new & interesting places for your GPS

States not allowing GPS devices (on windshield)

 

We're going to be driving across Kansas,Missouri, Illinois,Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine and into New Brunswick, Canada. Does anybody know if any of these states or New Brunswick bans GPS devices attached to the windshield? Thanks in advance. Williea

Page 1>>

No sure

I'm not sure of the states you mentioned, but I do know that California doesn't allow these affixed to the windshield, so to combate this problem we got one of those weighted (beanbag type) dash mountable holders and it works great. You can remove the GPS unit very easy and store it away when stopping for the night or just shopping etc. We bought ours on Amazon for less than $20. Works great.

williea wrote:

We're going to be driving across Kansas,Missouri, Illinois,Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine and into New Brunswick, Canada. Does anybody know if any of these states or New Brunswick bans GPS devices attached to the windshield? Thanks in advance. Williea

--
Legs

none of the states listed

williea wrote:

We're going to be driving across Kansas,Missouri, Illinois,Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine and into New Brunswick, Canada. Does anybody know if any of these states or New Brunswick bans GPS devices attached to the windshield? Thanks in advance. Williea

None of the states listed have any ban on devices being attached to the windshield, but I strongly recommend you ditch the suction cup and go with a bean bag mount that sits on the dash. This allows you to take the GPS unit down and put it out of site when stopping. GPS units are still targets for theft, and if you don't have one openly displayed and stuck to the windshield you will be less of a target for a potential thief.

--
ɐ‾nsǝɹ Just one click away from the end of the Internet

California

legatzke wrote:

I'm not sure of the states you mentioned, but I do know that California doesn't allow these affixed to the windshield.

California DOES allow a unit to be affixed to the windshield (bottom left corner or far bottom right corner) which leaves only Minnesota with a windshield law, which possibly has changed as well, don't know.

I agree 100% that the bean bag mount is the only way to go.

--
Nuvi 350, 760, 1695LM, 3790LMT, 2460LMT, 3597LMTHD and TomTom XXL540s

Ohio

Good to go in Ohio!

--
Using Android Based GPS.The above post and my sig reflects my own opinions, expressed for the purpose of informing or inspiring, not commanding. Naturally, you are free to reject or embrace whatever you read.

California law changed

t923347 wrote:
legatzke wrote:

I'm not sure of the states you mentioned, but I do know that California doesn't allow these affixed to the windshield.

California DOES allow a unit to be affixed to the windshield (bottom left corner or far bottom right corner) which leaves only Minnesota with a windshield law, which possibly has changed as well, don't know.

I agree 100% that the bean bag mount is the only way to go.

Yes, effective January 1, 2009, California allowed GPS to be affixed to the bottom corners of the windshield. However, I used Garmin's friction mount with my Garmin 855 and place it in a slot in my car's center console.

I live in CA.and have my

I live in CA.and have my GPS affixed to the bottom center of the windshield. Never have any problem.I recently got a ticket for changing lane but the cop never say anything about the mounted GPS

--
Garmin 255W

Bean bag

For those of you using a bean bag mount how do you keep from launching it out the window while cornering?

--
Nuvi 3790LMT, Nuvi 760 Lifetime map, Lifetime NavTraffic, Garmin E-Trex Legend Just because "Everyone" drives badly does not mean you have to.

go less than

onestep wrote:

For those of you using a bean bag mount how do you keep from launching it out the window while cornering?

350 MPH when cornering. How else would you keep it from launching and have one hand on the phone, the other holding a sandwich and steering with your knee?

Edit:

Either that or Super Glue.

--
ɐ‾nsǝɹ Just one click away from the end of the Internet

my preferrred set ups:

--
(2) Nuvi 1450LMT + 265WT + 65LMT + 3597LMTHD New England region

Mother MAY I????

redbull-1 wrote:

Yes, effective January 1, 2009, California allowed GPS to be affixed to the bottom corners of the windshield. However, I used Garmin's friction mount with my Garmin 855 and place it in a slot in my car's center console.

That is incorrect information. In California there is no requirement that when attached to the windscreen the GPS be mounted in the lower corners. That is a common misinterpretation of the California vehicle code.

...And before the dissenting opinions begin, here's a link to the CA vehicle code 26708 to help them out:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708.htm

none...

none of the states you mentioned banned gps mounted to windshield.

