vegas is cool. we get sema

 

I don't think these last few posts read enough of what the law really says. Let me try to intrepret...

Quote:

"
(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.
(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"

--The first law says there must be an inside rearview mirror in the EVO. Check ... Done.
--The second law says you can 'have' vehicles that are 'constructed' with rearview blockers. Utility vans, big trucks, etc ... The EVO has a 'wing' and it 'does' block a little, but that doesn't mean the EVO can't have a wing.
--The EVO just needs to have 'additional' mirrors to 'compensate.' That means the two outside drivers mirrors should take up this legal slack.
Check ... done.

Hope that helps ... I just think we're waiting to see where this case is going.

Thanks,

jcnel.

 

It might come to this:

Mitsubishi will sell the wing as an option and deliver it in the back seat of your car with installation instructions. They'll cover their *** by not delivering an illegal car.

 

lack of any updates by the origional poster leads me to believe that he probably gave up and just paid the fine.

 

yea, bump to the top, i wanna know if he won or not

 

Dec 3rd is the next court date

 

thx for update will wait for next update after the court date gl

 

It sounds like we need some action here. If the warranty stuff everyone complains about is true then there should be a class-action lawsuit filed. And if people are getting tickets for wings we need to call the ACLU as this is a totally stock and legal piece that was OK's by the US government.

 

Come on folks, win this. Members of clubrsx are waiting for the result.

http://forums.clubrsx.com/showthread.php?t=211654

My friend has a EVO8 and i give it a lot of respect. The handling is just great.

 

ylen13 is right in that individual states may make more stringent laws than federal laws. Anyone in the financial world may be familiar with Regulation 60 in New York, for example.

ylen13 is wrong in that in his 10 or 20 posts, he has yet to acknowledge that people have quoted the exact law in Wisconsin multiple times stating that all vehicles must have unimpaired rear view through an interior mirror, and if such view is impaired, the vehicle must have two exterior mirrors, which two simple photos, or commom sense, would prove. Although, it is natural for people to not admit being wrong, most people don't admit it, so I wouldn't expect ylen13 to.

I was with ylen13 until he said he hopes the person loses their appeal. Laws are meant to keep people safe and fair and all that stuff. If this person was indeed breaking a law, which the are clearly not, why would you want them to be found guilty of an interpretation of law that serves no purpose in society. I hope you didn't think Rosa Parks should have been found guilty for refusing to give up her seat, even though at the time she was legally at fault.

 

Don't mind ylen13, his age is shown on his user name. He just want to **** everyone off for some attention. Don't give it to him.

 

ClA you are also on Clubrsx arent you...

 

Keep us posted.

 

they can make laws stricter .... but if the law was already in effect, then they could write you a ticket for you ...

BUT, then Mitsu should have known, and wouldnt have been allowed to sell the car in the state ...

which would make this legal stuff go against Mitsu ......

but considering that Mitsu prob would have known about this, then the cop was just being a dipdick ....

hope you win

 

Personally, if nothing else, I think I'd have to find/damage property belonging to the officer and judge equal to the amount I paid. Childish/criminal, yes, but oh so satisfying. I still can't believe it! I get livid just thinking about it!

-Leland