Stupid is as stupid does
- Thread starter Justyntym
- Start date
From my 1st link
316.440 Brake equipment required.--Every motor-driven cycle must comply with the provisions of s. 316.261, except that:
(1) Motorcycles and motor-driven cycles need not be equipped with parking brakes.
(2) The wheel of a sidecar attached to a motorcycle or to a motor-driven cycle, and the front wheel of a motor-driven cycle, need not be equipped with brakes, provided that such motorcycle or motor-driven cycle is capable of complying with the performance requirements of this chapter.
A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a nonmoving violation as provided in chapter 318.
History.--s. 1, ch. 71-135; s. 1, ch. 76-31; s. 229, ch. 99-248.
Note.--Former s. 316.264.
316.440 Brake equipment required.--Every motor-driven cycle must comply with the provisions of s. 316.261, except that:
(1) Motorcycles and motor-driven cycles need not be equipped with parking brakes.
(2) The wheel of a sidecar attached to a motorcycle or to a motor-driven cycle, and the front wheel of a motor-driven cycle, need not be equipped with brakes, provided that such motorcycle or motor-driven cycle is capable of complying with the performance requirements of this chapter.
A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a nonmoving violation as provided in chapter 318.
History.--s. 1, ch. 71-135; s. 1, ch. 76-31; s. 229, ch. 99-248.
Note.--Former s. 316.264.
316.445 Performance ability of motorcycle brakes.--
(1) Every motorcycle and motor-driven cycle, at all times and under all conditions of loading, upon application of the service brake, shall be capable of:
(a) Developing a braking force that is not less than 43.5 percent of its gross weight;
(b) Decelerating to a stop from not more than 20 miles per hour at not less than 14 feet per second per second; and
(c) Stopping from a speed of 20 miles per hour in not more than 30 feet, such distance to be measured from the point at which movement of the service brake pedal or control begins.
(2) Tests for deceleration and stopping distance shall be made on a substantially level (not to exceed plus or minus 1 percent grade), dry, smooth, hard surface that is free from loose material.
(3) A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a nonmoving violation as provided in chapter 318.
History.--s. 1, ch. 71-135; s. 1, ch. 76-31; s. 230, ch. 99-248.
Note.--Former s. 316.265.
As far as single lever braking? Haven't found info pretaining to motorcycles,but I'm sure there is something somewhere.
(1) Every motorcycle and motor-driven cycle, at all times and under all conditions of loading, upon application of the service brake, shall be capable of:
(a) Developing a braking force that is not less than 43.5 percent of its gross weight;
(b) Decelerating to a stop from not more than 20 miles per hour at not less than 14 feet per second per second; and
(c) Stopping from a speed of 20 miles per hour in not more than 30 feet, such distance to be measured from the point at which movement of the service brake pedal or control begins.
(2) Tests for deceleration and stopping distance shall be made on a substantially level (not to exceed plus or minus 1 percent grade), dry, smooth, hard surface that is free from loose material.
(3) A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a nonmoving violation as provided in chapter 318.
History.--s. 1, ch. 71-135; s. 1, ch. 76-31; s. 230, ch. 99-248.
Note.--Former s. 316.265.
As far as single lever braking? Haven't found info pretaining to motorcycles,but I'm sure there is something somewhere.
This is interesting. They can pull your tag if you don't meet the braking requirements...
316.450 Brakes on motor-driven cycles.--
(1) The department is authorized to require an inspection of the braking system on any motor-driven cycle and to disapprove any such braking system on a vehicle which it finds will not comply with the performance ability standard set forth in s. 316.445 or which in its opinion is equipped with a braking system that is not so designed or constructed as to ensure reasonable and reliable performance in actual use.
(2) The department may refuse to register or may suspend or revoke the registration of any vehicle referred to in this section when it determines that the braking system thereon does not comply with the provisions of this section.
(3) No person shall operate on any highway any vehicle referred to in this section in the event the department has disapproved the braking system upon such vehicle.
(4) A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a nonmoving violation as provided in chapter 318.
History.--s. 1, ch. 71-135; ss. 1, 30, ch. 76-31; s. 231, ch. 99-248.
Note.--Former s. 316.266.
316.450 Brakes on motor-driven cycles.--
(1) The department is authorized to require an inspection of the braking system on any motor-driven cycle and to disapprove any such braking system on a vehicle which it finds will not comply with the performance ability standard set forth in s. 316.445 or which in its opinion is equipped with a braking system that is not so designed or constructed as to ensure reasonable and reliable performance in actual use.
(2) The department may refuse to register or may suspend or revoke the registration of any vehicle referred to in this section when it determines that the braking system thereon does not comply with the provisions of this section.
(3) No person shall operate on any highway any vehicle referred to in this section in the event the department has disapproved the braking system upon such vehicle.
(4) A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a nonmoving violation as provided in chapter 318.
History.--s. 1, ch. 71-135; ss. 1, 30, ch. 76-31; s. 231, ch. 99-248.
Note.--Former s. 316.266.
For those who ride with their Ipods in FL...
316.304 Wearing of headsets.--
(1) No person shall operate a vehicle while wearing a headset, headphone, or other listening device, other than a hearing aid or instrument for the improvement of defective human hearing.
