Hot Rods Anti Hot Rod & Muscle Car Enforcement by Wisconsin State Patrol

These are the issues that make "305" such a confusing law, one part Replica and Street Modified and subsection 305.22 what part will the WSP use if they decide to stop you. There are parts that need to be addressed

 

Engine man and oldcootnco
How does this fit into your fender interpretation?
Trans 305.02 Applicability.
(4) Vehicles covered under subchs. II, III and IV that are street modified or replica vehicles shall meet the following vehicle equipment requirements:
(a) The vehicle equipment requirements for a street modified vehicle shall be the same as the vehicle equipment requirements for a vehicle of the same type and model year that is not a street modified vehicle.
(b) The vehicle equipment requirements for a replica vehicle shall be the same as the vehicle equipment requirements for a vehicle of the same type and model year as the vehicle used for purposes of the reproduction.

As for your own interpretation of reconstructed, the only interpretation of reconstructed important to any discussion about how WISDMV applies Statute and code is the legal definition as stated inWis ss341.268;
“Reconstructed vehicle" means a motor vehicle of any age which has been substantially altered or modified from original manufacturers specifications to such an extent that it no longer resembles the original manufactured vehicle.

If you believe a restored vehicle of any make or model fits the definition of Wis ss341.268, I will disagree with you.

a boner, you aimed them in the right direction. Hope they see the light.
Curt R

 

how would you address the parts to clear up your confusion?

After all the replies to this thread I am surprised by the posters that appear to agree that WSP is correct in their interpretation and the rodders are wrong. Until these issues are resolved with legal interpretation, I will maintain my position that WSP is interpreting Statute and Code to fit with misinterpretation.

Curt R

 

So, you are telling me that 305.22 does not apply to this conversation. the vehicle in question was registered after 1996. reconstructed / restored and now we play word games. I am not siding with WSP. I don't want to be stopped and go through the same situation. I agree with Curt R about misinterpretation of the law. If the WSP or any Law enforcement officer stops you and gives you a fix it ticket, you will weigh the COSTS involved. My pockets aren't that deep to pay for a Lawyer. The citations were dismissed, really he is still under the thumb of WSP requiring an inspection.
I would like to see 305.22 deleted from the law.

 

Yes I am telling you 305.22 does not apply to this conversation. 305.22 deals with "homemade" and "reconstructed".

For reference 305.22 and 305.02 are included in this post.

The 32 in question is registered as a 1932 Ford "street modified" not as a "homemade" or "reconstructed".

Trans code 305.02 applies in this conversation because the 32 is registered as a "street modified". 305.02 deals with "street modified".

305.22, does not say every vehicle registered after 1996. 305.22 specifically states "every homemade vehicle registered after January 1, 1975, and every vehicle registered as a reconstructed vehicle after March 1, 1996". As you can see the 1996 requirement applies to reconstructed vehicle not every vehicle.

If you would like 305.22 deleted from the law contact your legislators and request their help in doing so. The legislators are paid by our taxes to represent their constituents by revising old laws and drafting new laws.

Trans 305.02 Applicability.
(4) Vehicles covered under subchs. II, III and IV that are street modified or replica vehicles shall meet the following vehicle equipment requirements:
(a) The vehicle equipment requirements for a street modified vehicle shall be the same as the vehicle equipment requirements for a vehicle of the same type and model year that is not a street modified vehicle.
(b) The vehicle equipment requirements for a replica vehicle shall be the same as the vehicle equipment requirements for a vehicle of the same type and model year as the vehicle used for purposes of the reproduction.

Trans 305.22 Fenders and projecting parts.
Trans 305.22(1)(1) Every motor vehicle originally manufactured after January 1, 1950, every homemade vehicle registered after January 1, 1975, and every vehicle registered as a reconstructed vehicle after March 1, 1996 shall be equipped with adequate fenders covering the front and rear tires to prevent splashing of water and throwing of gravel, stones or other objects.
(2) All fenders shall be free of severely rusted or damaged material which may cause injury or cause the fenders to be ineffective. All required fenders shall be of sufficient width and length to cover the tire tread from 15 degrees to the front to 60 degrees to the rear when measured at the center of the axle, to the top of the tire, on a vertical plane.
(3) All fenders shall be securely mounted.
(4) Fenders may be extended up to 4 inches beyond the original fender line or the manufacturer's optional equipment fender flare line in order to cover tires that also extend beyond the original fender or flare line.
(5) No part of the vehicle or any vehicle accessory shall project away from the vehicle in a hazardous manner.

Curt R

 

305.22 does apply read the first sentence, every motor vehicle after 1/1/1950 has to have fenders. So that tells me that my 29 Model A is exempt. 305.02 does not state I can run fenderless. The wording of 305.02 leaves a lot of interpretation and that is why we are having this discussion. Playing the" devils advocate" all vehicles manufactured from the Model t forward had fenders.

 

Manufactured with and required to run are two different things.
Playing the "devils advocate" makes it sound like you are on the other side of this discussion. Are you a WSP Trooper wannabe?

 

The devil's advocate position must be understood as it represents points that could be raised if this goes to court or the legislature.

