Very Unique Situation ...

Okay, I have a Ford Tempo that ocassionally I drive with no doors on sunny days. I was doing a newspaper route for a friend, and unknowingly I went across the Idaho state line (on back roads) and into a very small town in Washington.

I had checked the Idaho State Code, and knew having no doors was not illegal in Idaho.

However, a local washington police officer pulls me over, and without giving me a warning (as is usually expected if you are missing equipment on your vehicle) and writes a $70 ticket for having no doors, and says I am not allowed to move my vehicle unless it's being towed, or else it will be impounded. "No doors, no drive" were his exact words.

Here is the code which he denoted on the ticket:
______________________________________
RCW 46.37.517
Body and body hardware.

(2) The hood, hood latches, hood fastenings, doors, and door latches shall be maintained in a condition sufficient to ensure proper working equal to that at the time of original vehicle manufacture.
______________________________________

Now, I know this is only a $70 ticket, but I want to have the right to do drive my car in the state of washington, as I go there quite often.
I am going to fight the ticket on the basis of a few things.

a) i believe the law was intended that the "functionality" of the doors and latches be such that people can exit the car in case of emergency. no welded doors, etc. obviously, that functionality is still in place with no doors

b)other vehicles, such as jeeps, drive around with doors removed and are not cited

c)the safety of the 3 people in the car was not compromised ... all were wearing seat belts, I was driving safely in a residential area

d)I had not known I had crossed state line and was less than 2 miles from the border. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, I know, but I think the officer would have at least been leniant.

I want to know what the general concensus is ... do I have a chance to get out of this ticket? Do you believe the law applies in this case? (No, those questions aren't the same). If I do decided to try and get out of it, do I have a mitigation hearing to explain the circumstances or do I want to contest the charge?

Thank you for any replies, I really appreciate any input you can give me.

Thanks again,

Steven Simmons

Jeeps are built to be driven without doors, your car is not. And in the case of your vehicle, the doors are considered an intregral part of the vehicles safety design. You do not present any other evidence showing the citation should be dismissed.

The law required a door, you did not have one, therefore you are guilty.

I was afraid of that ...

I was afraid of that... I was just hoping on a chance that the line "proper working equal to that at the time of ... manufacture" wouldn't necessarily be interpreted as having them, since their function is not defined. The doors still work, I am able to exit the vehicle. In fact, the fact it had no doors might have saved my life this weekend, as my friends and I were able to quickly exit the vehicle as it was precariously hanging on the edge of a hillside.
Believe me or not, my engineerig major friends and I removed the doors to increase the stability and handling of the car, remove almost 200 pounds from its overall weight, and provide quick exits in time of emergency, not only for air conditioning and aesthetic appeal.
And jeeps do have doors at the time of manufacture. The fact that they are easily removable is null, because so were my doors. Took me ten minutes. Stupid law.

Oh well, thanks for your input. I appreciate you guys who spend your time on this site giving free advice. Just wish, in my case, it were more positive.

Thanks again,

Steven Simmons
[email protected]

Let me add my worthless $0.02 worth....

Your theory of a 'better design' probably doesn't hold. Though we don't know what type of car you have 'modified', you are forgetting the fact that it certainly is NOT as safe if hit from the side as it would be with the doors in place. Most door designs include sidebar stiffeners to help protect the 'passenger box' in the event of accidents, either axial (front/rear) or transverse (from the side). Without those rigid members, your car just doesn't have the structural strength that it did when designed.

Oh, by the way, in my humble opinion... Guilty as charged.

ok, ok, you got me ...

I agree I'm guilty. Even paying the ticket. No doors is more unsafe on the streets.

