316.272 Exhaust systems, prevention of noise
 

316.272 Exhaust systems, prevention of noise.--

(1) Every motor vehicle shall at all times be equipped with an exhaust system in good working order and in constant operation, including muffler, manifold pipe, and tailpiping to prevent excessive or unusual noise. In no event shall an exhaust system allow noise at a level which exceeds a maximum decibel level to be established by regulation of the Department of Environmental Protection as provided in s. 403.061(13) in cooperation with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. No person shall use a muffler cutout, bypass or similar device upon a vehicle on a highway.

(2) The engine and power mechanism of every motor vehicle shall be so equipped and adjusted as to prevent the escape of excessive fumes or smoke.

(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. 72-39; s. 1, ch. 73-89; s. 27, ch. 79-65; s. 135, ch. 94-356; s. 204, ch. 99-248.

There's a new revision to this one that specifies something to the effect of "louder than factory". I'll look it up and post it here.

How would they determine such a thing in practice? Is the burden of proof on law enforcement to do the measurements?

Along with those videos I took of the before and after exhaust systems on my Z, the program I used to clip out those sections shows a visual of the audio track frequency wave as well. If I think of it later on tonight, I'll post it for a comparison. From what I can recall there wasn't that much difference that I could see.

I think it's meant for the obnoxious exhaust, ie: ricers with the fart can mufflers or the Harley's that can be heard a mile away when their getting on it. Those make it difficult to talk to someone when their driving next to you, and can even hurt your ears when your taking off from a red light next to them with your windows down.

I'm also looking for the statute to pass it on. I keep finding the same one you already quoted, but it's in the 2005 logs that I'm seeing it. I'll get back to ya.

Actually I think the boom box cars are a whole lot more abusive to my ears then any exhaust will ever be. I've had my vehicle literally shaking because of some idiot next to me with the subwoofers cranked into overdrive. I can't imagine what it would be like to actually be IN that car. They had to have blood coming out of their ears and other orifices! :eek:

(yeah, I definitely need to load more smilies in this site.....)

Oh yea,,, that's a big problem here too. There is a new law that says the stereo cannot be plainly heard from 25 ft or more from the vehicle, (used to be 100 ft). That's a non-moving cite worth about $78.00 that some of the police around here like to write. I HATE to hear it inside my home where I have a reasonable expectation of peace and quiet.:mad:

Heck, I NEVER turn on the radio in my vette. I don't care for the noise. Not that I am anti-music, as I have a kick-ass home theatre system. Six main speakers based on the Heil Air Motion Transformer, and four (4) subwoofers. I could bring the walls down in the house if I wanted to. Fortunately the nearest neighbors are through the woods quite a ways.

But in the car, no, I would rather drive without the noise to disturb me. So no, I really don't appreciate some clown next to me rattling my teeth with the tunes HE likes to listen to, and thinks the whole world must feel the same way.

Matter of fact, I have a '98 Jeep Wrangler that I bought brand new and I have only turned on the radio ONCE, right when I bought it, just to make sure it worked. :)

I listen to the sweet music of my GHL's instead of turning on the radio in the Z.:cool:

Jack

HAH! I know what you mean. No tunes at all on the radio that will sound better then my Z's engine at 2K rpm.

2K?? How about more like 5 or 6K,, grin, :D :p

I was able to get my hands on a 2006 statute book and took these pics to share with you. The statute has a new subsection that's not in the "Online Sunshine" 2005 model.

Oops,
:mad: My photo server is down for "routine maint". I'll post the pics later today.

I just saw in another Legal Issues post you submitted the statute used around here for modified muffler cites was quoted in 316.293 (5)b FSS. No need to post my pics because this is the exact same thing I saw in the 2006 book.

(5) NOISE ABATEMENT EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS.--

(a) No person shall modify the exhaust system of a motor vehicle or any other noise-abatement device of a motor vehicle operated or to be operated upon the highways of this state in such a manner that the noise emitted by the motor vehicle is above that emitted by the vehicle as originally manufactured.

(b) No person shall operate a motor vehicle upon the highways of the state with an exhaust system or noise-abatement device so modified.


:o Kind of general, so it covers anything "louder than factory".:(

These laws are kind of vague. Just like the "Exhibition of Speed" statute.

(2)(a) A person may not:

1. Drive any motor vehicle, including any motorcycle, in any race, speed competition or contest, drag race or acceleration contest, test of physical endurance, or exhibition of speed or acceleration or for the purpose of making a speed record on any highway, roadway, or parking lot; :mad:

Ah, but I think the burden of proof would be on the state to prove that your vehicle is louder then stock. So they have to go find your exact model in stock form and then get audio tests done as a comparison. Wonder how many local LEOs would want to do such a thing?

