transportation

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Pure Trust

Would you please point out the term of art? I missed it.

Or are you just assuming that there is a term of art because you need there to be one to make your ramblings make sense?

How about the term "Pure Trust" aka 'Ownmaster' aka "Codee"... a banned user.

Have a nice life.

Jerry

[Extramural]

I get Code-eee and Charlesa6 confused for each other, which is equally insulting to each of them.

[Extramural]

Code-eee,

Where's your state?

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Pure Trust

Thank you.

I will try to enjoy my healthy mind.

Good luck.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by Pure Trust:

670. A "vehicle" is a device by which any person or property may be
propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved
exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails
or tracks.

So the car either is:

not propelled, moved, or drawn

not on a highway,

or it is not a device

or it does not move-any person or property

If it does the above then it is a vehicle.

A motor vehicle is a self propelled "vehicle".

any person or property may be
propelled, moved, or drawn

The "car" is the device- the propulsion, movement or drawing is of the 'person or property'. Which brings us to point #4,

it does not move-any person or property

Like a tractor or digging equipment.

"Not For Hire" doesnt mean much, these days, because, under the premise here, the general class of activities that includes 'HIRE', is transportation:

the use of

"a device by which any person or property may be
propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway"

And now I am wondering if the use of the word "may" creates a rebutable presumption of transportation... since a given device could be used for this purpose, it is legally a vehicle; but if in fact it is not being used for this purpose-what then? Given the potential for commercial definitions of the word "transport", which has been itemized (like income!) to include propulsion, movement, and drawing.

(Jerry Pitts mentioned presumptions- although anyone who the state can "tag" with points on a license is definitely an "operator", because they have applied for and received the DL to 'operate', so it's really a foregone conclusion by implied consent- a word used several times in the VC.)

The phrasing still goes to which use the machine is put- so is the farmer's tractor exempted by concession, or excluded by nature?

All this is theoretical- I want to outline exactly what is the scheme here of law and applicablility. So the premise is either correct, or otherwise.

[Jerry Pitts]

Two notes:

On the use of the word 'may' within any statute. This word 'may' is a word that authorizes 'discretion' and here in Florida, the Legislators have indicated that there will be no 'un-bridled' 'discretion' within the rules and regulations as well as within the statutes.

At any rate, if there is 'discretion' to do or not do a thing, then is there really any law being established at all. As an example, suppose one of the ten commandments had been written "Upon the establishment of a necessity, the operator may take property that is not lawfully his.", or perhaps "The operator may kill upon his own discretion." The almost complete opposites in comparison to degree of authority.

Second: In regard to the use of farm equipment on the highways of Florida. It is stipulated that farm machinery can be used upon the highways, without a license if the machinery does not venture outside a given radius (certain # of miles) of the farm where the equipment is registered.

Jerry

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

the use of

And now I am wondering if the use of the word "may" creates a rebutable presumption of transportation... since a given device could be used for this purpose, it is legally a vehicle; but if in fact it is not being used for this purpose-what then? Given the potential for commercial definitions of the word "transport", which has been itemized (like income!) to include propulsion, movement, and drawing.

.....

The phrasing still goes to which use the machine is put- so is the farmer's tractor exempted by concession, or excluded by nature?

All this is theoretical- I want to outline exactly what is the scheme here of law and applicablility. So the premise is either correct, or otherwise.

[Extramural]

Originally Posted by Pure Trust

Here is why "Not For Hire" does not mean all that much to me.

Here is why "Pure Trust" does not mean all that much to me:

1. I can see no purity.
2. I can see no one trusting the member calling himself "Pure Trust."
3. I see no evidence that "Pure Trust" has a "healthy mind."
4. A Code-eee by any other name is still a Code-eee.
5. Why ban members if you intend to let them come back in and keep spewing sewage? [I was banned for simply telling the truth, which apparently was also unacceptable in that case.]


Hope this helps.