pimpm3 (Forum Supporter)
pimpm3 (Forum Supporter) UberDork
4/25/22 10:37 p.m.

So I was reading an article on the local news about a bunch of shiny happy folks doing donuts and generally trying their best to ruin car events in Jacksonville, and noticed a link to Florida HB 399.

Hb 399

I read the actual text of the bill and it seems to basically make it illegal to have an automotive "speed competition or contest" in a parking lot.  I am no legal scholar by any means but does this bill have the potential to make autocross site acquisition / retention a whole lot more difficult?

I know the bill is meant to combat the people doing donuts / wheelies / taking over the roadways etc... but are there un-intended consequences that maybe were not taken into consideration by the drafters of the bill?

I totally get trying to stop the hoodlums street racing and damaging parking lots but I hope this doesn't put a damper on actual motorsports.

Patientzero
Patientzero Dork
4/25/22 10:40 p.m.

What "test of speed" is happening during donuts or wheelies?

 

Probably one of those laws with good intentions but ends up hurting the wrong people.

 

 

Error404
Error404 HalfDork
4/25/22 10:46 p.m.

Florida and vague feel good bills kinda go hand in hand. 

Stampie
Stampie MegaDork
4/25/22 10:47 p.m.

Typical grandstanding of making a new law outlawing what was already illegal.

Tom1200
Tom1200 UltraDork
4/25/22 11:01 p.m.

You guys need to read the bottom of page 9 of the bill.  Section 7 line 224.

While it doesn't specifically autocross the language itself makes allowances for it and other sanctioned events.

 

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter)
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) UltraDork
4/26/22 12:38 a.m.
Tom1200 said:

You guys need to read the bottom of page 9 of the bill.  Section 7 line 224.

While it doesn't specifically autocross the language itself makes allowances for it and other sanctioned events.

 

I can't believe you actually expect people to READ.  It's crazy. 

pimpm3 (Forum Supporter)
pimpm3 (Forum Supporter) UberDork
4/26/22 6:20 a.m.

In reply to Tom1200 :

I didn't see that part.  That makes me feel much better.

Ranger50
Ranger50 MegaDork
4/26/22 8:50 a.m.

In reply to Tom1200 :

Here's my problem, while it doesn't say it specifically, who "designates" a provided area? Any fleabie lawyer is going to say, "nah, it's a parking lot." 

ProDarwin
ProDarwin MegaDork
4/26/22 8:56 a.m.
Stampie said:

Typical grandstanding of making a new law outlawing what was already illegal.

Yes, how is the shiny happy person donut behavior not already illegal under numerous laws?

Tom1200
Tom1200 UltraDork
4/26/22 6:11 p.m.
Ranger50 said:

In reply to Tom1200 :

Here's my problem, while it doesn't say it specifically, who "designates" a provided area? Any fleabie lawyer is going to say, "nah, it's a parking lot." 

Well,  lawyers wouldn't be enforcing it.  If a lawyer for an agrevied party (NIMBY crowd) were to complain, a local autocross is going to fall into the category of designated.

Tom1200
Tom1200 UltraDork
4/26/22 6:15 p.m.
ProDarwin said:
Stampie said:

Typical grandstanding of making a new law outlawing what was already illegal.

Yes, how is the shiny happy person donut behavior not already illegal under numerous laws?

Read all 14 pages; this gives law enforcement addtional tools to crack down on the take-over wannabe drifter crowds. The intent is fairly clear in the first paragraph.................the only reason I read the whole thing is there was a glaring lack of mention in the overview about sanctioned events..............this fact made it clear they weren't after local autocross or the like.

The penalties are listed in the middle portion of the document; this law would allow the state to revoke a drivers license for a single infraction, whereas currently it's only going to be something like reckless driving which will still let you keep your license.

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
MUDHpyBnhlnBKDQ37Oas2ZXSQOQt2GGugrjlTMXtJXSB87WFQ7MEdutqyJEsL7ii