Phil

 

It would be helpful if anyone wanting to play devils advocate, would understand what the laws are first, and maybe even the intent when they were written. The law books aren't going to spell out who can "run fenderless". The law books would instead spell out what has to run fenders.

 

Thanks Phil, at least some one understands.
I have had the "pleasure" of being selected for jury duty and after that experience I will at ALL COSTS avoid being judged by a jury of my peers. The soccer moms, teachers, nurses, factory workers and some retired folks, don't want to be there. They don't give a rats ass about your hot rod.
A boner get those fenders ready you live at ground zero.

 

According to Trans 305, my cars are legal. Wisconsin IS ground zero, Bud!

 

I guess we will wait and see how Brads inspection goes. I hope your cruising this summer goes well without incident A boner. I assume the pic in the avatar is yours, very nicely done.

 

Yup, laws are generally restrictive by nature, dictating what a person cannot do or must do. Laws very rarely state what a person can or may do.

 

Bump, waiting for inspection.

 

This post may be considered ot, but is as on-topic as this thread. Comments are not a slam on you guys.
Some of you guys need to get a recent LAW/LEGAL DICTIONARY . The "laws" aka statutes, are written in "legalese" which uses their own copyrighted dictionary to define the words used in statutes & of course, "court". They do use not plain American "english", which uses Websters' dictionary to define the meanings of words spoken by people in the states in normal conversation(s). Legal words are "words of art" which is defined as words that look like normal, sound(pronounced) like normal, spelled like normal, could be used in sentences/conversation(s) like normal, but have very different meanings - usually to fool or entrap people that aren't familiar w/the meaning(s). Esp in a "court" situation.
Mike is giving ya'll a good clue. Do you know what a person is? & how it relates? Not a put-down Q, a very serious Q.

I wish you folks good luck. I do hope things work out in your favor.
Marcus...

 

Tell this to CurtR here on the H.A.M.B.! He along with a group of others from the Wisconsin DOT, WSP, and Street Rod Community drafted the Trans 305 statues. Trans 305 was working just fine from the 1990's until just recently, (way over 20 freaking years). The wording (LAWS) didn't change, the personnel in charge changed from accepting our hobby to not, apparently!

 

Nrgwizard.
Thank you, I feel that you have very eloquently described how the statutes are written.

 

nrgwizard

Good post about the LAW/LEGAL DICTIONARY. Thanks.

At the time(1991) we were creating "replica" and "street modified" for Wis Statute definitions there were no definitions for replica and street modified in the LAW/LEGAL DICTIONARY. As a result the repl and st mod definitions in Wis ss 341.268 are the legal definitions for the Wisconsin legal system. Same can be said for reconstructed and homemade.

Your are right some of the posters do not understand the difference between legal terminology and generic terminology. They use the terms homemade and reconstructed as a generic term, not as the term should be used legally per Wisconsin Statute and Code. This displays the confusion of the person using the generic term to describe a legal matter and this usage is confusing for the reader or listener.

Curt R

 

Hey, Curt;
I kinda figured you "got it". Glad to see I was right. I'm not trying to cause you trouble, & post wasn't aimed at anyone specific, I hope things work out well for you & Wis guys - in the hotrodders' favor. Was pretty sure there wasn't a legal definition of replica & street modified terms that would apply to cars/trucks. It's the "words" in the statutes & "who" &/or "what", not to mention "how", they apply to, that causes trouble. What we were/are taught has no relation to reality other than as a mirror-image. I was going to go into more detail n examples, but prefer not getting banned. I can, but a pm might be better - if you think it'd help, not sure what I could help you with. One important thing to know is: it's *all* Commerce, & very few know what has/is actually taking place, fewer yet know how to offset this, & almost no-one/body is actually doing it. No, I haven't gotten there yet, but I want to. There is only so much time in life. The rabbit hole turns into an ant farm inhabited by a lot of nasty snakes. Best of luck. .
Marcus...

 

Did “Dodgeville Brad” receive a WSP inspection yet? Or has the new head of the WSP put things back on the right track again, like it has been working for the last couple decades?

 

I hope Brad does not get caught up in a long winded roll of red tape that takes forever to get an answer. Summer cruising is in full swing, would be a shame to have a fun ride and not be able to use it. Larry

 

Gads...makes me want to live in California!

 

What did Clinton say? "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

 

Live in California..... back in the fifties, yes. But now, no way. Good place to visit though.

 

AMEN! I've got a shirt that says "I used to be a people person, then people ruined it for me."

BTW love your signature. Tom T Hall is a great artist!

 

No kidding.....only 5 months of good cruising weather left this year (including June)!

 

Brad's 32 Ford has been inspected by Wisconsin State Patrol. The WSP Inspector will meet with the WSP staff and will advise Brad of the results of the inspection and if the vehicle can go back on the road.

It's not over yet.

Curt R

 

Curt , Thank you for your time and diligence on all the information you provide on this site and for all the car people of Wisconsin. Whether it is a 32 Ford or a 99 Civic, we should be able to enjoy our chosen hobbies with out all the BULL SHIT that the people we pay to serve us come up with. Have a great weekend . Larry

 

Bump for the inspection waiting .....phase II.

 

Still no word ? That just sucks! Larry