Originally Posted by ScaldedDog
Section unconstitutional. This section's flat prohibition against any motor vehicle suspension system alteration, except the installation of heavy duty shock absorbers or springs, is unconstitutionally overbroad. People v. Von Tersch, 180 Colo. 295, 505 P.2d 5 (1973) (decided prior to 1975 amendment).
As I understand it, the "except in accordance..." section was added in 1975 to try to make it constitutional again, and there are no appellate cases on record since then. As far as I know, "the department" has never established the specifications mentioned above. I have been pulled over for this, though not ticketed.
So, all y'all with them fancy modified suspensions need to stay home. Those of us with stockers can still attend.
Nope. Unenforceable. No one has ever been ticketed on it. The department never established the specifications.
I'm sure we could sell raffle tickets for your legal defense if you wanna go first and establish case law though!
FWIW, Mark, you can almost bet on being ticketed for the tires extending way beyond the body. Like beadlocks though, I will shrug. Your poker hand.
My concern is safety issues like broken glass. I passed someone last time with NO windshield though (rolled a couple days before). He had goggles. Technically legal!
Beadlocks? I'm willing to be inconsistent and look the other way, there is a limit to the black and white interpretation and IMHO the non-DOT beadlock thing is beyond that limit for lots of reasons. YMMV.
I'd be concerned about leaks too, due to environmental impact. If someone dripped while being inspected I'd be inclined to decline him!