UPDATED Wing ticket
Originally Posted by jcnel_evo8
I went through WI's transportation code and only came up with this:
"
Trans 305.26 Mirrors.
(1) All motor vehicles originally
manufactured with an inside mounted rearview mirror and all
homemade and reconstructed motor vehicles registered after January
1, 1975, shall be equipped with an inside mounted rearview
mirror. All motor vehicles originally manufactured with a left outside
rearview mirror and all homemade and reconstructed motor
vehicles registered after January 1, 1975, shall be equipped with
a left outside rearview mirror.
(2) The mirrors of every motor vehicle shall be maintained in
proper working condition and in conformity with this section and
s. 347.40, Stats.
(3) No mirror may be broken, cracked, discolored, non−reflective
or otherwise reflect an inadequate image. All mirrors shall
be securely mounted on the vehicle.
(4) If the vehicle is constructed, loaded, or towing another
vehicle so as to prevent the operator’s clear view to the right rear,
adequate additional mirrors shall be installed on both sides of the
outside of the vehicle.
History: Cr. Register, February, 1996, No. 482, eff. 3−1−96.
347.40 Mirrors. (1) No person shall operate any motor
vehicle upon a highway unless such vehicle is equipped with a
mirror so located as to reflect to the operator a view of the roadway
for a distance of 200 feet to the rear of such vehicle
"
Those were the 'only' things related to a 'wing.' Could you please put down the 'code' you were cited against? Perhaps a 'real' lawyer on this board could chime in.
BTW, Don't take ANYTHING I'm saying as 'legal' advice. I'm just here offering my personal opinion.
0.02
jcnel
"
Trans 305.26 Mirrors.
(1) All motor vehicles originally
manufactured with an inside mounted rearview mirror and all
homemade and reconstructed motor vehicles registered after January
1, 1975, shall be equipped with an inside mounted rearview
mirror. All motor vehicles originally manufactured with a left outside
rearview mirror and all homemade and reconstructed motor
vehicles registered after January 1, 1975, shall be equipped with
a left outside rearview mirror.
(2) The mirrors of every motor vehicle shall be maintained in
proper working condition and in conformity with this section and
s. 347.40, Stats.
(3) No mirror may be broken, cracked, discolored, non−reflective
or otherwise reflect an inadequate image. All mirrors shall
be securely mounted on the vehicle.
(4) If the vehicle is constructed, loaded, or towing another
vehicle so as to prevent the operator’s clear view to the right rear,
adequate additional mirrors shall be installed on both sides of the
outside of the vehicle.
History: Cr. Register, February, 1996, No. 482, eff. 3−1−96.
347.40 Mirrors. (1) No person shall operate any motor
vehicle upon a highway unless such vehicle is equipped with a
mirror so located as to reflect to the operator a view of the roadway
for a distance of 200 feet to the rear of such vehicle
"
Those were the 'only' things related to a 'wing.' Could you please put down the 'code' you were cited against? Perhaps a 'real' lawyer on this board could chime in.
BTW, Don't take ANYTHING I'm saying as 'legal' advice. I'm just here offering my personal opinion.
0.02
jcnel
Everybody on here is turning this from a visability ruling to a factor wing issue he needs to be more concerned about how other vehicles can drive without use of the inside mirror than worrying about other cars that have big wings from the factory.
The ticket still sucks and you should try to get the phrasing of the law changed.
Newbie
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by mbs
Sounds like the law in WI is that you have to have a inside unubstructed wing which means you are screwed. I know in some states you only have to have one mirror. If I were you I would go talk to the DA and ask him about the inside mirror law and ask him how panel vans and semis ect. ect. ect. are able to drive and not get tickets.
Everybody on here is turning this from a visability ruling to a factor wing issue he needs to be more concerned about how other vehicles can drive without use of the inside mirror than worrying about other cars that have big wings from the factory.
The ticket still sucks and you should try to get the phrasing of the law changed.
Everybody on here is turning this from a visability ruling to a factor wing issue he needs to be more concerned about how other vehicles can drive without use of the inside mirror than worrying about other cars that have big wings from the factory.
The ticket still sucks and you should try to get the phrasing of the law changed.
Newbie
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
I am pretty sure the Lotus Elise is the ONLY car sold in America that is illegal for public roads. It is for TRACK USE ONLY.
It would be incredibly ridiculous and incredulous (like the ous's?) for Mitsubishi to sell you a 'sort of' legal car
, in that it is DOT-approved, you can get it legally plated for the road and fully insured, BUT unfortunately 
has to give you a 'special map' of which BACKWARDS counties in America you can't drive your now pseudo-legal car through because the wing is a little, you know, obstructive looking.
What a bunch of crap. Just another example of our freedoms being stripped away..
It would be incredibly ridiculous and incredulous (like the ous's?) for Mitsubishi to sell you a 'sort of' legal car
, in that it is DOT-approved, you can get it legally plated for the road and fully insured, BUT unfortunately has to give you a 'special map' of which BACKWARDS counties in America you can't drive your now pseudo-legal car through because the wing is a little, you know, obstructive looking. What a bunch of crap. Just another example of our freedoms being stripped away..
