Texas people enter please

[dv8customs]

Originally Posted by gchemist

Inspection is for one mirror, however the laws states two mirrors. One internal and one external. Law is written to confuse you!

No it doesn't, as I posted previously

From the Texas Transportation Code

Sec. 547.602. MIRRORS REQUIRED. A motor vehicle, including a motor vehicle used to tow another vehicle, shall be equipped with a mirror located to reflect to the operator a view of the highway for a distance of at least 200 feet from the rear of the vehicle.

What part above says two mirrors to you? Last I checked "a mirror" is singular.


All these laws are online guys, just have to look them up.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/

[billetproofcustoms]

I'm down for a texas squarebody meeting as well! Would be very cool!

billetproofcustoms.com

[bigwheel15]

Okay so I finally got to talk to someone over the phone that could answer my question. And as the nice lady told me, only one mirror is required in the state of texas. Im going to the local dmv monday morning for a print out of the law stating only one mirror is needed and my rear view satisfies this, then to set up a court date or whatever needs to be done to get this ticket dismissed.

[allengator]

Originally Posted by bigwheel15

Okay so I finally got to talk to someone over the phone that could answer my question. And as the nice lady told me, only one mirror is required in the state of texas. Im going to the local dmv monday morning for a print out of the law stating only one mirror is needed and my rear view satisfies this, then to set up a court date or whatever needs to be done to get this ticket dismissed.

GREAT!!! Keep us informed!
Posted via Mobile Device

[gchemist]

Originally Posted by dv8customs

No it doesn't, as I posted previously

From the Texas Transportation Code

Sec. 547.602. MIRRORS REQUIRED. A motor vehicle, including a motor vehicle used to tow another vehicle, shall be equipped with a mirror located to reflect to the operator a view of the highway for a distance of at least 200 feet from the rear of the vehicle.

What part above says two mirrors to you? Last I checked "a mirror" is singular.


All these laws are online guys, just have to look them up.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/

Here go again: the law was amended after Sec. 547.602. If you onlys mention that section, any state employee will tell you you are correct. However read the amended sections with "MIRRORS"!
§ 548.051. VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT SUBJECT TO
INSPECTION. (a) A motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, pole
trailer, or mobile home, registered in this state, must have the
following items inspected at an inspection station or by an
inspector:
(1) Tres;
(2) wheel assembly;
(3) safety guards or flaps, if required by Section
547.606;
(4) brake system, including power brake unit;
(5) steering system, including power steering;
(6) lighting equipment;
(7) horns and warning devices;
(8) mirrors;
(9) windshield wipers;
(10) sunscreening devices, unless the vehicle is
exempt from sunscreen device restrictions under Section 547.613;
(11) front seat belts in vehicles on which seat belt
anchorages were part of the manufacturer's original equipment;
(12) tax decal, if required by Section 548.104(d)(1);
(13) exhaust system;
(14) exhaust emission system;
(15) fuel tank cap, using pressurized testing
equipment approved by department rule; and
(16) emissions control equipment as designated by
department rule.
(b) A moped is subject to inspection in the same manner as a
motorcycle, except that the only items of equipment required to be
inspected are the brakes, headlamps, rear lamps, and reflectors,
which must comply with the standards prescribed by Sections 547.408
and 547.801.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended
by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1189, § 29, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.

[barry h.]

You might check i hav found that some state inspection laws differ from the state law,for example window tint

[f.monroe]

Gchemist,
It seems you are stuck on the plural word but the law seems to state only one mirror is required . If you have more than one they will be inspecting all of them so the law states to inspect "mirrors". Just my opinion but it seems that one will do the job. I am curious as to the outcome of this.
Frank

[allengator]

Update??
Did you get your ticket dismissed???

[D13]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards require 2 mirrors.
1 on the drivers door
1 inside is required there is one on the passenger door (this is how come you can run a solid back truck/van/van body, it has 2 outside mirrors).

So technically even if Texas only requires 1, the vehicle would be illegal by the Federal standard.

No I don't live in Texas.

[allengator]

Originally Posted by D13

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards require 2 mirrors.
1 on the drivers door
1 inside is required there is one on the passenger door (this is how come you can run a solid back truck/van/van body, it has 2 outside mirrors).

So technically even if Texas only requires 1, the vehicle would be illegal by the Federal standard.

No I don't live in Texas.

FMVSS does not apply here.

"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has a legislative mandate under Title 49 of the United States Code, Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety, to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and Regulations to which manufacturers of motor vehicle and equipment items must conform and certify compliance. FMVSS 209 was the first standard to become effective on March 1, 1967. A number of FMVSS became effective for vehicles manufactured on and after January 1, 1968. Subsequently, other FMVSS have been issued. New standards and amendments to existing standards are published in the Federal Register."

Main point being.... ".....Regulations to which manufacturers of motor vehicle and equipment items must conform and certify compliance...."

These are regulations for manufacturers to certify their designs. There are no provision or penaltiy listed on part #111 (mirrors) for end users.

[bigd65]

Originally Posted by gchemist

A driver side and rear view mirrors are required.
Posted via Mobile Device
Posted via Mobile Device

What he said, and Im a COP

[72lb4x4]

Originally Posted by bigd65

What he said, and Im a COP

Without proof such as a reference to the code/law, you're just someone with an opinion who happens to be a COP.