But in response to all the rest:

My theory of a better design does hold. Cars should be designed or modified to fit the driver and the driving conditions. Now, as for the driver, I am blind in my left eye. Therefore, I have trouble seeing the blind spots around my car. having no doors improves this immensely. As for the conditions, the car is used as an off-road vehicle. The chances of a side impact are pretty much null, unless a tree attacks me. Plus, I don't know how many wrecks you've been in, but I have been in 3 (no, not that I have caused or was even driving in), and getting out of the vehicle is critical in many cases to saving someone's life. Especially if you are in the middle of nowhere where emergency vehicles can't get to you. Plus, the loss in weight in a single-car accident helps. Take a physics class: the doors weigh 200 pounds. At 30 mph, a whole lot of inertia, which makes it harder for the car to control, increases stop time, and increases impact damage.


Whew! That was a mouthful.

And, just a quick question (I know I'm gonna be sorry for asking this one), why are there few positive replies on this board? All those that answer seem to be degrading, negative, sometimes racist and showing lifestyle and economic bias, and often downright rude.

This for example:

Xjudge: Jeeps are built to be driven without doors, your car is not. And in the case of your vehicle, the doors are considered an intregral part of the vehicles safety design. You do not present any other evidence showing the citation should be dismissed.

Nice, well-rounded, non-confrontational answer. I commend XJudge.

HomeGuru: The law required a door, you did not have one, therefore you are guilty.

Hell of an in-depth analysis, and explanation. He seems to be implying that law is clear-cut and simple. Ha! And talking down to me as if I were stupid? Even if I were, very unproffessional, and even childish. And don't even get me started on the other posts of Guru, Liable, and many of the others on this site. People come for free advice, they get free degradement.

Anyway, enough lessons on social etiquette, off-road car modification, and professional mannerisms. Good day.

Oh yeah, got this idea from another post ... can't remember who brought it up ...

Above the reply box when you choose to type a reply, it states:
When Replying to a message, please be considerate, respectful and polite.
Remember, there is a human being on the other side of that computer screen.

Sorry, just my $.04 worth.

My $.05 worth, I am not worthy oh lowbatteries.
You were in 3 wrecks, we'll that beats me, congratulations, you win.

And I can prove that driving your car without door greatly increased your risk of injury in case of an accident. 1. A Ford Tempo is a unibody car, meaning it has no frame. In case of a frontal impact, the doors are designed to prevent the passenger cabin from collapsing in on itself. And of course, you will have absolutely no protection in case of a side impact accident. And your theory of a lighter car being safer is also false. A lighter car has less mass to absorb the energy of a collision and where does that extra energy go? Part will be additional energy tranferred to the vehicles occupants (increasing the possibility of injury) and the rest will cause the vehicle to travel farther from the point of impact, means you increase your chances of hitting other objects or other objects hitting you. If you get a chance, attend your local race track (Sound like you live near Stateline Speedway) and watch a demolition derby. Which cars last longer and and suffer the least amount of damage? The big heavy station wagons. The smaller cars get smashed in no time but the big cars keep on going.

Like I said ...

All of the cases where you suggested having a lighter car would cause more damage involve collissions of two moving objects. When I am off-roading, my vehicle is the only moving object.

Okay, this thread has now degenerated to a bunch of very knowledgable people trying to convince a 'door remover' that his car is less safe with the doors removed.

However, no matter how logical or detailed (and accurate) the statements are, 'lowbatteries' is just flat not going to believe anyone... after all, his mind is made up, lets not confuse him with facts.

Maybe his batteries are indeed too low.

In any case, rather than let this diatribe continue without any resolution, lets all move on to other cases. Too much time has already been spent on this one.

And, 'lowbatteries', if you have a response, please post it over on the 'alt.dukesofhazzard' or the 'alt.redneckdrivers' newsgroups. They drive with their doors off all time and probably would love to continue this never-ending debate.

Thanks once again, for proving my above point of the state of these boards. I have not lowered myself to insult any one person without being first provoked, yet it seems the norm here ... which is my only reason that I am still on these boards, is to prove THAT point.

But, I will be able to prove this point on other posts, so, indeed, I will let this one die.