Aftermarket Parts Illegal for registered vehicles

[J Piroth]

Huh? I don't even get the point of this thread.



So...you'd rather law enforcement go after those who market and manufacture the products you apparently get some enjoyment out of using instead of simply penalizing you when you use those products in illegal ways?



While we're at it, lets stop those darn farmers from producing all those eggs that kids may or may not throw at houses.

 

[shawn stonbraker 2]

Alot of the stuff the aftermarket people put out is for show or whatever. Not for road use. tint isn't illegal in all states, but if the car isn't just for shows, you need to remove it to drive on the road. I know it sucks. I'd love to tint my Driver and Pass. front door windows, but in Pa, if it's not from the factory that way, it's not allowed. Most of the time they just tell you to take it off and report to the station in so many days, and get no fine. Then you can go and chance it again and put more back on, but who needs that hassle. Doind what you were doing with the Hydro's in a parking lot or parked along the street is fine, but to do it on the road at a stop light is illegal. You caught the wrong cop on the wrong day. As for the mufflers and such, it mainly falls on the local officials. (most are old farts) So they don't like that load crap. So they call it "disturbing the peace" and fine you to get money from you for having your vehicle the way you want.

 

[TomT]

the law that all wheels must me on the ground at all times

LOL. I never even knew that law existed and I even went to peace officers school. Probably did not exist 22 years ago when I went through the school.

There are two types of cops: peace officers, that are there to make your life safer and law enforcement officers, who believe the have to enforce the letter of the law even though you may not be harming anyone. I hate the latter.

 

[TomT]

the law that all wheels must me on the ground at all times

LOL. I never even knew that law existed and I even went to peace officers school. Probably did not exist 22 years ago when I went through the school.

There are two types of cops: peace officers, that are there to make your life safer and law enforcement officers, who believe the have to enforce the letter of the law even though you may not be harming anyone. I hate cops that call themselves law enforcement officers. They are typically retards unable to make a decision or use discretion.

 

[CountyMounty]

Your post got a little confusing to me at the part about the ticket but I think I have a basic answer to your question. The reason why the law does not go after the manufacturers or sellers of the product is because there are people that buy their products and use them legally. It would be like telling Budweiser they can not sell beer because it might end up being used illegally or by someone who can not use it. Each state has different laws so a product may be legal in one state but illegal in another and in almost all cases almost anything is legal for use off of the public way. Why would you put the responsibility with the manufacturer, how are they going to know if it is being used legally or not, even if they asked peope could and would just lie. Many manufacturers will put disclaimers on their products indicating that it might not be legal for street use or legal in your state and therefore they are saying its up to you, the consumer, to make sure you are not breaking the law.



As for the reason for the laws in the first place it is not like a bunch of cops or legislators got together one day and said hey lets just mess with people and make a bunch of stuff illegal. There are reasons for each one and generally it is some type of safety reason or public nuisance issue like is the case with exhaust or loud music. I am not saying that I agree with all the laws or that you have to agree, but I think if anyone stops and really thinks about it ot just makes more sense to put the responsibility on the user of a product not the manufacturer in almost all cases.



Just FYI out of the maybe 50 officers that I am quite familiar with here there might be one of them that has done any significant illegal modifications to a vehicle (he has a truck for mudding that I know can not be legal to drive on the roads).

 

[CountyMounty]

"There are two types of cops: peace officers, that are there to make your life safer and law enforcement officers, who believe the have to enforce the letter of the law even though you may not be harming anyone. I hate the latter."



TomT while police officers do certainly have some discretion in their duties it is not like we can just pick and chose to only enforce the laws we want to all the time. I am not a big fan of traffic enforcement but it is part of my job and believe it or not most laws are there because of some type of safety reason. Our 29-A statutes (those dealing with all motor vehicle stuff) is just loaded with a bunch of laws that I have never written a ticket for but if the right situation came about I would have to. If I were to tell my supervisor that I didn't really want to be writing tickets for expired regisrtation because I didn't see where it is really harming anyone (except for the the states not getting their money) then I would promptly be disciplined.