Mine exhaust measured 100 db at idle last year at the Fest.

Now I have a new cam and 1 more point of compression!:)

I really don't think any of us have much to worry about unless LEO has nothing else he can write. If I get pulled, I may be loud but that's not what I'll get written for.lol...........Tom:)

I heard an interesting tidbit from someone just the other day. They STRONGLY suggested driving without using your seatbelt. The cops are MUCH more interested in writing tickets for that these days and will normally forego the speeding ticket if they can give you one for the seat belt. Since it is no moving violation, it's simply a fine with no points attached to it.

Not sure how accurate or true it is, but the guy said he had heard that from several reliable sources. Maybe there is a big push for them to get these citations on the books for some reason.

I wouldn't do it. In my experience in this area they will write BOTH cites. Then you're in deeper. Plus, NO MATTER WHAT the guy who knew someone who's cousin's friend's little sister's boyfriend says about surviving a crash because he would've drowned/burned/been crushed if he were wearing his seatbelt,,,, IT's BS. Seatbelts save lives. There's no way to control a car from the passenger seat if things get hairy. More heads hit windshields, and more people get crushed getting ejected than EVER die from being trapped in a car. :D

Here's a link to a video from a helicopter of a guy being ejected and run over by a passing car when he crashed. Granted, it's a Police pursuit, but anything over 10 or 15 mph could throw someone from a car, let alone at highway speeds.

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/F...6D6DCCF86D.htm

Just my .02 cents, off the soapbox now.:o

Heck, I can't argue about the seat belts. Just stating what someone else told me, so take it for what it is worth. And as always, your mileage may vary.... ;)

How true...

I know most of the sheriffs in my county, a few live in my sub-division. They are all cool and could care less about how loud the cars are. As long as your not really screwing up big time, they cut you a break.;)

Jack

The law is intended for the totally obnoxious and those that pollute the air. I have never wrote a ticket for it when the exhaust has been modified tastfully and professionally. The ricers who go above and beyond to make noise for the sake of making noise are the ones that give us the most grief.

Hey C5STATETROOPER, Welcome to the forum! Got to ask, are you a LEO? If so, double welcome to the forum. We need a LEO to bounce some questions off of here. There's been a big discussion here recently about radar detectors and we'd love to see your input in that thread. My contention is that officers don't care one way or the other whether we use radar detectors. Some seem to think an officer is much harder on a person if he has one. There are some other differences of opinion as well. I'd love to hear the story from a real LEO. Welcome!!............Tom:wavey:

It's totally up to the individual officer and thier atitude toward those with radar/laser detecting equiptment.

Personally, I find it somewhat humorus when I stop someone with a detector for speed:hehehe:
I've actually had them tell me "you couldn't have gotten me, my detector never went off!"

My response is usually along the lines of...It's probably broken...be right back....:hehehe:

The exhaust question really boils down to which statute is used and again, as C5Statetrooper implied, the officers attitude. I've never written one for a well modified exhaust. If I did, I'd have to start with myself:eek:

However, the statute can, and on occasion is used as PC to stop a vehicle in order to further inspect for "safety violations."

Really depends on the officer.

Oh, BTW...Hey Larry and welcome aboard bro:thumbsup:

Gordon

Thanks for the :welcome: ! I am here for you guys and happy to answer questions and help where I can for my Corvette family!

:iagree: Very well put. I have the same view on the issue. I give attention to those who deserve it the most:rolleyes: if you know what I mean. The obnoxious violations are the worst.

I guess open headers is totally out of the question :lmao:

Good possibility:rolleyes:

I don't appreciate the ear splitting Harleys either though.

Well, what actually happens if someone DOES get a citation for having too loud of an exhaust system? Is there some benchmark to point to that says "yep, it's too loud so you have to remove it." Does the simple fact that it is not stock sufficient evidence that it MUST be louder?

I guess many people just fear getting pulled over by an LEO who is just having a bad day and needs to vent and YOU are at the wrong place at the wrong time.....

Gordon, where are you located? I used to know an ex Hillsborough Deputy named Gordon. Was a P.I. after that.

Scott

Yea, in a nutshell if it's louder than stock it's not allowed. The thing is that we don't as a rule cite the moderate ones (like C5STATETROOPER said). The ones that are cited are the ones that can be heard forever when their getting on it. It's normally a foregone conclusion that it's not factory. The appearance alone when I snap a digital pic during the stop will prove my case. The sound is just something that I (and any back-up on scene) would testify to in court. The ricers who have them are usually doing something else stupid to boot. They are regularly trying to impress other ricers or a nearby Mustang or Hemi or something. I don't write them much unless the person I stopped has a confrontational attitude. It's rare for me to write it because I have a mild mod exhaust too:rofl1: . They (the courts) don't make them remove it, but if they keep it on they could face more cites if their observed driving around again.