(2) This section does not apply to:
(a) Any law enforcement officer equipped with any communication device necessary in performing his or her assigned duties or to any emergency vehicle operator equipped with any ear protection device.
(b) Any applicant for a license to operate a motorcycle while taking the examination required by s. 322.12(5).
(c) Any person operating a motorcycle who is using a headset that is installed in a helmet and worn so as to prevent the speakers from making direct contact with the user's ears so that the user can hear surrounding sounds.
(d) Any person using a headset in conjunction with a cellular telephone that only provides sound through one ear and allows surrounding sounds to be heard with the other ear.
(e) Any person using a headset in conjunction with communicating with the central base operation that only provides sound through one ear and allows surrounding sounds to be heard with the other ear.
(3) The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles shall promulgate, by administrative rule, standards and specifications for headset equipment the use of which is permitted under this section. The department shall inspect and review all such devices submitted to it and shall publish a list by name and type of approved equipment.
(4) A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a nonmoving violation as provided in chapter 318.
History.--s. 1, ch. 73-4; s. 1, ch. 76-31; s. 8, ch. 83-228; s. 4, ch. 84-284; s. 2, ch. 85-329; s. 24, ch. 87-161; s. 3, ch. 88-405; s. 3, ch. 92-18; s. 24, ch. 95-143; s. 327, ch. 95-148; s. 219, ch. 99-248; s. 105, ch. 2002-20.
Note.--Former s. 316.0285.
316.304 Wearing of headsets.--
(1) No person shall operate a vehicle while wearing a headset, headphone, or other listening device, other than a hearing aid or instrument for the improvement of defective human hearing.
(2) This section does not apply to:
(a) Any law enforcement officer equipped with any communication device necessary in performing his or her assigned duties or to any emergency vehicle operator equipped with any ear protection device.
(b) Any applicant for a license to operate a motorcycle while taking the examination required by s. 322.12(5).
(c) Any person operating a motorcycle who is using a headset that is installed in a helmet and worn so as to prevent the speakers from making direct contact with the user's ears so that the user can hear surrounding sounds.
(d) Any person using a headset in conjunction with a cellular telephone that only provides sound through one ear and allows surrounding sounds to be heard with the other ear.
(e) Any person using a headset in conjunction with communicating with the central base operation that only provides sound through one ear and allows surrounding sounds to be heard with the other ear.
(3) The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles shall promulgate, by administrative rule, standards and specifications for headset equipment the use of which is permitted under this section. The department shall inspect and review all such devices submitted to it and shall publish a list by name and type of approved equipment.
(4) A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a nonmoving violation as provided in chapter 318.
History.--s. 1, ch. 73-4; s. 1, ch. 76-31; s. 8, ch. 83-228; s. 4, ch. 84-284; s. 2, ch. 85-329; s. 24, ch. 87-161; s. 3, ch. 88-405; s. 3, ch. 92-18; s. 24, ch. 95-143; s. 327, ch. 95-148; s. 219, ch. 99-248; s. 105, ch. 2002-20.
Note.--Former s. 316.0285.
Strife,
All Good finds...No doubt in my mind that it was probably illegal. I just like seeing the statutes. You often find strange information, like the information about the single level applying to all brakes. I believe that is also know as integrated brakes.
Point is the laws are good but they are fluid and don't necessarly determine right from wrong.
For instance. We see that the law establishes what is "Right" and "Wrong" for brakes in FL and we probably all happily agree that the law is reasonable and similar laws most likely can be found in other states.
However. In Florida it is legal for the operator of a motorcycle to ride without a helmet. In Virginia it is illegal. So here we have a situation where "Right" and "Wrong" are opposite according to the law.
So my point is, just because something is legal doesn't make it right and the converse could also be stated, just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong. This all depends on the issue and your point of view.
I think we can all agree that whether it is legal or not going without a helmet is wrong or at least stupid. I don't need a law to understand that, nor am I advocating a law.
My question is: Are we in agreement that going without proper gear is also wrong and possibly stupid? If not why?
Why is there so much push back about taking that to the next level and admiting that going without other gear is also wrong, possibly stupid?
All Good finds...No doubt in my mind that it was probably illegal. I just like seeing the statutes. You often find strange information, like the information about the single level applying to all brakes. I believe that is also know as integrated brakes.
Point is the laws are good but they are fluid and don't necessarly determine right from wrong.
For instance. We see that the law establishes what is "Right" and "Wrong" for brakes in FL and we probably all happily agree that the law is reasonable and similar laws most likely can be found in other states.
However. In Florida it is legal for the operator of a motorcycle to ride without a helmet. In Virginia it is illegal. So here we have a situation where "Right" and "Wrong" are opposite according to the law.
So my point is, just because something is legal doesn't make it right and the converse could also be stated, just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong. This all depends on the issue and your point of view.
I think we can all agree that whether it is legal or not going without a helmet is wrong or at least stupid. I don't need a law to understand that, nor am I advocating a law.
My question is: Are we in agreement that going without proper gear is also wrong and possibly stupid? If not why?
Why is there so much push back about taking that to the next level and admiting that going without other gear is also wrong, possibly stupid?
nddragon01
Registered
...well, the world needs people to fill graves. Job security for grave diggers I guess.
Similar threads
