. He could NEVER have seen if I was wearing it or not, it was dark out, black car, black interior, and I had a black shirt on. I even went out and took pictures from the angle he was at, you couldnt tell if I was wearing my seatbelt or not... I had PROOF he couldnt have seen it, and GUILTY.

Traffic Court is a load of sh1t, they need to rename it the department of revenue.

yeah the traffic court system in IL is a joke. IF you fignt it you lose all rights etc. BUT if you admit guilt you get supervision etc.

 

[geno]

Originally posted by: maziwanka
thats good. stupid as$ ridiculous wings.

I agree they're stupid, but there's no way that he deserves a ticket for a stock piece of bodywork that is certifiably legal for use in the US.

 

[Dulanic]

Originally posted by: waggy
yeah the traffic court system in IL is a joke. IF you fignt it you lose all rights etc. BUT if you admit guilt you get supervision etc.

See and the worst part isn't just that a system like that is messed up where they take away rights if you exercise rights. The worst part is it is a collection agency, just like a CA, they don't CARE if your guilty or not, you need to PAY them.

This pic that they posted in that forum makes this whole thing just hilarious.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: OS
link

WTF

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
no, not at all. in the state of texas driver's manual that i got with driver's ed when i was 16 it put specifications in for various things, and said that some things are not legal as they come from the factory. it also said that the buyer is responsible for modifying things to make them legal. the example given was the giant tow mirrors hanging off every F250 in the state, which stick out further than the legally allowed limit from the body of the truck. unfortunately every ebadass out here thinks he knows what the law is, and are usually surprised when they actually find out

This post seems pretty relevant to me, but everyone is ignoring it... I'm not a lawyer, but this situation strikes me as being analagous to the CA smog laws that Ornery brought up.

As for not being able to sell an illegally equipped car off the lot - my car came STOCK with illegal tint. I doubt it was even an option to get the car without it.

Actually I'm sure almost all if not all cars sold in NJ have illegal tint.

Holy crap, ylen13 posted in that thread... I don't miss that guy for a second.