• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Tinted screens, legal?

Well let me speculate here a little. For a windshield to "technically" be a windshield it is supposed to be made of laminated saftey glass.

If I remember correctly motorcycles are not requiered to even have a windshield.

So technically that red transparent piece of plastic attached to the front of your bike is , WINK WINK....part of the bodywork/fairings.
 
angelsndevils said:
Well let me speculate here a little. For a windshield to "technically" be a windshield it is supposed to be made of laminated saftey glass.

If I remember correctly motorcycles are not requiered to even have a windshield.

So technically that red transparent piece of plastic attached to the front of your bike is , WINK WINK....part of the bodywork/fairings.
Click to expand...

And this is the right way to approach this. What is the CVC definition of a windshield? Does a motorcycle windscreen fall into that definition? Was the correct section of the CVC written on the ticket?

All that being said, Napa PD is well known in the area for being very anti-motorcycle. I've personally had the displeasure of interacting with one of their Sergeants and a patrol officer. They fit squarely in the mold of 'cops with attitudes'. I know more than a few Napa area motorcyclists that have been pulled over (no big deal), and been given huge attitude from the beginning, and eventually cited for a (misapplied) CVC that did not stand up in court. Example: A74yr old man was cited for CVC 21701 (misapplied) for carrying a few letters in small bag between his knee and the gas tank of his motorcycle.
 
A motorcycle windscreen is a "wind deflector" which is specifically addressed as unlawful under 26701(d) VC if it s at all translucent (allows light to pass through).

The wind screen on the above Ducati does not appear to be translucent.
 
26701(d) is referencing aftermarket material. That wind "deflector" on the Paso pictured above is OEM stock.
 
Just for clarity's sake, there was no other reason to pull us over. We were at a stop light and the officer pulled in behind us. He followed us for quarter of a mile or so at wich point another officer joined and lit up my friend. I was followed for another quarterish mile and then pulled. Checked out my bike told me my screen was illegal asked for my papers gave me the speech about some bikers using the lake as race track as was on his way. No ticket received. While I would not describe his as friendly he did not give attitude. Also saw more officers on bikes as we rode out of napa. Think it must of been a maximum enforcement day. Best part of the day, we had just spent the last 20 mins pulling a dam heavy Harley out of a ditch ( not one of us), so much for karma lol
 
Nufc9 said:
Just for clarity's sake, there was no other reason to pull us over. We were at a stop light and the officer pulled in behind us. He followed us for quarter of a mile or so at wich point another officer joined and lit up my friend. I was followed for another quarterish mile and then pulled. Checked out my bike told me my screen was illegal asked for my papers
Click to expand...

Yea that alone can be used to dismiss the ticket, since you know he couldn't possibly see that your screen was illegal BEFORE he pulled you over.
 
I had the same issue with my buell. I had a blue screen on it and got a ticket. Was stock on the bike. Showed up to court after reading the section and brought my windscreen in to show the judge the buell logo and sales brochure. Dismissed but had to take a half day off work.
 
Let me put it simply, if you have a problem with the "windscreen", and I really don't care where, give me a call. This just pisses me off. I will see what my office can do.

Scotty
 
summitdog said:
Let me put it simply, if you have a problem with the "windscreen", and I really don't care where, give me a call. This just pisses me off. I will see what my office can do.

Scotty
Click to expand...

What pisses me off is why anyone would think a blue or red wind screen on a bike would look good in the first place. Also falling into this category are helmet mohawks and Icon vests.

It's a shame taste can't be legislated...
 
Thank God where I live the cops have better things to do that write a bullshit cite like that.
 
Just did a brief search of case law (scholar.google.com -> legal -> 'tinted windshield motorcycle') in case there was judicial precedent for interpretation.

I wasn't able to find anything at all about tinting of motorcycle windshields/windscreens. However, I found two interesting non-CA cases that seemed at least somewhat related:

Com. v. Brubaker, 5 A. 3d 261 - Pa: Superior Court 2010
The express terms of § 4524(e)(1) prohibit a person from driving a motor vehicle which possesses sun screening material "which does not permit a person to see or view the inside of the vehicle through the windshield, side wing or side window of the vehicle." Despite Officer Pryor's and the trial court's focus upon light meter readings, the language of the statute does not prohibit a person from driving a motor vehicle which possesses sun screening material that "reduces the transmittance of light to below 70%."
Click to expand...

Garcia v. Com., 185 SW 3d 658 - Ky: Court of Appeals 2006
The initial stop of Garcia's vehicle was originally premised upon Trooper Devasher's belief that the cracked windshield constituted a violation of KRS 189.110.
...
It, however, does not set forth any express or implied proscriptions against cracks in a vehicle's windshield. Based upon the plain language of KRS 189.110, a cracked windshield simply does not constitute a violation of its provisions. As a cracked windshield is not a violation of KRS 189.110, we believe the Commonwealth cannot justify the stop of Garcia's vehicle upon same.
...
Therefore, we hold that a cracked windshield must unreasonably impair the vision of a vehicle's driver to constitute a violation of KRS 189.020. We emphasize that a cracked windshield is a violation of KRS 189.020 only if it is of sufficient severity to unreasonably reduce the driver's visibility.
Click to expand...
 
Kornholio said:
Where is it hot enough anywhere in California that the sun melts plastic? :wtf
Click to expand...

A screen can concentrate the rays like a magnifying glass burning ants. My wife's car has a big spot of melted plastic on the B pillar from reflected sunlight.

Kornholio said:
26701(d) is referencing aftermarket material. That wind "deflector" on the Paso pictured above is OEM stock.
Click to expand...

The Paso's screen isn't translucent. I doubt there's any bikes that come stock with translucent red, blue, or amber screens. The law is there because a light from behind the screen will show that color to the front and those colors are restricted...red and blue anyways...who knows about amber.
 
Traq said:
A screen can concentrate the rays like a magnifying glass burning ants. My wife's car has a big spot of melted plastic on the B pillar from reflected sunlight.



The Paso's screen isn't translucent. I doubt there's any bikes that come stock with translucent red, blue, or amber screens.
Click to expand...

:hand

3345_20090612075437_L.jpg


491118.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top