.

HawaiianFlyer wrote:

That is incorrect information. In California there is no requirement that when attached to the windscreen the GPS be mounted in the lower corners. That is a common misinterpretation of the California vehicle code.

...And before the dissenting opinions begin, here's a link to the CA vehicle code 26708 to help them out:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708.htm

Here's what the above linked vehicle code states:

"(12) A portable Global Positioning System (GPS), which may be mounted in a 7-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from the driver or in a 5-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest to the driver and outside of an airbag deployment zone, if the system is used only for door-to-door navigation while the motor vehicle is being operated ( )2."

That sure sounds like the lower corner(s) to me...

--
nuvi 760, nuvi 765T, nuvi 855, nuvi 3790LMT, nuvi 3490LMT - SoCal area

California Law

HawaiianFlyer wrote:
redbull-1 wrote:

Yes, effective January 1, 2009, California allowed GPS to be affixed to the bottom corners of the windshield. However, I used Garmin's friction mount with my Garmin 855 and place it in a slot in my car's center console.

That is incorrect information. In California there is no requirement that when attached to the windscreen the GPS be mounted in the lower corners. That is a common misinterpretation of the California vehicle code.

...And before the dissenting opinions begin, here's a link to the CA vehicle code 26708 to help them out:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708.htm

The following is the relevant para from your reference.
"(12) A portable Global Positioning System (GPS), which may be mounted in a 7-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from the driver or in a 5-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest to the driver and outside of an airbag deployment zone, if the system is used only for door-to-door navigation while the motor vehicle is being operated."

Seems to me that it specifies lower corners.

--
nuvi 855. Life is not fair. I don't care who told you it is.

I believed it correct to my interpretation...

It specifies lower corners too.

Sticky bottom

onestep wrote:

For those of you using a bean bag mount how do you keep from launching it out the window while cornering?

It doesn't slide on the dash as it has some sort of rubberized material on the bottom that just "sticks" and really resists lateral forces (i.e. sliding).

Mother MAY I????

Not2Bright wrote:

Seems to me that it specifies lower corners.

Here's a link to California Vehicle Code 1-32 http://law.justia.com/california/codes/veh/1-32.html

(This is generally refered to as the "Rules of Construction" for the vehicle code.)

In paragraph 15 of the Rules of Construction the words "SHALL and "MAY" are defined as follows : "Shall" is mandatory and "may" is permissive.

Refering to the windscreen "corners", the use of the word "MAY", a permissive statement, is NOT imperative, mandatory or exclusionary. (You "may" mount your GPS in those corners, but - again because if the choice of the word "MAY" - it is not mandatory or imperative you mount the GPS ONLY in those spots on the windscreen.)

Had the bill's author used the word(s): "shall", "will" or "must" when describing the attachment position of the GPS to the windscreen then those described squares would be the ONLY "legal" positions to mount the GPS unit upon the windscreen.

As it is, applying the given definitions of "SHALL" and "MAY" to the vehicle code, you MAY attach your GPS to the windscreen squares as described, BUT it is not imperative or mandatory, if attached to the windscreen, it be attached in this manner.

Or, in other words, permission to do something does not imply you MUST do it, nor does permission (or permissive statements) exclude other actions. Permission is like an option; it never implies a limitation.

Enforceable regulations are required to be stated in the imperative (shall, will, or must). Permissive statements in civil code are more akin to recommendations and are NOT enforceable.

People often make this mistake.

smile

Place the GPS other than the lower corners at your risk

Not 2Bright is correct in his analysis of California VC §26708(b)(12). The section is not artfully drafted, but if the code section is intended to limit items to be placed on the windshield that could obstruct your view of the road, you run the risk of a traffic citation. Police officers generally do not enter into a discussion of statutory construction when they issue traffic citations. There attitude is, in the immortal paraphrased words of Detective Harry Callahan, "if you feel lucky, punk, take it up with the judge. The safe bet is to use either a dash mount or attach the unit to the lower right or left corner with a suction mount.

--
jpo

No Beans for me

I find the beanbag a safety issue, as every time I turn the thing slides either in front of me or over toward the passenger side and I have go grab it quickly before it slides off the dash and gets the screen scratched up. That's not safe driving, so I stick with the suction cup mount, right below the rearview mirror and have never been stopped. I remove the mount whenever I stop and secure it out of sight. If I'm going shopping or to a movie, I'll remove it a short distance before I park so as to not be observed and targeted.