I'm in Tampa and that's probably me;):icon_cheers:

I retired from Hillsborough in mid 91 post military activation and opened up the business. I remain fully certified and active with another city police dept.

I'll send you a PM

Gordon

Thanks, I was curious about the mechanics of it. The stock Z06 exhaust is not MILD at all at WOT, and I have heard other vehicles (mostly pickup trucks) that have a pretty hefty tone to the exhaust.

I was in Spring Hill for a car show last night. The usual thing is, most of the older guys with the older cars show up early for a very nice show. As they all start to leave, all the ricers start showing up. Last night, it was rained out. So we went in and did a little shopping at Sears and Circuit City. :rant: When we came out, a bunch of the ricers had started a little gathering. Stealing trays from the Chik-Fil-A, they were putting them under their back tires and spinning around in the parking lot in their front wheel drive cars. However amusing, their disregard for other peoples property ceases to amaze me. One car just missed jumping a curb then hitting an SUV. It just so happened that the people that owned the SUV, where walking out to their vehicle at the time and could have easily been taken out. :2232censored: Then there were guys on crotch rockets pulling wheelies in the wet parking lot. I was waiting for them to screw up and wreck. After they left, you should have seen the mess of litter in the parking lot. :mad:

Effin :2232censored: ricers! They do stupid stuff like that then wonder why they have a bad reputation in the motoring world!:toetap05:

Based on the accounts you give they would be getting a very expensive ride to the closest jail, no passing go, no collecting $200. In fact the impound fees alone would be around 200 smackers after they bonded out of jail for reckless driving. Someone should have called the locals out to stop them.

I also figure I might charge them with criminal mischief (vandalism) for damaging the property of Chick-fil-a (the trays).

The M/C's are not exempt either. Reckless driving would apply to them as well. A 500 lb M/C can seriously injure or kill someone the same as a car can.:NoNo:

Just out of curiosity, if someone were to videocam stunts like this, can this be used as evidence to have them taken out of circulation?

Another thing, is there such a thing as "instigating a drag race"? In other words, if some clown pulls next to me at a stop light and revs the engine obviously spoiling for a road race, can I just rev mine to get him all worked up and just let him glaze his rear tires while I sedately take off at the light? On one hand I would really like to allow someone to make a jerk out of themselves, but am not inclined to do so if I am putting myself in jeopardy of the law as well. Quite frankly, I really don't CARE if some other car might be faster then mine. I didn't buy it for that reason.

Well, it is questionable if it could be seized as evidence. I would just try to talk them into submitting it voluntarily rather than simply taking it. Each scenario would be different. But yea it would be good evidence.

Well, maybe the other LEO's could advise, but as far as I know there's no law to "instigate" a race. Reving your engine while sitting still would not be a violation (I think), provided there wasn't another violation like modified exhaust etc that you drew attention to.

The exception is if you stop in the middle of the road (like a bridge) with no other traffic controls to stop you while next to another car (in side by side fashion). I know this doesn't fit in your scenario of a red light, but this would be considered lining up for a race. In a best case scenario you would be cited for impeding the flow of traffic, worst case arrested for illegal racing on the highways when you started forward at any speed after lining up.

If someone is rolling down the road at a normal speed and pops the clutch or gooses the gas to makes the car lurch forward indicating an intention to race there's always the catch all - careless operation of a motor vehicle.

If someone is rolling down the road at a normal speed and pops the clutch or gooses the gas to makes the car lurch forward indicating an intention to race there's always the catch all - careless operation of a motor vehicle.

This is true; however, I've had several people tell me that an officer, trooper, Deputy (???) had told them that they were going to charge them with "exhibition of speed" and inpound thier vehicle???
Unfortunately, the statue opens itself for officers opinion adn interpretation as well as abuse in some cases.

*modified by STREETKNIGHT for content*

The highlighted sections should answer your question:

316.191. Racing on Highways

(1) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Conviction" means a determination of guilt that is the result of a plea or trial, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld.

(b) "Drag race" means the operation of two or more motor vehicles from a point side by side at accelerating speeds in a competitive attempt to outdistance each other, or the operation of one or more motor vehicles over a common selected course, from the same point to the same point, for the purpose of comparing the relative speeds or power of acceleration of such motor vehicle or motor vehicles within a certain distance or time limit.

