New Florida Laws

[Jon]

ADVISORY BULLETIN
Florida Association of Court Clerks/Comptrollers

REF: HB 137 (ch. 2008-117, Laws of Florida) DATE: August 20, 2008 NO: 08-058

FILE NO. F02-008-080820-01 TELEPHONE: (850) 921-0808 CONTACT: B. Allman PAGE 1 OF 1

Effective October 1, 2008, HB 137 revises the traffic laws to create a few more penalties. This short bill was particularly focused on unsafe motorcycle activities, but it does include a provision for excessive speed. The new law also provides penalties for the first, second, third or subsequent violations. The Distribution Chart found on the FACC website will be updated to reflect the amounts for the first and second offenses in the Traffic section. The third and subsequent offense is classified as a third degree felony with a $5,000 fine and will appear in the Criminal Traffic section of the chart.

New Violations:
316.2085(2) Motorcycle or moped, wheels losing contact with ground
This is classified as a moving violation.
First Offense: the violator must pay $1,000 plus any other costs assessed for a moving violation. Second Offense: the violator must pay a fine of $2,500, plus any other applicable costs assessed for a moving violation. The person's driver license must be revoked for a period of one year.
Third Offense: the violator will be charged with a third degree felony, punishable as provided in ss. 775.082, 775.083, and 775.084, a mandatory fine of $5,000, and the driver license must be revoked for a period of ten years.
(new entries for Distribution Chart-see below)

316.2085(3) Motorcycle or moped license tag improperly affixed
This is classified as a moving violation.
First Offense: the violator must pay $1,000 plus any other costs assessed for a moving violation. Second Offense: the violator must pay a fine of $2,500, plus any other applicable costs assessed for a moving violation. The person's driver license must be revoked for a period of one year.
Third Offense: the violator will be charged with a third degree felony, punishable as provided in ss. 775.082, 775.083, and 775.084, a mandatory fine of $5,000, and the driver license must be revoked for a period of ten years.
(new entries for Distribution Chart-see below)

316.1926 (2) A person who exceeds the speed limit in excess of 50 mph or more in violation of ss.
316.183(2) (posted speeds), 316.187(state speed zones), or 316.189 (municipal and county speeds)
This is classified as a moving violation.
First Offense: the violator must pay a fine of $1,000 plus court costs.
Second Offense: the violator must pay a fine of $2,500 plus court costs and the driver license must be revoked for a period of one year.
Third Offense: the violator will be charged with a third degree felony, punishable as provided in ss. 775.082, 775.083, and 775.084, a mandatory fine of $5,000, and the driver license must be revoked for a period of ten years.

 

[PineGreen]

1st offense $1000. Should get everyones attention!!!!!!!! But, I bet it won't!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Bud]

Paging Knary, Knary to the white courtesy phone.

 

[TomBarnhart]

new fl laws

a $1000 fine will not get the attention of the retards that do their wheelies on city streets. They are the same folks that "hide" their license plates under the rear fender to prevent detection/apprehension. As for anyone going 50 mph in execss of the posted limit, I can only wish that Darwin gets them before the law.

These three behaviors cause the general non-riding public to pressure their legislators to ban all motorcycles from their towns. The only thing that PO's them more is the loud pipes issue.

Yes, I ride and I live in Florida, and I hear all the complaints about the hooligan riders from my non-riding friends.

 

[greenwald]

a $1000 fine will not get the attention of the retards that do their wheelies on city streets. They are the same folks that "hide" their license plates under the rear fender to prevent detection/apprehension. As for anyone going 50 mph in execss of the posted limit, I can only wish that Darwin gets them before the law.

These three behaviors cause the general non-riding public to pressure their legislators to ban all motorcycles from their towns. The only thing that PO's them more is the loud pipes issue.

Yes, I ride and I live in Florida, and I hear all the complaints about the hooligan riders from my non-riding friends.

Agreed.

But actually, these are three good laws. Rather than paint with a broad brush that smears ALL riders with the same latex, FL has targeted three specific concerns that I saw way too much of when I spent five days at Bike Week in '04.

Wheelies? If you must be noticed that badly, save it for the track, or get a tattoo.

Vertical- or hidden-mounted plates? LEO's need to read those tags and often get very little time to do so. Rules are rules, buddy. Obey them.

50 MPH or more over a posted limit?! The fine is too low.

Enjoy Florida - I truly did. Someday??!!

 

[RJM2096]

It is about time. Other states should do the same so there is some consistency. When I am in the car and 20 cycles pass me going 120+ MPH it tends to shake me up. I can't imagine some 70 year-old Floridian experiencing that. Hope it helps.