--
Zumo 550 & Zumo 665 My alarm clock is sunshine on chrome.

No Beans for me

Maybe you need to slow down when you make a turn. I like my beanbag. Also don't need to remove ring spots everytime it take it down.

--
johnm405 660 & MSS&T

IL

They are not banned per se in Illinois, but some municipalities write tickets for things on the windshield that "obstruct vision." It's a really ambiguous standard, so they do it for radar detectors and such. You're also not supposed to have anything hanging from the mirror-there was a case a number of years ago where a cop gave an old lady a ticket for having her Rosary beads hung on her mirror. The chief of police there wisely dismissed the ticket.

Only CA and MN do not allow GPS on windshield.

williea wrote:

We're going to be driving across Kansas,Missouri, Illinois,Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine and into New Brunswick, Canada. Does anybody know if any of these states or New Brunswick bans GPS devices attached to the windshield? Thanks in advance. Williea

Why Not Mount On Dash Area..?

Why not do as I did and mount it on the dash area. The only thing there is the round plastic disk that I cover with a baseball cap when I remove the GPS.. then even that doesn't show.

Nuvi1300WTGPS

--
I'm not really lost.... just temporarily misplaced!

Only CA and MN do not allow GPS on windshield

zch888 wrote:

Only CA and MN Do Not Allow GPS On Windshield.

That has finally been changed by the Minnesota Legislature in 2009.

"From the Minnesota legislature's press release:

GPS usage... addressed in public safety law
Global Positioning Systems can be mounted or located near the bottommost portion of a vehicle’s
windshield beginning Aug. 1, 2009. The provision, initially proffered by Rep. Al Juhnke (DFL-Willmar)
and Sen. David Tomassoni (DFL-Chisholm) as HF85/SF323, is part of the larger omnibus public safety
policy law sponsored by Rep. Debra Hilstrom (DFL-Brooklyn Center) and Sen. Mee Moua (DFL-St.
Paul).
HF1301/SF993*/CH59"

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=169.71&year=2009&key...

2009 Minnesota Statutes

Minnesota Statute 169.71 WINDSHIELD.
Subdivision 1.Prohibitions generally; exceptions.

(a) A person shall not drive or operate any motor vehicle with:

(1) a windshield cracked or discolored to an extent to limit or obstruct proper vision;

(2) any objects suspended between the driver and the windshield, other than:

(i) sun visors;

(ii) rearview mirrors;

(iii) global positioning systems or navigation systems when mounted or located near the bottommost portion of the windshield; and

(iv) electronic toll collection devices; or

(3) any sign, poster, or other nontransparent material upon the front windshield, sidewings, or side or rear windows of the vehicle, other than a certificate or other paper required to be so displayed by law or authorized by the state director of the Division of Emergency Management or the commissioner of public safety.

(b) Paragraph (a), clauses (2) and (3), do not apply to law enforcement vehicles.

(c) Paragraph (a), clause (2), does not apply to authorized emergency vehicles.
Subd. 2.Windshield wiper.

The windshield on every motor vehicle shall be equipped with a device for cleaning rain, snow or other moisture from the windshield, which device shall be so constructed as to be controlled or operated by the driver of the vehicle.
Subd. 3.Defrosting requirement.

No person shall drive any motor vehicle with the windshield or front side windows covered with steam or frost to such an extent as to prevent proper vision.
Subd. 4. Glazing material; prohibitions and exceptions.

(a) No person shall drive or operate any motor vehicle required to be registered in the state of Minnesota upon any street or highway under the following conditions:

(1) when the windshield is composed of, covered by, or treated with any material which has the effect of making the windshield more reflective or in any other way reducing light transmittance through the windshield;

(2) when any window on the vehicle is composed of, covered by, or treated with any material that has a highly reflective or mirrored appearance;

(3) when any side window or rear window is composed of or treated with any material so as to obstruct or substantially reduce the driver's clear view through the window or has a light transmittance of less than 50 percent plus or minus three percent in the visible light range or a luminous reflectance of more than 20 percent plus or minus three percent; or

(4) when any material has been applied after August 1, 1985, to any motor vehicle window without an accompanying permanent marking which indicates the percent of transmittance and the percent of reflectance afforded by the material. The marking must be in a manner so as not to obscure vision and be readable when installed on the vehicle.

