Earlier today, our own Daydreaming Designer The Bishop wrote about a way to refine the look of Jeep’s new off-road-targeted battery electric vehicle, which they’re calling the Recon, which is short for reconstituted onions, the food of choice for the Jeep Recon design team. At least that’s what I heard. Anyway, the specifics of what The Bishop was trying to do was related to the look of the Recon without its doors. Because like a number of other off-road-friendly vehicles, you can legally drive the Recon without doors.
And I don’t mean drive it off-road, where there are no laws and life is cheap, I mean you can drive it legally, on American roads! Well, in most states, at least, and it looks like in at least a decent number of other countries (United Kingdom, Japan, India, but not Germany or China) you can drive a car with no doors pretty much anywhere you can legally drive a car, and, if you think about it, that’s an incredible thing, worthy of celebration.
I mean, just think about it, especially in the context of modern car safety requirements and standards. We currently live in an era where cars are absolutely crammed full of airbags like how Sam Rothstein wanted blueberries to be crammed into muffins at the Tangiers hotel. Or how cars now beep at you, relentlessly, if seatbelts aren’t fastened for rear seat passengers and they remind you to check the back seat for forgotten children every time you leave and they have automatic braking and rear-view cameras or even 360° cameras and ultrasonic sensors in bumpers and on and on and on. They’re wildly safe in every possible way, thanks to vast arrays of legal requirements. And yet, at the same time, it’s completely legal to drive on any highway like this:
Look at that. That’s what we call freedom, people.
It’s just part of the beautiful madness of how we view safety here in America. We’re kind of all or none when it comes to this stuff. We have incredibly stringent safety requirements and carmakers build remarkably safe cars with doors that have many regulations and restrictions on things like door handles or impact intrusion bars and side curtain air bags or we say, well, if you don’t want all that, how about nothing at all? How does that sound to you? Nothing?
It’s even noted right there in the official Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) Title 49 Subtitle B Chapter V Part 571 Subpart B § 571.214, among a number of other places (emphasis mine):
(c) Exclusions from S9 (vehicle-to-pole test). The following vehicles are excluded from S9 (vehicle-to-pole test) (wholly or in limited part, as set forth below):
(1) Motor homes;
(2) Ambulances and other emergency rescue/medical vehicles (including vehicles with fire-fighting equipment) except police cars;
(3) Vehicles with a lowered floor or raised or modified roof and vehicles that have had the original roof rails removed and not replaced;
(4) Vehicles in which the seat for the driver or any front outboard passenger has been removed and wheelchair restraints installed in place of the seat are excluded from meeting the vehicle-to-pole test at that position; and
(5) Vehicles that have no doors, or exclusively have doors that are designed to be easily attached or removed so that the vehicle can be operated without doors.
That phrasing, talking about vehicles without doors or having “doors that are designed to be easily attached or removed so that the vehicle can be operated without doors,” shows up in a number of places in the FMVSS documents, and gives some clarity to the permission of doorlessness: it’s only for cars that were designed to have removable doors. Just yanking the doors off your grandma’s old Delta 88 isn’t going to cut it.
But if your vehicle was designed with doors that are easy to yank off? Have at it!
Well, almost have at it – there is one thing to consider, and that’s mirrors. Some states require side-view mirrors on both sides of the vehicle, some only require a driver’s side mirror, and some just require an “inside” rear-view mirror. There’s a full breakdown of mirror laws by state here, but essentially it’s like this:
All three mirrors (both sides and inside): Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania
Two mirrors (driver’s side and one other, inside or passenger side): Alaska, California, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming
One driver’s side mirror: Connecticut, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah
At least one mirror, somewhere: every other state
… so if you can pull that off, you can drive with doorless abandon.
Some vehicles, like the new Ford Bronco, have provisions to mount mirrors on the front cowl below the windshield, where Jeep Wranglers don’t have a straightforward, ready-to-go solution, though there are aftermarket options.
But I’m kind of getting away from my main point here: it’s objectively bonkers – wonderful, yet bonkers – that driving without doors of any kind is still legal. Our culture can seem so safety-obsessed at times that it feels stifling, but then you remember things like this. I mean, I suppose as long as motorcycles exist, this isn’t really all that big a deal, comparatively, but in the automotive space, it does seem like a really novel exception.
In Japan, there are requirements to have some sort of restraining device, like a chain or simple bar like on that Honda Vamos up there, just to keep you from flopping out, but here in America, we don’t even bother with that. Well, I suppose we have seat belt laws, so that likely fulfills the anti-flop role.
Driving without doors feels like an improbable joy; it’s not especially convenient or maybe even pleasant at highway speeds, but for just richarding around town on a summer day? It’s oddly fantastic.
I’m just happy we still have the ability to legally do this; it feels like a privilege that is in constant, if mild, peril of being rescinded, so I think it’s important to take a moment and reflect on doorless driving as a nice little perk of life here on Earth.
That’s all. I just wanted us to take a moment to appreciate this.
Top graphic image: Volkswagen
In Germany, the situation is not as clear-cut. If your car has been titled on the basis of the type (“EU-Typzulassung”) having been legalized for the EU market, then yes. But if your car has been titled on the basis of the invidual car, and many YJ Jeeps before 1995 or so were, it may totally legal drive it without doors in Germany. Or it may not be, if the individual title is based on a “template assessment” (“Mustergutachten”) for the YJ Jeep, then you probably can’t, because this document has a section on “allowed modifications” and “optional equipment”, and it does not mention removing the doors, and all pictures show the car with the doors attached.
GREAT in-image caption. FOD was a my mom-ism.