[bigd65]

I know I can write a ticket to someone missing the driverside and inside rear view mirror. Its called and equipment violation and you reference the violation on the ticket when its is written.
Charge : Motor Vehicle equipment violation (missing driverside mirror, Missing Rear View Mirror ) etc... Have you every gotten a ticket for a head light out, same thing (defective headlamp Driverside, Passengerside) what oether kind of reference do you NEED

[timjt]

Originally Posted by bigd65

What he said, and Im a COP

lol, if the cop will ticket you, then you have your answer. Same goes with the DMV, they are only human and will give you the answer they know. So do you go with the super obscure written law or the daily enforced law? and is that even a bad thing? we got so many laws now that no one can know all of them....

[Cherub]

I agree with ghemist to the extent that everyones interpetation will vary. I can see how they wouldnt consider the rear view mirror as acceptable.

[allengator]

Originally Posted by timjt

lol, if the cop will ticket you, then you have your answer. Same goes with the DMV, they are only human and will give you the answer they know. So do you go with the super obscure written law or the daily enforced law? and is that even a bad thing? we got so many laws now that no one can know all of them....

If that were true, tickets would never get dismissed.
One of my best friends got a ticket in his 1951 Chevy because he only had ONE brake light ... Guess what? Only came with one from the factory, therefore not required. Ticket dismissed.

Just because a cop writes a ticket, doesnt mean its correct.

[timjt]

True, but giving them the leeway to write tickets or make arrests that will not be prosecuted is good thing. Think drunk drivers and family disturbances. They take a charge that is very true (I’m talking eye witness and irrefutable proof) but will not hold up in court because of lame prosecutors/over crowded jail can't handle every minor offender/sympathetic jury/evidence was accidently mishandled etc. but holding the person over night in jail gives them time to sober up or lets there family sleep in peace knowing dad isn't going to hurt them tonight.
I guess I'm just saying that even county officials may not know the law and you can't expect the police to know everything. I think that as long as they act professionally, have the safety of the public in mind and believe they are within the boundaries of the law, then they are probably doing the right thing, and I would rather be inconvenienced by going to court and having it peacefully resolved, then have my local police officers be too scared to enforce the law because they are worried about being sued.
Sorry, got way off topic I'll step down from the soap box now

[bigd65]

timjt, I like that response, I really do, there needs to be more people like you out there.

I said I can write that ticket. I probably would not but I might pull someone over to see who is in that vehicle or see if that person has warrants, drugs, or just what they are up to. Those safetylaws were writen to keep vehicle safe on the roadway for others. If the vehicle is a customized vehicle then obviously its probably not a safety hazard and the person is OK, then tell what you stopped them for and send them down the road. The only basic tickets I will write are violations that can affect another person. Speeding, No Drivers License, No Insurance etc... I admit there are Police Officers out there that will write any possible ticket that can and thats not right to do that. But it is right to give us the opprotunity and PROBABLE CAUSE to be able to stop that person and check them out. That is what keeps the other citizens safe as well. Now I will get off my soap box.


BTW, I have in-laws that live in PLANO and my mother in-law is retired teacher from the McKinney School District

[454HO]

Originally Posted by timjt

True, but giving them the leeway to write tickets or make arrests that will not be prosecuted is good thing.

Originally Posted by bigd65

timjt, I like that response, I really do, there needs to be more people like you out there.

Wow. I can't believe I am reading this. You guys actually think it is okay to give someone a ticket or arrest them even though you know it will not hold up in court??? So much for the Bill of Rights, huh?

[allengator]

Originally Posted by 454HO

Wow. I can't believe I am reading this. You guys actually think it is okay to give someone a ticket or arrest them even though you know it will not hold up in court??? So much for the Bill of Rights, huh?

Well said!!! The LAW is decided by duly elected representatives of the people.
Knowingly writing tickets or making arrest that will not hold up to scrutiny by court system is an affront to the LAW and a disrespect not only to that LAW but all of us LAW abiding citizens!
It I also a disrespect to all the brave men and women who wear badges with honor who ENFORCE the LAW as written.
Posted via Mobile Device

[bigd65]

yall obviously did not read all of my response, I said its an option, I would not write the ticket but I would stop the vehicle to see who is driving. BUT again, who said it wont stand up in court. Those are ligitamate charges and the only reason they might not is because they are correctable tickets. If you repair what you were written for then by law has to be dismissed with a minimal dismissal fee. The laws are made to protect all people and pertains to all. If dont want mirrors on your truck build it for show and dont drive it on the street, otherwise put the mirrors on, they are for your your safety as well as others.

[timjt]

I'm not saying they can ticket or arrest someone outside of the law (quote " I think that as long as they act professionally, have the safety of the public in mind and believe they are within the boundaries of the law"), but you don't know anything about law enforcement if you think that every time someone breaks the law and gets ticketed or arrested it will be upheld in court. That would be very naive. It would be community suicide if officers did not make arrests that they knew would not be held up in court. It happens daily and is very hard on the police officers knowing that all their efforts to keep people from breaking the law go down the drain when the judge or jury decides to not uphold the law for some stupid reason.
But they do it anyway in order to uphold the law. And what do they get? Contempt from the citizens and sometimes loose there job because they got their name in the paper in a negative light just for doing their job.