Some jurisdictions ban both, some neither. A key point in many laws concerning wether a vehicle must have doors to operate on road is often wether that vehicle was “designed to operate without doors.”
So, many Jeeps come with factory removable doors, and thusly are often allowed to be driven without doors.
In theory, to be legally driven without doors a car would need to be DOT compliant in the US. and most US market cars use the doors as part of the crash structure of the vehicle.
Meaning that removing the doors of a car not crash tested without doors would compromise its ability to pass DOT mandated standards- or at the least would invalidate the certification that it passed since even if it would pass, without a test they can’t certify that- which is the same as failing in practice.
There is often a presumptive element however. That is to say that they do not necessarily force manufacturers to crash test a vehicle without the doors IF the vehicle is designed to be operated without doors, as it stands to reason ;even if that reasoning is false) that if the car is designed to operate without doors, the doors are ornamental and thusly are no more a crash safety issue than removing a spoiler or fog lights on most cars.
Country, state, province, city, county, etc. rules may vary of course. In sor places it is illegal to operate a vehicle without a hood (bonnet) and in others it is legal.
As for the axe- this is another circumstantial one. For example- while in much of America there aren’t any or many strict standards for the body of a car or accessories- in some places in America and abroad there are.
So for instance, you can fail a road inspection some places for having “perforations” in sheet metal- essentially any holes in the car that weren’t there when the car was sold such as rust holes or… an axe hole.
Places like Japan Can be very strict on road inspections and often require that all windows and switches be operable. This is part of why it is less common to see older cars at all or cars in Poot condition some places. The cost benefit ratio of up keeping older cars is often not favorable, and rules are less lax than places where people can drive almost anything that meets some basic requirements like having lights- or sometimes less than that even.
These various laws often have pros and cons. Some seem silly but actually make decent sense. In the USA, cars must have “orange” side markers in the front and “red” in the rear. These markers must act as reflectors AND be lit on cars after certain years. This helps increase visibility of the car to others even in poor lighting, and while mandating those colors or the presence of these markers can be stylistically limiting to designers and owners looking to customize, the arrangement makes it easier to tell the direction a car is facing and traveling even from afar and in poor visibility. Many such laws have been relaxed overtime- this has allowed automotive designers and customizers more freedom in these areas.
An example of that is when you look at most cars sold in the USA into the 1980’s, all the headlights looked the same. 4 small squares, 2 large rectangles, 2 or 4 small or large circles…
The law mandated the use of specific raked beam headlights- units where the bulbs and lens and assembly were one piece and disposable. This limited how cars could be designed. Compare that to newer cars with their elaborate and stylized head lights of many shapes and sizes and designs. A switch to permit the use of certain standardized replaceable bulbs as long as the assembly met certain test criteria opened up the door to more modern cars and mostly closed the door on older designs like “flip up lights” or “hide aways” that had been invented primarily to allow some stylistic variance or aerodynamic advantage while being legally compliant.
So while many of these laws can be outdated or overly rigid and restrictive, many also make sense when really examined and considered.
Laws on doors are in a way an example- though arguably many feel that you should be allowed to make decisions about your personal safety free from undue interference on your behalf- not west a seat belt, rife without a helmet, or drive a car that doesn’t meet certain crash standards etc. so long as the life at risk is primarily the one that made the choice to perform the act.
I won’t open that debate or comment beyond to say that wether door laws are an example of a prudent law or not is debatable, but in general some of these laws do have good reason when we start to dig and consider that they can’t always decide legality of an act on an individual basis but need one rule that applies across the board.
So, many Jeeps come with factory removable doors, and thusly are often allowed to be driven without doors.
In theory, to be legally driven without doors a car would need to be DOT compliant in the US. and most US market cars use the doors as part of the crash structure of the vehicle.
Meaning that removing the doors of a car not crash tested without doors would compromise its ability to pass DOT mandated standards- or at the least would invalidate the certification that it passed since even if it would pass, without a test they can’t certify that- which is the same as failing in practice.
Country, state, province, city, county, etc. rules may vary of course. In sor places it is illegal to operate a vehicle without a hood (bonnet) and in others it is legal.
As for the axe- this is another circumstantial one. For example- while in much of America there aren’t any or many strict standards for the body of a car or accessories- in some places in America and abroad there are.
Places like Japan Can be very strict on road inspections and often require that all windows and switches be operable. This is part of why it is less common to see older cars at all or cars in Poot condition some places. The cost benefit ratio of up keeping older cars is often not favorable, and rules are less lax than places where people can drive almost anything that meets some basic requirements like having lights- or sometimes less than that even.
The law mandated the use of specific raked beam headlights- units where the bulbs and lens and assembly were one piece and disposable. This limited how cars could be designed. Compare that to newer cars with their elaborate and stylized head lights of many shapes and sizes and designs. A switch to permit the use of certain standardized replaceable bulbs as long as the assembly met certain test criteria opened up the door to more modern cars and mostly closed the door on older designs like “flip up lights” or “hide aways” that had been invented primarily to allow some stylistic variance or aerodynamic advantage while being legally compliant.
Laws on doors are in a way an example- though arguably many feel that you should be allowed to make decisions about your personal safety free from undue interference on your behalf- not west a seat belt, rife without a helmet, or drive a car that doesn’t meet certain crash standards etc. so long as the life at risk is primarily the one that made the choice to perform the act.
I won’t open that debate or comment beyond to say that wether door laws are an example of a prudent law or not is debatable, but in general some of these laws do have good reason when we start to dig and consider that they can’t always decide legality of an act on an individual basis but need one rule that applies across the board.