(c) "Racing" means the use of one or more motor vehicles in an attempt to out-gain or outdistance another motor vehicle, to prevent another motor vehicle from passing, to arrive at a given destination ahead of another motor vehicle or motor vehicles, or to test the physical stamina or endurance of drivers over long-distance driving routes.

(2)(a) A person may not:

1. Drive any motor vehicle, including any motorcycle, in any race, speed competition or contest, drag race or acceleration contest, test of physical endurance, or exhibition of speed or acceleration or for the purpose of making a speed record on any highway, roadway, or parking lot;

2. In any manner participate in, coordinate, facilitate, or collect moneys at any location for any such race, competition, contest, test, or exhibition;3. Knowingly ride as a passenger in any such race, competition, contest, test, or exhibition; or

4. Purposefully cause the movement of traffic to slow or stop for any such race, competition, contest, test, or exhibition.

Any person who violates any provision of this paragraph commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Any person who violates any provision of this paragraph shall pay a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $1,000, and the department shall revoke the driver license of a person so convicted for 1 year. A hearing may be requested pursuant to s. 322.271.

(b) Any person who violates paragraph (a) within 5 years after the date of a prior violation that resulted in a conviction for a violation of this subsection commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, and shall pay a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $1,000. The department shall also revoke the driver license of that person for 2 years. A hearing may be requested pursuant to s. 322.271.

(c) In any case charging a violation of paragraph (a), the court shall be provided a copy of the driving record of the person charged and may obtain any records from any other source to determine if one or more prior convictions of the person for violation of paragraph (a) have occurred within 5 years prior to the charged offense.

(3) Whenever a law enforcement officer determines that a person was engaged in a drag race or race, as described in subsection (1), the officer may immediately arrest and take such person into custody. The court may enter an order of impoundment or immobilization as a condition of incarceration or probation. Within 7 business days after the date the court issues the order of impoundment or immobilization, the clerk of the court must send notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the registered owner of the motor vehicle, if the registered owner is a person other than the defendant, and to each person of record claiming a lien against the motor vehicle.

(a) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the impounding agency shall release a motor vehicle under the conditions provided in s. 316.193(6)(e), (f), (g), and (h), if the owner or agent presents a valid driver license at the time of pickup of the motor vehicle.

(b) All costs and fees for the impoundment or immobilization, including the cost of notification, must be paid by the owner of the motor vehicle or, if the motor vehicle is leased or rented, by the person leasing or renting the motor vehicle, unless the impoundment or immobilization order is dismissed. All provisions of s. 713.78 shall apply.

(c) Any motor vehicle used in violation of subsection (2) may be impounded for a period of 10 business days if a law enforcement officer has arrested and taken a person into custody pursuant to this subsection and the person being arrested is the registered owner or co-owner of the motor vehicle. If the arresting officer finds that the criteria of this paragraph are met, the officer may immediately impound the motor vehicle. The law enforcement officer shall notify the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles of any impoundment for violation of this subsection in accordance with procedures established by the department. The provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) shall be applicable to such impoundment.

(4) Any motor vehicle used in violation of subsection (2) by any person within 5 years after the date of a prior conviction of that person for a violation under subsection (2) may be seized and forfeited as provided by the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. This subsection shall only be applicable if the owner of the motor vehicle is the person charged with violation of subsection (2).

(5) This section does not apply to licensed or duly authorized racetracks, drag strips, or other designated areas set aside by proper authorities for such purposes.

Amended by Laws 1999, c. 99-248, § 138, eff. June 8, 1999; Laws 2002, c. 2002-251, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 2002; Laws 2005, c. 2005-226, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 2005.

Man that is WAY too much gray area. Even passing someone could be construed as an "exhibition of speed". And how many people have had to pretty much tromp the accelerator just to get into the flow of traffic at an on ramp on the freeway? I really don't like laws that are subject to that much discretion based on the "pissed off" quotient of the officer viewing the event. If they had simply omitted that green colored "or" above, I wouldn't have a problem at all with the law. Not that the legislators have asked my opinion, however.......

And what the heck is a "test of physical endurance"? I got news for the lawmakers. The older I get the more a long drive ANYWHERE becomes an endurance test for me........ A couple bottles of water to drink, and where the HELL is that next rest stop... :ack2:

Sound's like BS to me (the officers statements). The cop mustv'e been trying to make a point, but chose the wrong way to make it. It's things like that which make the people on the fence become hostile to LEO. It sounds like a poor interpretation of the statute to me. At best the error was that the infraction could be cited, but impounded? Hopefully that situation ended with a simple cite or warning and the parting of ways...... Based on what was presented here I would go with a Careless operation, or written warning. Better to err on the side of caution and cite lower rather than higher.