 

[hlothery]

It is about time. Other states should do the same so there is some consistency. When I am in the car and 20 cycles pass me going 120+ MPH it tends to shake me up. I can't imagine some 70 year-old Floridian experiencing that. Hope it helps.

Not to mention meeting some squid in a curve in the Hill Country halfway across the line and dragging a knee.

Sounds to me like these are three good new laws, about which I will never have to worry. Now..........about those Vance and Hines.........

 

[WildBlue]

Somewhere in the U.S. Constitution there is something to the effect of the punishment must fit the crime.

I get the feeling that this will be tried against that.

Just sayin...

 

[BeemerMike]

Somewhere in the U.S. Constitution there is something to the effect of the punishment must fit the crime.

No . . . there isn't. There is a prohibition against "excessive fines" and "cruel and unusual punishments".

 

[WildBlue]

No . . . there isn't. There is a prohibition against "excessive fines" and "cruel and unusual punishments".

Dont you just love interpretation?

Either way, my point remains the same.

Just to add, I am not a person who you would catch doing any of these things.

 

[RONDO]

They need to pull motorcycle or moped out of those laws because they should also apply to all vehicles.

Ever seen a LR bouncing down the road at 50+mph front end getting air - not too safe either.

Dave

 

[Stuff2c]

Home of the brave and land of the free...

More useless laws....there are PLENTY of laws already on the books that they can use without creating new ones. Google "useless laws" it will blow your mind.
The "it doesn't effect me" people take note...SOME DAY IT WILL.
It's illegal not to display your tag correctly, excessive speed and wheelies are covered under reckless driving. this was no more than a State Rep that wanted to say he passed a law...Carlos Canterra in Dade county if you vote there take note when he's up for reelection. my.02

 

[The_Veg]

Are those short paragraphs the extent of those laws, or are those simple summaries? The big problem I see is that they seem to lack definitions and may be interpreted *WAY* too broadly.

 

[FatChance]

I feel safer that it will (continue to) be illegal for MOPEDS to do wheelies or go 50mph over the posted speed limit. Much safer, indeed.

 

[535IS]

Dont you just love interpretation?

A direct quote is not "interpretation".

It is not too hard to find an online copy of the US Constitution to look for anything you believe might be in it. You would also find that it takes less time to read it from beginning to end than it takes to read everything that comes every month in your credit card statement. Maybe this is why we have had more problems arising out of credit transactions in 30 years than we have from constitutional issues in 220 ...

 

[WildBlue]

A direct quote is not "interpretation".

It is not too hard to find an online copy of the US Constitution to look for anything you believe might be in it. You would also find that it takes less time to read it from beginning to end than it takes to read everything that comes every month in your credit card statement. Maybe this is why we have had more problems arising out of credit transactions in 30 years than we have from constitutional issues in 220 ...

I was referring to MY interpretation.

Thanks for playing, though.

 

[BeemerMike]

I was referring to MY interpretation.

535is - Sounds like Supreme Court Justice material to me!

 

[greenwald]

A direct quote is not "interpretation".

It is not too hard to find an online copy of the US Constitution to look for anything you believe might be in it. You would also find that it takes less time to read it from beginning to end than it takes to read everything that comes every month in your credit card statement. Maybe this is why we have had more problems arising out of credit transactions in 30 years than we have from constitutional issues in 220 ...

Damn! You mean I'm supposed to read those statements?!

I agree with your comment of "A direct quote is not interpretation," but our Judiciary thrives on seeing that differently than you.

Enjoy our WI autumn.

Heading down to the 38th Dells Rally? Weather a bit 'iffy' but then, this is WI.

Ride Safe.

 

[Bud]

A direct quote is not "interpretation".

It is not too hard to find an online copy of the US Constitution to look for anything you believe might be in it. You would also find that it takes less time to read it from beginning to end than it takes to read everything that comes every month in your credit card statement. Maybe this is why we have had more problems arising out of credit transactions in 30 years than we have from constitutional issues in 220 ...

Right you are.

However, we have a lot of years of judicial decisions that may change what you think you read in that "direct quote".

Then there are other areas, like the recent decision on the 2nd Amendment, that still are not really "settled" and the decisions seem to raise as many questions as they answer.

 

[BeemerMike]

However, we have a lot of years of judicial decisions that may change what you think you read in that "direct quote".

I think what 535is meant, and I know what I meant, was that if you are going to have a "Constitutional" discussion, you should at least START with the actual words before you go off on what you think it means, or what you think it should mean. I don't think either of us read anything into the direct quote . . . yet.