At fault in an accident.

[rohan]

Perhaps one reason for that is that the windshield on that car is all but removed completely- you'd need at the bare minimum some decent eyewear to drive that thing at any speed.

Then the car was illegal to drive and that's probably got something to do with it.  Most if not all states require windshields -especially if they were originally equipped.

[Soup DeVille]

Then the car was illegal to drive and that's probably got something to do with it.  Most if not all states require windshields -especially if they were originally equipped.

Perhaps. There's a windshield there, but it can't be doing much of anything.

P.S: Would a Jeep with a folding windshield be illegal too then to drive around with the windshield folded down?

[Eye of the Tiger]

Perhaps. There's a windshield there, but it can't be doing much of anything.

P.S: Would a Jeep with a folding windshield be illegal too then to drive around with the windshield folded down?

It's also illegal not to have a rear window, apparently - or so I learned when I drove from Mississississippi to South Carolina in my '79 LeMans after hurrican Katrina.

[Soup DeVille]

It's also illegal not to have a rear window, apparently - or so I learned when I drove from Mississississippi to South Carolina in my '79 LeMans after hurrican Katrina.

All I know is that I drove around all the time in the Jeep with the windshield folded and no windows or doors and nobody ever pulled me over for it.

[Eye of the Tiger]

All I know is that I drove around all the time in the Jeep with the windshield folded and no windows or doors and nobody ever pulled me over for it.

I wonder if there is some exception to the law, or if the folding windshield is "for off road use only"

[Soup DeVille]

I wonder if there is some exception to the law, or if the folding windshield is "for off road use only"

I don't know.

[Eye of the Tiger]

I don't know.

Most likely the cops just overlook it because it's expected on a Jeep. It's not like they have the motor vehicle regulations memorized, they'll just pull you over if it looks unusual - such as a sheet of plastic on a 79 LeMans with a sagging rear end that might have a trunk full of drugs or Cubans.

[Soup DeVille]

Most likely the cops just overlook it because it's expected on a Jeep. It's not like they have the motor vehicle regulations memorized, they'll just pull you over if it looks unusual - such as a sheet of plastic on a 79 LeMans with a sagging rear end that might have a trunk full of drugs or Cubans.

You're probably 100% correct there.

Although, I'd never make the claim that sometimes cops use minor equipment violations as an excuse to pull over a car just to find out if they were up to something more nefarious...

[bing_oh]

Although, I'd never make the claim that sometimes cops use minor equipment violations as an excuse to pull over a car just to find out if they were up to something more nefarious...

Why not? I'll openly admit that we use minor equipment violations to stop vehicles suspected of criminal activity. It's not a secret...it's called a pretextual stop and it's been upheld by the US Supreme Court as perfectly legal.

[NomisR]

Here's some pictures of the car after the accident

[NomisR]

Several ways to be found at fault- especially if there were witnesses.

I've been to a lot of traffic crashes and I've never seen anyone wearing a crash helmet - that's strike one.

That looks really residential- so it's quite probably 25-35 mph zone and it's a construction zone so even if it WAS a 35 zone it's probably limited now to 25.  Strike 2.

I've never ever seen anyone airlifted who was going 25-45 and hit broadside (angle) crash. Granted it's a small car but I've seen lots of small cars broadsided.  Strike 3.

It just doesn't happen- there's way more to the story he's not telling like which side was he hit one- what was the secondary impact with- where did his car come to rest- how many feet of skid marks were there prior to primary impact from his car- how many after impact- how many after secondary impact- how many witnesses- lastly- what was his speed at 1)prior to impact 2)at point of impact 3)prior to and at point of secondary impact 4)how far from primary impact to resting point 5)how much damage to both cars (need to see photos to roughly guage crush data. 

I just don't believe his story based on the little info and the photo.

My guess is, this is exactly the reason why he was found at fault regardless of actual fact.  First you see a fast looking car, and then you see a guy driving with a helmet.  Regardless of what actually happened, the officer would automatically assume the driver was speeding. 

But the windshield or lackthereof is road legal in CA.  It has the bare min required height for CA. 

[Tave]

It's also illegal not to have a rear window, apparently - or so I learned when I drove from Mississississippi to South Carolina in my '79 LeMans after hurrican Katrina.

What a worthless law. How does it square with convertibles/roadsters?

[hounddog]

Perhaps. There's a windshield there, but it can't be doing much of anything.

P.S: Would a Jeep with a folding windshield be illegal too then to drive around with the windshield folded down?

Must have windshield up in Michigan.  However, I suppose as long as your not hurting anyone officers in your area generally have more to do than bother with that.  But, you could get a citation.

[hounddog]

My guess is, this is exactly the reason why he was found at fault regardless of actual fact.  First you see a fast looking car, and then you see a guy driving with a helmet.  Regardless of what actually happened, the officer would automatically assume the driver was speeding. 

But the windshield or lackthereof is road legal in CA.  It has the bare min required height for CA. 

You are joking, I hope.  Officers see fast looking cars on a daily basis, and many have fast cars themselves.  We are hardly impressed upon that easily, otherwise, police would fall for every lie ever told to us. 

What we look for is totality of circumstances when investigating a traffic crash for fault. 

[James Young]

And, failing to find the "totality of circumstances" opt for excessive speed as a politically safe haven.

[bing_oh]

My guess is, this is exactly the reason why he was found at fault regardless of actual fact.  First you see a fast looking car, and then you see a guy driving with a helmet.  Regardless of what actually happened, the officer would automatically assume the driver was speeding.

He would have had to have been going at some pretty spectacular speeds for me to take a speed over a stop sign violation when determining at fault in a crash. Besides, I don't know of any officer who would make speed the primary contributing cause in a crash without spmething more than a fast-looking car and a schmuch who thinks he's Mario Andretti and likes to wear a helmet...like, maybe, skid marks?

[James Young]

He would have had to have been going at some pretty spectacular speeds for me to take a speed over a stop sign violation when determining at fault in a crash. Besides, I don't know of any officer who would make speed the primary contributing cause in a crash without spmething more than a fast-looking car and a schmuch who thinks he's Mario Andretti and likes to wear a helmet...like, maybe, skid marks?

Excellent!  I congratulate you.  You have no idea how rare that is.

[NomisR]

You are joking, I hope.  Officers see fast looking cars on a daily basis, and many have fast cars themselves.  We are hardly impressed upon that easily, otherwise, police would fall for every lie ever told to us. 

What we look for is totality of circumstances when investigating a traffic crash for fault. 

Yeah, but you look at rohan's post, the driver was basically deemed at fault already without any further investigation.  Well, will have to see what happens when in court I guess.

[hounddog]

Rohan found him at fault based on the tiny shards of information you gave us. 

Even I could read that out his posts.

[hounddog]

You have no idea how rare that is.

I am fairly confident you do not either.