(b) This subdivision does not apply to glazing materials which:

(1) have not been modified since the original installation, nor to original replacement windows and windshields, that were originally installed or replaced in conformance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205;

(2) are required to satisfy prescription or medical needs of the driver of the vehicle or a passenger if:

(i) the driver or passenger is in possession of the prescription or a physician's statement of medical need;

(ii) the prescription or statement specifically states the minimum percentage that light transmittance may be reduced to satisfy the prescription or medical needs of the patient; and

(iii) the prescription or statement contains an expiration date, which must be no more than two years after the date the prescription or statement was issued; or

(3) are applied to:

(i) the rear windows of a pickup truck as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 26;

(ii) the rear windows or the side windows on either side behind the driver's seat of a van as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 40;

(iii) the side and rear windows of a vehicle used to transport human remains by a funeral establishment holding a license under section 149A.50;

(iv) the side and rear windows of a limousine as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 15; or

(v) the rear and side windows of a police vehicle.
History:

(2720-260) 1937 c 464 s 110; 1939 c 430 s 21; 1947 c 428 s 30; 1953 c 745 s 4; 1959 c 174 s 1; 1959 c 521 s 11; 1961 c 34 s 1; 1971 c 491 s 26; 1974 c 428 s 5; 1983 c 234 s 1; 1987 c 71 s 2; 1988 c 636 s 10; 1991 c 301 s 7; 1993 c 26 s 10; 1997 c 215 s 44; 2005 c 136 art 8 s 2; 2008 c 186 s 1; 2008 c 235 s 2; 2009 c 59 art 5 s 5

Copyright © 2009 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All rights reserved.

I suppose . . .

Nuvi1300WTGPS wrote:

Why not do as I did and mount it on the dash area.

But I love my car too much to glue stuff to it. This is particularly true with something as temporary as a GPS receiver. I've gone through 4 of them in the last three years, all from different companies, so I'd hate to end up with a bunch of glue spots all over my dash.

Illinois...

nrbovee is correct in that there is no law against having a GPS mounted on your windshield in Illinois, per say. However, depending on the town or city, they will pull you over for an "obstructed windshield" (i.e. anything on, or hanging in front of your windshield). I know several people who had this happen to them, and also frequently read in the local police blotter about people being given tickets for "obstructed windshields."

It's more of any excuse to pull you over and have you get out of your car so they can ask you...
"Good evening sir, license, registration, and have you been drinking tonight".

Have a good and safe trip!!

--
Nuvi 765T, Nuvi 2350LMT

Code interpretation

HawaiianFlyer wrote:
Not2Bright wrote:

Seems to me that it specifies lower corners.

Here's a link to California Vehicle Code 1-32 http://law.justia.com/california/codes/veh/1-32.html

(This is generally refered to as the "Rules of Construction" for the vehicle code.)

In paragraph 15 of the Rules of Construction the words "SHALL and "MAY" are defined as follows : "Shall" is mandatory and "may" is permissive.

Refering to the windscreen "corners", the use of the word "MAY", a permissive statement, is NOT imperative, mandatory or exclusionary. (You "may" mount your GPS in those corners, but - again because if the choice of the word "MAY" - it is not mandatory or imperative you mount the GPS ONLY in those spots on the windscreen.)

Had the bill's author used the word(s): "shall", "will" or "must" when describing the attachment position of the GPS to the windscreen then those described squares would be the ONLY "legal" positions to mount the GPS unit upon the windscreen.

As it is, applying the given definitions of "SHALL" and "MAY" to the vehicle code, you MAY attach your GPS to the windscreen squares as described, BUT it is not imperative or mandatory, if attached to the windscreen, it be attached in this manner.

Or, in other words, permission to do something does not imply you MUST do it, nor does permission (or permissive statements) exclude other actions. Permission is like an option; it never implies a limitation.

Enforceable regulations are required to be stated in the imperative (shall, will, or must). Permissive statements in civil code are more akin to recommendations and are NOT enforceable.

People often make this mistake.

smile

Let me begin by saying, regulations are subject to interpretation.