I agree an officers job should not be to enforce the "letter of the law" but we do need to enforce the "spirit of the law" meaning that you need to recognize the reason for the law in the first place and if the person violating that law in a situation that was meant to be prevented by that law then you enforce it. For example if I see someone speeding 10mph over on a open 2 lane road on a sunny day I often to do not turn my head but if it is pouring rain or icy and they are going 10mph over then I stop them as they are creating much more of a safety risk.



There are always those who think that officers should be out catching the "real criminals" until they have a complaint on someone that that they orginally would not have classified as a "real criminal" but now it has affected them in some way and they want an officer to take care of it now.

 

[TomT]

Sounds like you and I are on the same page firedog. I'm not saying cops should ignore our laws just use a little discretion. If someone does a rolling stop at an intersection when there's not another vehicle around for miles, who cares. If they do one when the intersection has a lot of traffic and screw other people, then nail them. Look at the intent of the law. That's all I'm asking. Laws are supposed to be made to protect, not harass.

 

[Tom Schindler]

Laws are supposed to be made to protect, not harass.

Amen.



Dad was pulled over for not using his turn signal. The officer was about a half mile ahead of him.



Dad asked the officer if changing a lane behind him without signaling caused any disruption in traffic? The officer said no. Dad asked him what the purpose of a turn signal is for. Officer said to alert other drivers. Dad looked around and said, "Where are the other drivers?"



The cop got back in his car and left.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen...your dad was wrong. Sorry.



We don't get to pick and choose the laws we get to abide and rationalize our way out of those we break. You yourself said that in the thread about illegals.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Dad may have been wrong, but the officer agree with him and walked away knowing dad had a valid point.



"If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?"



If the law says I must signal when changing a lane, but there is nobody around to see the signal, did I really signal?





Tom



EDIT: If there is nobody around, is there really a need to signal. I do it anyways, but is there a need to signal? I do not think a signal is there to tell me I am getting over a lane.

 

[TomT]

We don't get to pick and choose the laws we get to abide and rationalize our way out of those we break

You obviously don't get it TJR. (I'm glad your not a cop). There are so many laws that the code enforcements given to police officers cannot dictate every little scenario as to when a law should be enforced and when it should not be. Officers are expected to use their discretion.

Remember, laws are written by lawyers. Have you ever read anything written by a lawyer that you could easily understand?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Oh, I get it TomT. I'm NOT saying a policeman shouldn't use their descretion. Nor am I saying that in the case of Tom's father he should have been given a ticket. I am simply showing how people often like to talk in absolutes about the law in one case; for example, illegal immigrants. They like to say: "Hey! They are breaking the law and that's all there is to it!" Then, in other cases, like this, they like to show how the law is somewhat meaningless in a particular situation.



So, as I said, we all like to declare certain laws as absolute and others as descretionary. That's what I GET from this thread and others. What I GET is that people like to talk out of both sides of their mouth on various issues. I'm not saying that is bad, heck I do the same myself. On certain topics I am conservative (or traditional, or hardcore), and others more liberal (lax, forgiving, bending). No one is one-sided and completely polar on all issues and topics.



What I find interesting is that more people can't recognize those "differences" that they themselves have in opinion on differing subjects. For example, if I felt that there were certain laws that shouldn't be enforced under certain situations then I would remember that stance and not be quite as quick to judge and much more willing to listen to other people who felt that same way about some law that I might think should be upheld, absolutely.



The easiest way to understand someone's viewpoint is listen to it unemotionally, and then try to find something from your past or your experiences that made you feel the same way. Few people seem to want to be able to do that, instead they just want to defend their position, rather than understand the other person's.



In this thread we have a member trying to rationalize his actions that he knows to be illegal. Heck, I can think of tons of time I have done the same. The key is to recognize the rationalization and understand the heart of said rationalization. For example: what was the goal in breaking the law? Was it to help others; help myself...did the outcome and its good outweigh whatever possible harm? Understand the rationalization! Almost every time I have tried to rationalize away my bad (or even illegal) behavior in the past and have questioned myself in this way I have come to the same conclusions, and they typically were that I had no really good reason to do what I was doing other than selfishness and a belief and attitude that I knew better or was above the law....and the ultimate conclusion is that I don't want to be "that" type of person, nor do I want to model that behavior to my children.



I think I get it.



Are there too many laws, too many codes to enforce...that's a different issue!



TJR