As it was said before, with the statement that some companies made special cars just for certian states to meet that state's special regulations, if the evolution wasn't legal for ANY reason in wisconsin MITSUBISHI would be responsible for either making a special evolution for sale in that market or they would have to completely change the USDM Evo to meet the requirements of all 50 states.... a dealer cannot sell a car that is not legal to drive on the street without prior notification to the buyer....PERIOD even if it is breaking the vehicle code the judge is wrong in fining the owner of the car in this case, as it was not an option for the car it is standard equiptment with the exception of the rs. I REALLY doubt that mitsubishi would be selling this car in wisconsin with that wing if it is illegal to have it on there. And also how can you say that the US DOT has nothing to do with this situation? The US DOT is the only section of our government authorized to legalize or illegalize a car or any part upon it. True, the state can make higher standards and if these standards are not met the individual state's Department of Transportation must contact both the manufacturer and the federal DOT in order to get the problem resolved for that individual state. When the Wisconsin judicial system came up with this verdict they basically illegalized this United States Department Of Transportation approved vehicle by saying that a part upon it is not legal to their standards and they blamed it upon the consumer who bought the product instead of themselves for not knowing that this car broke thier regulations to begin with. Don't you all just love our judical system? I've lost alot of faith in it.
Evolving Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
From: Memphis, TN
Originally Posted by Laser2Talon2Evo
I am pretty sure the Lotus Elise is the ONLY car sold in America that is illegal for public roads. It is for TRACK USE ONLY.
It would be incredibly ridiculous and incredulous (like the ous's?) for Mitsubishi to sell you a 'sort of' legal car , in that it is DOT-approved, you can get it legally plated for the road and fully insured, BUT unfortunately has to give you a 'special map' of which BACKWARDS counties in America you can't drive your now pseudo-legal car through because the wing is a little, you know, obstructive looking.
What a bunch of crap. Just another example of our freedoms being stripped away..
It would be incredibly ridiculous and incredulous (like the ous's?) for Mitsubishi to sell you a 'sort of' legal car
, in that it is DOT-approved, you can get it legally plated for the road and fully insured, BUT unfortunately has to give you a 'special map' of which BACKWARDS counties in America you can't drive your now pseudo-legal car through because the wing is a little, you know, obstructive looking. What a bunch of crap. Just another example of our freedoms being stripped away..
Originally Posted by ylen13
Chances are the answer to that question will be because they are commercial vehicles and have different code regulating them
Originally Posted by lil'evil_evo
I'm sorry, but WI sucks. I lived there for twenty one years.
Wisconsin Law:
346.88(3)(c)
(c) No person shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway so loaded or with any object so placed or suspended in or upon the vehicle so as to obstruct the driver's clear vision through the rear window unless such vehicle is equipped with an outside rear view mirror meeting the requirements of 347.40(1)
(1) No person shall operate any motor vehicle upon a highway unless such vehicle is equipped with a mirror so located as to reflect to the operator a view of the roadway for a distance of 200 feet to the rear of such vehicle.
So what is the word here? I really wanna know what the deal is with this case. Has anything been accomplished here because there is no possible way that this case will not get overturned if you fight it.
Originally Posted by jimmyv65
That's funny, because I like WI and think Vegas sucks!
Wisconsin Law:
346.88(3)(c)
(c) No person shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway so loaded or with any object so placed or suspended in or upon the vehicle so as to obstruct the driver's clear vision through the rear window unless such vehicle is equipped with an outside rear view mirror meeting the requirements of 347.40(1)
(1) No person shall operate any motor vehicle upon a highway unless such vehicle is equipped with a mirror so located as to reflect to the operator a view of the roadway for a distance of 200 feet to the rear of such vehicle.
Wisconsin Law:
346.88(3)(c)
(c) No person shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway so loaded or with any object so placed or suspended in or upon the vehicle so as to obstruct the driver's clear vision through the rear window unless such vehicle is equipped with an outside rear view mirror meeting the requirements of 347.40(1)
(1) No person shall operate any motor vehicle upon a highway unless such vehicle is equipped with a mirror so located as to reflect to the operator a view of the roadway for a distance of 200 feet to the rear of such vehicle.
I paid approx. 1,000 in tickets. Since living here I have yet to see a cop even turn his head at my evo 
Last edited by lil'evil_evo; Nov 16, 2004 at 09:28 PM.
I think I would be talking to Mitsubishi corporate and ask for representation by their legal team. Otherwise if the state has determined that the car is not legal as sold you most likely have a civil path to pursue with the dealer and corporate. Your settlement might be the corporation funding removal of the high spoiler in favor of a low spoiler.
Just my 2c.
Just my 2c.
Evolved Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
From: <--- that way
Originally Posted by mbs
Sounds like the law in WI is that you have to have a inside unubstructed wing which means you are screwed. I know in some states you only have to have one mirror. If I were you I would go talk to the DA and ask him about the inside mirror law and ask him how panel vans and semis ect. ect. ect. are able to drive and not get tickets.
Everybody on here is turning this from a visability ruling to a factor wing issue he needs to be more concerned about how other vehicles can drive without use of the inside mirror than worrying about other cars that have big wings from the factory.
The ticket still sucks and you should try to get the phrasing of the law changed.
Everybody on here is turning this from a visability ruling to a factor wing issue he needs to be more concerned about how other vehicles can drive without use of the inside mirror than worrying about other cars that have big wings from the factory.
The ticket still sucks and you should try to get the phrasing of the law changed.
WI rep or judge or lawyer or whoever answer that, please?