One can say it is not mandatory that the GPS be mounted only on the windshield and at the windshield corners in California, you could mount it somewhere else; for example, somewhere not even on the dash or windshield (so no obstruction of vision), I mount it in the console. This I still interpret to be legal. However, if I was to solely mount it on the windshield in California, I would interpret the regulation to allow in the lower corners, and technically not in the middle or any other part of the windshield. I believe the wording "may" allows for mounting of the GPS elsewhere other than the windshield. I would say the vehicle code does refer to the lower corners, if mounted on the windshield.

I read it precisely the way you do.

That it should be in the lower corners.

Windshield marks

I'd like to comment additionally on that. If you do use a windshield mount in states where allowed, be careful to not let the telltale suction marks show after removing you GPS. Thieves look for the ring mark, and you run the risk of getting your car broken into. The thieves also surmise that a ring on a nicer car would have a more costly GPS, so those folks are more at risk.

Of course, using a bean bag mount avoids this, but only if you keep it out of sight - and it is a little bulky.

--
Gotta travel on - SkywayTraveler

I had a feeling the

I had a feeling the dissenting opinions would come rolling in on this one....

But, rest assured, anyone familiar with contract language and rules of construction for civil code will tell you the same thing..."MAY" is a permissive statement describing the corner locations.

I can appreciate everyone's conservative approach to the regulation, but the fact is - the regulation is written with those corners as no more than illistrative recommendations. To state those corners are in someway "mandatory" when mounting the GPS to the windscreen is common, but none the less incorrect information.

After all, (and in layman's terms) the regulation for stop signs does not say..."the approching vehicle "MAY" stop prior to the intersection." No...that would be silly. The regulation says..."the approching vehicle "SHALL" stop prior to the intersection."

Enforceable regulations are required to be stated in the imparitive (shall, will, or must).

Those who work with, and are familiar with, standard "Rules of Construction" will know instantly to what I am referring (and will probably give a chuckle and wink as to how few actually catch the correct application!) The difference between imparitive and permissive (SHALL and MAY) is one of the least ambiguous rule appications in the construction of regulations.

For those who dissent....I'll stake a claim this is the first time they have seen reference to the term "Standard Rules of Construction". Yes...?

So, there it is. Continue your dissents, please...

well

Nuvi1300WTGPS wrote:

Why not do as I did and mount it on the dash area. The only thing there is the round plastic disk that I cover with a baseball cap when I remove the GPS.. then even that doesn't show.

Nuvi1300WTGPS

It is some idea, but those rings are VERY hard to remove later. It even says so in manual. And sometimes if you trying to remove it from dashboard you may damage it or, at best, after removing there will be mark left on dash. So pretty much it is simple solution if You don't care about dashboard of your car.

all very well and good - except

HawaiianFlyer wrote:

I had a feeling the dissenting opinions would come rolling in on this one....

But, rest assured, anyone familiar with contract language and rules of construction for civil code will tell you the same thing..."MAY" is a permissive statement describing the corner locations.

I can appreciate everyone's conservative approach to the regulation, but the fact is - the regulation is written with those corners as no more than illistrative recommendations. To state those corners are in someway "mandatory" when mounting the GPS to the windscreen is common, but none the less incorrect information.

After all, (and in layman's terms) the regulation for stop signs does not say..."the approching vehicle "MAY" stop prior to the intersection." No...that would be silly. The regulation says..."the approching vehicle "SHALL" stop prior to the intersection."

Enforceable regulations are required to be stated in the imparitive (shall, will, or must).

Those who work with, and are familiar with, standard "Rules of Construction" will know instantly to what I am referring (and will probably give a chuckle and wink as to how few actually catch the correct application!) The difference between imparitive and permissive (SHALL and MAY) is one of the least ambiguous rule appications in the construction of regulations.

For those who dissent....I'll stake a claim this is the first time they have seen reference to the term "Standard Rules of Construction". Yes...?

So, there it is. Continue your dissents, please...

We operate in our courts by not only statutory law, but case law. Unless you are a lawyer and can cite applicable case law to bolster your argument of Standard Rules of Construction as it applies to this particular section of the California Vehicle Code, I believe you had best interpret the section as stating a GPS may be attached to the windshield at the owner's discretion as long as it is attached within the two areas so designated.

