Oldy but goody vid. Me > cop
03-17-2009, 08:50 PM
#61
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Corpus Christi Texas
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you please point me to the vehicle code where it states otherwise? Not being a "whiny bitch", I'd just like to learn. It'd be nice to know so I can inform my Uncle of the FPD, the Sargent of the KCSD, and my attorney who specializes in traffic citations and happens to be a 20+ year veteran of the CHP.
but that doesnt happen with 2/32 of tread
03-17-2009, 09:01 PM
#62
Can you please point me to the vehicle code where it states otherwise? Not being a "whiny bitch", I'd just like to learn. It'd be nice to know so I can inform my Uncle of the FPD, the Sargent of the KCSD, and my attorney who specializes in traffic citations and happens to be a 20+ year veteran of the CHP.
You, your uncle, your attorney, you guys are all right, the point i am making is for you to ask them if he would have cited you for unsafe vehicle due to RACING TIRES and nothing to do with tread, if the cite would have stuck
03-17-2009, 09:16 PM
#63
You stated in post that the code section can not apply to your tires because of street tread and i agree with you, the officer was wrong for citing you for bald tires due to tread, your tires are not illegal because of the tread, they are illegal because they are designed and marked as racing tires, which in CA you can not drive a racing tire on the highway. So he cited you the right section just used the wrong terms, he should have stated the vehicle was unsafe due to racing tires, not due to tread. That is all i am pointing out, im not saying your uncle or attorney is wrong, they are saying the exact same thing you are, but the fact is that DOT does not approve tires for street driving, they approve ALL tires so that manufactures can sell them, otherwise if DOT did not get involved then people could sell you shitty tires that could explode.
You, your uncle, your attorney, you guys are all right, the point i am making is for you to ask them if he would have cited you for unsafe vehicle due to RACING TIRES and nothing to do with tread, if the cite would have stuck
You, your uncle, your attorney, you guys are all right, the point i am making is for you to ask them if he would have cited you for unsafe vehicle due to RACING TIRES and nothing to do with tread, if the cite would have stuck
Also, can you show me the vehicle code you are enforcing when you cite someone for "racing tires"?
03-17-2009, 09:24 PM
#64
Ive all ready went over this, you cite for THE SAME SECTION you were cited for, UNSAFE VEHICLE then you specify that it is for racing tires.
03-18-2009, 06:34 PM
#68
To be honest with you I think that the sargent signed it off because he did not want to deal with a whiny little bitch, no offense. The LAW states in vehicle section code 27465 paragraph e that it is up to the department to decide what is "safe" or not. The fact that the minimum tread requirement is 1/32 of an inch and you had 6/32 of an inch would have not made a big difference in court IMO. BUT because of your "persistence" you got the ticket signed off.
I have been reading each code section that relates to tires and so far have found nothing to indicate that a DOT approved tire with 1/8" tread depth is illegal in any way, unless it is a snow tire.
03-18-2009, 06:36 PM
#69
Don't mis-read that section:
It doesn't leave the discretion up to the untrained officer. It states the department may adopt different regulations that must also keep within reasonable safety requirements. So, no, it is not okay for the officer to change LAW on a whim. Additionally, even if Kern adopted different regulations (which it did not), I doubt they would require depth greater than 6/32" since that would likely fall outside of the reasonable realm.
Call me a whiny little bitch all you want. Even a whiny little bitch has given rights rewared with the privlidge of obtaining a drivers license
It doesn't leave the discretion up to the untrained officer. It states the department may adopt different regulations that must also keep within reasonable safety requirements. So, no, it is not okay for the officer to change LAW on a whim. Additionally, even if Kern adopted different regulations (which it did not), I doubt they would require depth greater than 6/32" since that would likely fall outside of the reasonable realm.
Call me a whiny little bitch all you want. Even a whiny little bitch has given rights rewared with the privlidge of obtaining a drivers license
I think you're 100% in the right man
03-18-2009, 06:39 PM
#70
You stated in post that the code section can not apply to your tires because of street tread and i agree with you, the officer was wrong for citing you for bald tires due to tread, your tires are not illegal because of the tread, they are illegal because they are designed and marked as racing tires, which in CA you can not drive a racing tire on the highway. So he cited you the right section just used the wrong terms, he should have stated the vehicle was unsafe due to racing tires, not due to tread. That is all i am pointing out, im not saying your uncle or attorney is wrong, they are saying the exact same thing you are, but the fact is that DOT does not approve tires for street driving, they approve ALL tires so that manufactures can sell them, otherwise if DOT did not get involved then people could sell you shitty tires that could explode.
