C.V.C. § 26710
The code, reprinted below, does not make it unlawful to drive with a cracked windshield; it is unlawful to drive with one that "impairs the driver's vision...." Just how much "impairment" is sufficient to run afoul of this code? Well, get this. If I stand about an inch taller in my seat the crack is nearly completely blocked by the rear view mirror, with the exception of one inch from the rear view mirror mounting bracket to the top edge of the glass. So if I come into court with a picture showing this will the judge buy it? Does the Vehicle Code allow one to put a label in this spot, so that affixing a label here would make the crack completely invisible to the driver? I've got a little homework to do. I wish I still had access to Lexis. They have a set of annotated California codes at the library. It might give me some quickie answers, but it's times like this I wish I lived closer to a good legal library.
Worst case, I'll have to replace the windshield and to save a few bucks I'll probably install it myself. *sigh*
Oh, and the Libertarian in me has his blood boiling right now. Whatever effect my crack has on any state interest is super-duper miniscule compared to the cost of replacing a windshield every time I happen to get a crack or large chip from driving behind a truck. The state, with all of its ugly means at its disposal, compels me to shell out my money to do this. I'm not saying the state has no interest whatever, but folks are just to darn ready to give up their right to be left alone--they invite the state into their lives to compel them to do things against their will for the most minimal benefit to the state. Why won't Arnold just leave me alone?!
California Vehicle Code § 26710.
It is unlawful to operate any motor vehicle upon a highway when the windshield or rear window is in such a defective condition as to impair the driver's vision either to the front or rear. In the event any windshield or rear window fails to comply with this code the officer making the inspection shall direct the driver to make the windshield and rear window conform to the requirements of this code within 48 hours. The officer may also arrest the driver and give him notice to appear and further require the driver or the owner of the vehicle to produce in court satisfactory evidence that the windshield or rear window has been made to conform to the requirements of this code.
3 Comments:
At 11:37 AM, mal said…
at the risk of sounding silly, why not fix it? for safety reasons (yours) if nothing else it should be.
appropo to nothing. in the 18 years I drove in California, I lost 1 windshield, in the 16 years I have lived here, I have lost 9
Minnesota is not a good place for windshields
At 1:30 PM, anchovy said…
A new windshield won't make my beater of a truck run any better, go any faster or burn less fuel. The crack had been there for years and I don't fret about aesthetics. I'm pretty pragmatic about such things. Besides, the safety risk is exceedingly minimal and I'm willing to run it.
....but now, at the risk of ME sounding silly, I did actually go out and fix it today! It cost all of $80 and half an hour at one of the shops on Alameda. So there you go, I figured it was worth avoiding the hastle. I feel like a hypocrite now!
At 1:17 PM, Anonymous said…
Too bad the POLICE don't write up the high lifted trucks WITHOUT mud flaps which cause the broken windshields
Post a Comment
<< Home