--
ɐ‾nsǝɹ Just one click away from the end of the Internet

Bean Bag is the way to go

I really like the bean bag. I leave my 765T attached to the mount and can put the entire assembly into my center console. I've read reviews that after usage, the Garmin sticky pad mount looses some effectiveness after the pad gets dirty. Bottom line, the bean bag works every time, dirty or not.

As mentioned before; In

As mentioned before; In Illinois you cannot obstruct your vision with a device under the mirror or near the middle of the windshield. I should know since I got a ticket for my radar detector being in that spot. Be careful with the suction mount in HOT weather since it might "melt"/stick to your windshield. The bean bags are great MOST OF THE TIME but if you have a sudden stop or perform a hard turn the device will go flying.

GPS windshield

As far as I know all Provinces in Canada allow windshield mount just don't use it will driving.

--
The Home of BLUMARU HOUNDS

Mother MAY I????

a_user wrote:

We operate in our courts by not only statutory law, but case law. Unless you are a lawyer and can cite applicable case law to bolster your argument of Standard Rules of Construction as it applies to this particular section of the California Vehicle Code, I believe you had best interpret the section as stating a GPS may be attached to the windshield at the owner's discretion as long as it is attached within the two areas so designated.

Case law? There is no case law in traffic court.

Noticed that I am the one "playing defense". While low, the burden of proof still falls with the state to show that a regulation is actually in force and has been broken. (Defense doesn't have to "prove" there is NOT a requirement to be met!)

So, it falls upon your arguments to show that the word "MAY" is imparitive and there is a burden or obligation to the law.

So then I ask you...show me the mechanics of how you arrived at the interpretation that "MAY" is imparitive and is an obligation to (or requirement of) the law.

Here's a link to the rules of construction defining and codifing the words "MAY" and "SHALL" within the Ca vehicle code:
http://law.justia.com/california/codes/veh/1-32.html
(paragraph 15 is what your looking for.)

Further, as one of many example of the imparitive/permissive in the vehicle code, here, below, is a partial excerpt of the Ca vehicle code allowing "right on red" turns:

(b) Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, a driver, after stopping as required by subdivision (a), facing a steady circular red signal, MAY turn right, or turn left from a one-way street onto a one-way street. A driver making that turn SHALL yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to any vehicle that has approached or is approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard to the driver, and SHALL continue to yield the right-of-way to that vehicle until the driver can proceed with reasonable safety.

(The full section is here:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21453.htm)

You can see, above, interpreting the word "MAY" as imparitive or manditory (as you have) the right turn driver is then REQUIRED to turn right when clear during the red-light interval. But, we all know the law does not require us to turn right on red! The use of the word "MAY" (permissive) is the actual mechanics of how that "option without requirement" is created in the vehicle code.

(Also, notice, above, the right of way for the pedestrians and other traffic are clearly stated as "SHALL" in the imparitive. This makes their right of way a manditory obligation and enforceable.)

Same thing with the mounting of the GPS. If you begin "interpreting" "MAY" as imparitive and manditory in the vehicle code there will be some crazy outcomes.

It might seem subtile, but the law is very clear about these distinctions of these two words, and it is codified in the vehicle code itself.

Again, saying the GPS unit (in California) is REQUIRED to be in the lower corners when mounted to the windscreen is incorrect information.

The "corners" sited amount (legally) to nothing more than illistrative examples of safe places to mount it. If the slope, size or shape of your vehicles windscreen or your personal preference dictates a safer location on the windscreen- that application for the GPS is not excluded by the vehicle code.

Clear definition for CA

HawaiianFlyer wrote:
redbull-1 wrote:

Yes, effective January 1, 2009, California allowed GPS to be affixed to the bottom corners of the windshield. However, I used Garmin's friction mount with my Garmin 855 and place it in a slot in my car's center console.

That is incorrect information. In California there is no requirement that when attached to the windscreen the GPS be mounted in the lower corners. That is a common misinterpretation of the California vehicle code.

...And before the dissenting opinions begin, here's a link to the CA vehicle code 26708 to help them out:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708.htm

Lokks like a nice clear definition of where the GPS may be placed. Good reference.