You, your uncle, your attorney, you guys are all right, the point i am making is for you to ask them if he would have cited you for unsafe vehicle due to RACING TIRES and nothing to do with tread, if the cite would have stuck
You, your uncle, your attorney, you guys are all right, the point i am making is for you to ask them if he would have cited you for unsafe vehicle due to RACING TIRES and nothing to do with tread, if the cite would have stuck
03-19-2009, 01:19 AM
#72
You will be waiting for a while, im on vacation until the end of march, also you are missing the point. The section is a very loose section, all i have to do is provide that it is an unsafe vehicle, based on my training and experience the tires you are driving on are unsafe for highway, couple that with the hoosier warning NOT to drive them on the highway and you have an unsafe vehicle. No where in the section does it say there has to be a law making racing tires illegal.
03-19-2009, 10:05 AM
#74
You will be waiting for a while, im on vacation until the end of march, also you are missing the point. The section is a very loose section, all i have to do is provide that it is an unsafe vehicle, based on my training and experience the tires you are driving on are unsafe for highway, couple that with the hoosier warning NOT to drive them on the highway and you have an unsafe vehicle. No where in the section does it say there has to be a law making racing tires illegal.
Unfortunately, Hoosier does not create law for you to enforce....... CALIFORNIA does, and it says tires must be DOT approved and have 2/32" or greater tread depth to be driven on the highway. No where (unless you can point it out to me once you're off vacation) does it say "racing tires" are illegal.
When I had my "bald tire" portion of the ticket signed off by local CHP, the officer asked about why the hell there was an "unsafe vehicle" violation on the ticket. I explained the entire situation to him (including that their Sargent dropped the violation) and he said they only use that section for cars without proper seat belts, or without windshields. He couldn't believe the officer used that section for "bald tires" even regardless of the FACT that they were well within required specs by CALIFORNIA LAW.
03-19-2009, 12:56 PM
#75
I'm not going to speak on his behalf but what I read in his statements is that this is a judgment call by the officer. Being that, he does not need to be an expert on tire construction. Just the same as if you were driving on a flat tire he could say "the tires you are driving on are unsafe for highway use". If that were the case, would you in turn say "you have absolutely zero formal training in tire construction..."
03-19-2009, 01:31 PM
#76
I'm not going to speak on his behalf but what I read in his statements is that this is a judgment call by the officer. Being that, he does not need to be an expert on tire construction. Just the same as if you were driving on a flat tire he could say "the tires you are driving on are unsafe for highway use". If that were the case, would you in turn say "you have absolutely zero formal training in tire construction..."
I can understand a fix it ticket for "bald tires".......but to cite a vehicle as "unsafe" seems a little excessive to me (and several other qualified people) considering the tires are DOT approved for highway use and have ample tread depth.
03-19-2009, 03:20 PM
#77
I'm not going to speak on his behalf but what I read in his statements is that this is a judgment call by the officer. Being that, he does not need to be an expert on tire construction. Just the same as if you were driving on a flat tire he could say "the tires you are driving on are unsafe for highway use". If that were the case, would you in turn say "you have absolutely zero formal training in tire construction..."
03-19-2009, 03:24 PM
#78
On The Tree
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: long beach, ca.
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think he is wrong though Bry. i highly doubt there is a section that reads: "Any car that an officer deems 'unsafe' for any reason." It makes no sense that he would be able to decide that his tires were "unsafe" when they meet the tread depth and DOT requirements. There is no code section that reads "any tire that an officer thinks looks weird may be deemed unsafe."
03-19-2009, 03:28 PM
#79
According to the code sections on tires, the tires are legal. Yet he is saying that there is another code section that allows him to override the section directly relating to tires and deem them unsafe? What is the purpose of having the code section laying out the elements required for tires to be deemed roadworthy if it can just be ignored at the officer's discretion?
So those are the rules for tires, unless the cop decides he doesnt like them? lol. I dont see the justification for deeming them unsafe. Until he presents us with that section, I guess we've come to a halt in this discussion
So those are the rules for tires, unless the cop decides he doesnt like them? lol. I dont see the justification for deeming them unsafe. Until he presents us with that section, I guess we've come to a halt in this discussion
03-19-2009, 03:51 PM
#80
I think he is wrong though Bry. i highly doubt there is a section that reads: "Any car that an officer deems 'unsafe' for any reason." It makes no sense that he would be able to decide that his tires were "unsafe" when they meet the tread depth and DOT requirements. There is no code section that reads "any tire that an officer thinks looks weird may be deemed unsafe."
Something just came to mind though: Are non-full-size spares DOT approved?
According to the code sections on tires, the tires are legal. Yet he is saying that there is another code section that allows him to override the section directly relating to tires and deem them unsafe? What is the purpose of having the code section laying out the elements required for tires to be deemed roadworthy if it can just be ignored at the officer's discretion?
So those are the rules for tires, unless the cop decides he doesnt like them? lol. I dont see the justification for deeming them unsafe. Until he presents us with that section, I guess we've come to a halt in this discussion
So those are the rules for tires, unless the cop decides he doesnt like them? lol. I dont see the justification for deeming them unsafe. Until he presents us with that section, I guess we've come to a halt in this discussion
Regardless, the takeaway message for the OP is "I made a cop look like a fool and I have a video to prove it".