Question on NJ Statute 39:3-74

I am a UBER & LYFT driver and after a recent incident I have the need to record what happens in the passenger compartment. I was considering a dash cam that records the road and inside of my car but after doing some Google searches I found people were receiving tickets for GPS systems under Statue 39:3-74

According to findlaw the exact statue says (bolding and underlining added by me )


So, how do they react to EZPass transponders?

Also, do not some of the dashcam/cabin cam devices effectively replace the rearview mirror? Seems to me they’d have a hard time ticketting you for having a high-tech mirror.

I’m unclear just what is meant by this:

Is that wording being taken to exclude something mounted close to but not touching the windshield?

Note that most rearview mirrors would be prohibited on the basis that they are “non-transparent material upon the front windshield”. Though I suppose they could slip in as an “article required to be so displayed by statute or by regulations of the commissioner”.

Better get those cheesy suction-cup gold shields off then too, right?

Yes all that is technically illegal, including EZ pass (unless something has changed). Now I have not heard it being enforced.

Those are synonyms for triangular windows between the windshield and the front side (door) windows. Ones that open are commonly called wing windows, vent windows, or vents. Windows that don’t open are often called lights (e.g. opera light, skylight).

I find this odd, 'since NJ is participant in EZPass.

I was hoping **Loach **might weigh in on this. He would be a possible resource for the Op’s question as is in NJ law enforcement. I just PM’d him with a link.

What if the camera is up on the ceiling, above the rear view mirror? That wouldn’t obstruct anything. I wouldn’t sweat it - better to beg permission and all. Whether it’s technically against the statute or not, worst case it’s just a fine and you can argue this in court. A large GPS screen down on the dash is blocking the driver’s field of view. Even if it’s technically against the statute, a cop would have to be aware of the technical wording of the statute, notice the camera (it would be hard to see from standing outside the car, you’d have to bend down pretty far), and have already pulled you over for something else. Even then, if you think about it, the recording might save you from the ticket for what the officer pulled you over for, making it a net gain.

I’m an UBER and LYFT driver. When I drive in shore towns it will be easy for the police officers to look into my car. I would be afraid of mounting to my interior roof because of possible damage.

I want a camera so if I have my life threatened by another passenger like I did the other week I will be able to go to the police with a image of the person.

I’m not sure where everyone else mounts their EZPass. Mine is where they instruct you to put it, on the glass behind the mirror. It in no way obstructs the view. In fact I can’t even see any of it because of the rear view mirror.

As for the OP, yes under that statute anything that obstructs any of the view through the windshield to include air fresheners hanging off of the rear view mirror can be cited as a violation. I have no idea how your camera mounts but it certainly could be a violation. Personally I have never written that statute and I won’t unless I find a particularly egregious example.

Fair point - Mine is where it’s instructed, but on my car, that still exposes it to view.

Re: EZ Pass transponders, this is like probably 1,000’s of other cases where laws are poorly drafted but the enforcement ‘understands’ the purpose, it should say something like ‘if it can obstruct vision from inside’. Unfortunately it isn’t always as clear as this case with an EZ Pass transponder that it’s not a problem if behind the mirror.

For example my town in NJ used to insist you put your local parking permit in the corner of the front windshield, and wasn’t so clear why you shouldn’t get a ticket for following that instruction if driving elsewhere in the state. It was judged somehow easier for the town to check, don’t really know why. Eventually they relented and changed it to back window like most places.

If it’s the risk of ticket for something a police officer would have be almost seeking to give you ticket for vs being accused of inappropriate behavior I’d roll the dice on installing it. One is a ticket the other is your job and possibly being accused of a serious crime.

It’s a $54 ticket and no points. Everyone can do their own cost benefit analysis.

Barely even worth pulling someone over for a $54 ticket, amirite? Kidding, I know that you don’t have a set quota or get a cut of the ticket, though I would imagine there must be some kind of review of your performance.