I've been using a bean bag for years

dave817 wrote:

I find the beanbag a safety issue, as every time I turn the thing slides either in front of me or over toward the passenger side and I have go grab it quickly before it slides off the dash and gets the screen scratched up. That's not safe driving, so I stick with the suction cup mount, right below the rearview mirror and have never been stopped. I remove the mount whenever I stop and secure it out of sight. If I'm going shopping or to a movie, I'll remove it a short distance before I park so as to not be observed and targeted.

No issues for me. Mind you I don't drive too aggressively. My bean bag only slides forward when stopping suddenly. Much better than having the GPS just fall off the windsheild (when mounted) on a very hot day.

--
Garmin c340 265WT 1490T 295W 2460LMT 2555LMT 2757LM

I use a vent mount

On my cars I have a vent mount that uses the air vent vanes and the bottom of the vent housing to hold my Garmin Nuvi GPSs. You can get them off of Amazon for ~$6 or so, I have three of them.

I have used this set up in VW Jettas and Passats, Corollas, and Accords without a problem. It holds the unit pretty well and is easily removed when needed. Since I have several of them I also put a zip tie around the vane it's clamped to make it more stable with my heavier Garmin 1400s with their 5" screen. But they work fine without it.

With it mounted on the air vent it is in easy view and you never have to worry about it obstructing the windshield while driving.

--
GArmin Nuvi 255WT, 750T, 1300T, 1450LMT & 1490T

Bean Bags

Having 3 GPS's I have always used the bean bag mount on all and have no problems with it sliding around.
I use it primarily to mask the fact the vehicle has a GPS as well as ease of moving a GPS from one vehicle to another. I do drive conservatively, therefore I haven't experienced any issues.

Leaving the windshield mount on or leaving the ring exposed is just an invitation to have your vehicle vandalized. The thief doesn't know you took the GPS with you when he breaks the window.

Perhaps those with sliding issue may Armoral their dashboards thus providing a slick surface. Try a little denatured alcohol to clean the small area where the bean bag will be placed.
I got a bean bag as a package deal on Ebay with a Traffic Receiver. The bottom was worn and the bean bag slid, in the garbage it went. Treat your equipment properly and it will perform as designed.

BTW there are two versions of the mount, a round one and another that has 4 arms. I would imagine the round one (cheaper) would have a tendency to slide, I own the one with 4 arms. The price does fluctuate on these constantly. I bought mine at Amazon for 15.72, it's now selling there at 25.99.
Shop around, I'm sure you can find at a lower price.

This is the one I have:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002OL2MU4/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp...

--
Nuvi 660 2460LMT Sold My 765T

Mounts for GPS

I use this companies products and am very satisfied with their sturdiness, ease of installation.

http://www.proclipusa.com/

For the record, there is a

For the record, there is a FAQ regarding GPS receivers on the windshield that was created a year after this thread was started.

http://www.poi-factory.com/node/34521

The results were rather surprising. That disc Garmin provides is more useful than at first thought. smile

--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams

Bean bag works for me.

Bean bag works for me. Suction cup eventually falls off, even if you have never removed it.

.

HawaiianFlyer wrote:
Not2Bright wrote:

Seems to me that it specifies lower corners.

Here's a link to California Vehicle Code 1-32 http://law.justia.com/california/codes/veh/1-32.html

(This is generally refered to as the "Rules of Construction" for the vehicle code.)

In paragraph 15 of the Rules of Construction the words "SHALL and "MAY" are defined as follows : "Shall" is mandatory and "may" is permissive.

Refering to the windscreen "corners", the use of the word "MAY", a permissive statement, is NOT imperative, mandatory or exclusionary. (You "may" mount your GPS in those corners, but - again because if the choice of the word "MAY" - it is not mandatory or imperative you mount the GPS ONLY in those spots on the windscreen.)

Had the bill's author used the word(s): "shall", "will" or "must" when describing the attachment position of the GPS to the windscreen then those described squares would be the ONLY "legal" positions to mount the GPS unit upon the windscreen.

As it is, applying the given definitions of "SHALL" and "MAY" to the vehicle code, you MAY attach your GPS to the windscreen squares as described, BUT it is not imperative or mandatory, if attached to the windscreen, it be attached in this manner.

Or, in other words, permission to do something does not imply you MUST do it, nor does permission (or permissive statements) exclude other actions. Permission is like an option; it never implies a limitation.

Enforceable regulations are required to be stated in the imperative (shall, will, or must). Permissive statements in civil code are more akin to recommendations and are NOT enforceable.