“Why don’t all cars have no doors?” -Jeremy Clarkson
No, they have to be designed to have “easily removable” doors. Because technically, the old Delta 88’s doors are designed to be removable, yes? What, four big bolts or something like that, maybe for bigguns and a couple small ones? It’s that “easily” bit that makes the difference between fun and tickets. My bro found out the hard way with his 68 Nova beater. He cut the top off with a recip saw and pulled the doors. He could even make the argument that it was quite easy for him. Local cops were not impressed, howerver.
The Honda Vamos looks impossibly whimsical, like it’s from an alternate dimension where mankind lives without sin.
There used to be two yahoos who drove a 3rd Gen Camaro around Austin with no doors. I say “yahoos” because, well, I think you’re able to picture a couple of central Texas yahoos OK. No visual reasons for not having doors, like body damage etc. Pretty sure they just wanted to drive around without doors.
I have a Samurai, and doors off, roof off, knee in the wind in the right temperature is a platonic ideal.
that honda vamos looks AMAZING
I’m certainly no Jeep guy. And my interest in electric vehicles is limited at best.
But now I know that Recon is short for Reconstituted Onions I may go slap down a deposit.
Looking slightly more into the legality of driving with no doors in the UK, and the answer is …maybe.
You will need to have mirrors, but there’s no specific laws about if doors are required. That means it mostly comes down to the mood of the copper that stops you.
I remember driving my TR-6 without doors, waiting for my new door hinges to arrive. I think it was just to the gas station, and I could have probably driven something else, but it was fun. With all the rust I’m surprised it didn’t fold in half…
I totally read that top image as “FRIEND OF ODOR FREE” and I thought, well, sure, that much fresh air will carry off any funk, but an odd benefit to call out.
I was expecting some kind of partner post for an air purifier, must’ve looked at it 3 times before it finally unfuckulated itself in my head
While I was rebuilding my Elise I needed to do a short test drive to check a new engine mount. So I drove it with the rear clam off, meaning the only bodywork rear of the windshield were the doors. I should have taken them off just for a laugh.
Not legal, because that meant no plate or rear lights.
Can we all take a moment to be sad that we have gotten to the point that any little personal space that the fusspots haven’t gotten around to regulating seems like some sort of gift? Enjoy it, because soon as the government takes over health care, all it will take to curtail your fun is for someone else to say “I’m don’t want to pay if he gets hurt”.
Let’s all appreciate that the motorcycle was invented before the fusspots took over our lives with the attractive cry of “safety over all”. Later we can be sad when someone says “I don’t want to pay for motorcycle injuries”.
News flash. Your health care comment is exactly what we have currently.
Are you talking about the US? I was under the impression that no-one wants to pay if you are injured now, I don’t see how the government getting involved could make it that much worse
The government will try to modify your behavior. For the public good, of course, we have decided that motorcycles are too dangerous and will be banned. Otherwise, the health care costs will bankrupt us.
My wife used to sing the praises of government health care. Until we got in a crash in Canada.
Not here in Austria: Similar to Germany, the car’s certificate of conformity becomes invalid when you remove significant parts that where there when it was certified as roadworthy, such as doors.
Then again, it’s a moot point, because Jeep Wrangler doors are practically impossible to take off if no one has done so in over 20 years. Ask me how I know.
Bought a 2002 TJ in 2002, so I feel your pain. I had to use a floor jack under the open door to provide a little upward pressure while I rocked the door back and forth slightly and eventually the door slid up and out of the hinge. Totally rusted out inside, but cleaned them out and put new Delrin bushings in there and greased them up, and they were right as rain again.
Thanks for the hint! Once I get the new tub on the thing, I’ll give that a try.
Soak the hinges with Aerokroil, though you might be in a rare country with something equivalent or better.
Yeah just lift the jack enough to put some slight upward pressure on the door, then rock the door back and forth a few inches. Once it starts to move, give the jack another hit to keep the upward pressure going. I fought with that damn door for half an hour before reading about this trick. I put a towel between top of jack and bottom of door so it wouldn’t damage the paint. Doesn’t need to be a ton of pressure either, just enough to help lift the door while it’s moving back and forth.
Good luck!
Aren’t there pictures of road licensed racing karts there?
Yes, but they were certified without doors. Not so the Wrangler.
Really the only reason I want to remove the doors in a car is due to a fault with the doors.
For example I was considering removing the doors on the 2 door Wrangler I was under contract for because of the dissimilar metal corrosion they experience.
If I get a Jeep Recon I’m pulling off the doors first thing due to the stupid electric door handles
Go ahead, just don’t expect me to subsidize any medical care you might need, along with police, fire, ambulance etc. You have the freedom to be stupid, just not on my dime.
Does this same sentiment also apply to people who drink, smoke, are overweight or do other things that aren’t 100% healthy?
I was just about to write something like that…I’m guessing he never eats any foods that are considered unhealthy, only drinks beverages that contain zero sugar, alcohol or preservatives, nor does he practice any type of activity (sports or otherwise) that could lead to accidents. And that’s just to start with, if someone is going to be holier-than-thou, i expect him/her to go all the way, not just when it suits him.
Or drive a motor vehicle to work? I remember reading that someone in the Australian nanny state studied the expected health outcomes of bicycling without a helmet and they found that it was healthier than not bicycling.
So by the nanny logic expressed above, no one should be allowed to operate a motor vehicle.
Hey Ottos! Any comments?
Seemed to be an ironic comment
If only it worked that way. I pay taxes to fund a lot of things I don’t like, but I can’t just refuse to pay taxes simply because I don’t like everything they pay for. Why is it that people only seem to say this about healthcare for their fellow people and not, like, funding wars or military occupations, or ramping up a police state?