People often make this mistake.

Of course, you are completely (for your own purposes it would seem) misconstruing the code.

The code needs to be taken together. You can't separate the sections.

The first section states that (a) (1) A person shall not drive any motor vehicle with any object or material placed, displayed, installed, affixed, or applied upon the windshield or side or rear windows.

But a later section stipulates an exception where the GPS unit MAY be placed. (12) A portable Global Positioning System (GPS), which may be mounted in a ( )1 seven-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from the driver or in a ( )2 five-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest to the driver and outside of an airbag deployment zone, if the system is used only for door-to-door navigation while the motor vehicle is being operated.

What this mean AND what is says is that you are prohibited from placing a anything on the windshield, but that you MAY place a GPS unit in the specified location. And that you MAY NOT place it anywhere else.

yep

sunsetrunner wrote:

Bean bag works for me. Suction cup eventually falls off, even if you have never removed it.

me too

--
. Nuvi 2460LMT, Zumo 550, Garmin preloaded into my Jeep, Beltronics Pro 500 radar detector with GPS built in, includes RLC info. Uconnect 430N (Garmin) built into my Jeep. .

GPS Mount

I have never liked the bean bag method, even though I have never used it.
With my former Nuvi's I used the glue to upper dash, until someone broke into my vehicle to permanently borrow it.
Next was the vent mount for my 885t, which worked exceptionally well.
I now have a built in Kenwood with a Garmin GPS.
The advantage apart from the cost is no more wires strewn across the dash area.
The integration of all of the features plus I did not lose my voice commands makes my new unit; Priceless!!!! No more mounting issues!!!

--
Being ALL I can be for HIM! Jesus. Kenwood DNX9980HD Garmin 885t

CA GPS LOCATION

CORRECT. AND NEXT SECTION HAS NOTHING PLACED IN DRIVERS VIEW. (LIKE FUZZY DICE OFF THE MIRROR. FOR SOME OFFICERS IT IS NOT A BIG DEAL.

I'm curious ...

PastorMC wrote:

I have never liked the bean bag method, even though I have never used it.
With my former Nuvi's I used the glue to upper dash, until someone broke into my vehicle to permanently borrow it.
~snip~

I'm curious as to why you didn't like the bean bag method, even though you hadn't tried it. For me it's basically like "gluing it to the dashboard" since it stays where I put it, with the added bonus of being able to remove it so folks won't want to help themselves to it. Plus on the dash, as opposed to the windshield, it doesn't obstruct my view of the road.

--
. Nuvi 2460LMT, Zumo 550, Garmin preloaded into my Jeep, Beltronics Pro 500 radar detector with GPS built in, includes RLC info. Uconnect 430N (Garmin) built into my Jeep. .

gps on windshield

never really thought too muck about it until I rented a Chevy Malibu a while back, seem the auto manufactures have given to shorting the height of cars now a days, reducing the available space on the windshield, it seemed to me the rear view mirror could even be considered an obstruction to the view.

ditto on the vent mount

I've used the vent mount on two cars and rarely remove the GPS as it is not visible from a distance.

seenmuch wrote:

On my cars I have a vent mount that uses the air vent vanes and the bottom of the vent housing to hold my Garmin Nuvi GPSs. You can get them off of Amazon for ~$6 or so, I have three of them.

I have used this set up in VW Jettas and Passats, Corollas, and Accords without a problem. It holds the unit pretty well and is easily removed when needed. Since I have several of them I also put a zip tie around the vane it's clamped to make it more stable with my heavier Garmin 1400s with their 5" screen. But they work fine without it.

With it mounted on the air vent it is in easy view and you never have to worry about it obstructing the windshield while driving.

.

I think Motorcycle Mama nailed it. Essentially, the GPS "may/corner" provsion provides an exception and/or affirmative defense to an obstructed windshield charge. In the event an officer tickets you for obstructed view, the "corners" provision gets you out of jail. If the GPS is mounted anywhere else on the windshield, it comes down to a question for the judge to determine if in fact your GPS obstructed your view or not.

Mounted in the corner: shouldn't get a ticket in the first place. But if ticket issued, not guilty if complied with the "corners" provision.

Mounted anywhere else: you'ar at the mercy of the officer and judge.

Page 1>>

sponsored links